Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/14/2005 11:53:08 AM EDT
Would you have a sound suppressor if you could buy them legally from "7-11" with no restrictions?
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 11:54:46 AM EDT
Of course.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 11:55:35 AM EDT
Why wouldn't you.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 11:58:52 AM EDT
Not only would everyone have them, but they would be significantly better than what is available today.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 11:59:23 AM EDT
I mean when all they're talking about is that all that sound suppressors do is cause malfunctions by bringing all the dirt to the receiver. Haven't shot an AR with a suppressor before and would like to hear some opinions why to get one or why not to.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 12:05:23 PM EDT
I'd have at least 2 for every rifle.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 12:08:02 PM EDT
Multiples for every firearm. You'd also see gun ranges in BETTER locations due to reduced noise.

You'd also see a decreases in hearing loss for shooters.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 12:15:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Multiples for every firearm. You'd also see gun ranges in BETTER locations due to reduced noise.

You'd also see a decreases in hearing loss for shooters.



That's right.
I happen to live in a country that has nothing against sound suppressors. We can get those for 100-400 bucks. I was just wondering about those real life problems when shooting with a suppressor.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 12:15:28 PM EDT
Hell yes, I would own several. Actually, I have buying one already budgeted for late this year.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 1:08:36 PM EDT
I already have one for every firearm I own except the shotguns, even with all the hassles to legally do so. Getting them in the manner you describe would be great, but they are still worth it now regardless of the difficulty to acquire them.

I've never had any suppressor-caused malfunctions yet.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 1:26:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2005 1:27:09 PM EDT by Wetterman]
Those are the opinions I wanted to hear. I've heard so much of people talking that ARs with suppressors is a combination that's never gonna work. Someone has even told me that after a 30rnd mag they have had so much powder residue that there were malfunctions after every few rounds.
Just liked to hear some good experiences with suppressors before I get one.
I know shooting is much nicer with one. With a Sako/Valmet anyway.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 1:29:38 PM EDT
I hate shooting my ar with a can, the blow back gets you from around the charging handle, even with glasses I got that shit in my eye, even my ear, half my face and my hair was black
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 1:31:34 PM EDT
yes I would have several,
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 1:36:23 PM EDT
PRI gas buster is mandatory equipment for AR with a can. If I could get em that easy, I'd have half a dozen.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 2:47:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wetterman:
Those are the opinions I wanted to hear. I've heard so much of people talking that ARs with suppressors is a combination that's never gonna work. Someone has even told me that after a 30rnd mag they have had so much powder residue that there were malfunctions after every few rounds.



Nah, the main issue is they got very hot after a few magazines and full-auto usage. if you are just going to be plinking in semi-auto, you will be fine.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 2:54:37 PM EDT
Hell yeah!
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 2:55:05 PM EDT
Oh hell yeah
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 3:30:13 PM EDT
YES! even though i might not use it alot as one of the joys of shooting, to me, is the sound of the report, along with the recoil, watching the brass eject, and the muzzle flash.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 3:47:53 PM EDT
Who's the jackass that voted "no"?
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 4:08:29 PM EDT
I'd have cases of them.

--where we live we can own them, if we can get a CLEO signoff-- but we're not allowed to use them. We have to take them out of state to actually use them
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 4:16:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mongo001:
Why wouldn't you.




If I didn't live in MI, obtaining a Suppressor would be the first
priority.
Link Posted: 5/14/2005 4:27:50 PM EDT
Well duh, of course.
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 7:46:07 AM EDT

If I didn't live in MI, obtaining a Suppressor would be the first
priority.



Ha! Here in WA, I can own one, after paying my fees and taxes, but it's my understanding it is illegal to then USE it while shooting. Explain that brilliant bit of tyranny!

"Here son, I want you to have this condom. However I am going to beat the ever loving Jesus out of you if you ever use it while screwing!"
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 8:29:32 AM EDT
Why a suppressor? So when I shoot an intruder, I don't wake the kids.
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 8:30:12 AM EDT
The answer is going to be'Yes'.

(This is a stupid poll)
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 9:09:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By I-LUV-AR15s:
The answer is going to be'Yes'.

(This is a stupid poll)


Of course,
There are several countires today where you can buy them at almost any harware store.
The logic there is that only an ignorant, inconsiderate ass would shoot without one, due to the noise and hearing damage associated with shooting.

I WISH it could change, here, but I doubt it ever will, as most of OUR gun laws are based on "Hollywood Fantasy".
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 9:13:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spooge5150:
Why a suppressor? So when I shoot an intruder, I don't wake the kids.





umm, no
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 9:16:07 AM EDT
Too many people who live near the ranges don't like the noise of the guns...that's why few ranges are being closed in Italy. IMHO sound suppressors would be a solution to this problem
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 9:41:45 AM EDT
Yes, and for exactly the same reasons we have mufflers on our cars: Noise abatement -- pure and simple. Also, high frequency hearing loss from 40+ years of firing unsuppressed weapons is something I could have definitely gone without.
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 9:46:34 AM EDT
Only 33 states allow sound suppressors for firearms.

CRC
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 9:52:34 AM EDT
If I could I would . Probably not on every weapon , but
definitely on few .
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 10:37:13 AM EDT
Hell yes.
No brainer.
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 10:39:00 AM EDT
I voted no.

I ain't buying nothin' for my gun from 7-11!
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 10:39:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Only 33 states allow sound suppressors for firearms.

CRC



Is the glass half-full or half-empty?

Only 16 states (+DC) do not allow silencers for civilian ownership.

http://www.advancedarmament.com/owners.asp
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 10:56:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Multiples for every firearm. You'd also see gun ranges in BETTER locations due to reduced noise.

You'd also see a decreases in hearing loss for shooters.




+1,000
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 11:24:15 AM EDT
Would be nice if it was as easy as buying bullets, but I doubt it ever will be. Sound Suppressors aren’t exactly covered under the 2nd Amendment and for those outside the clandestine community, it's only real purpose is fun. Would be hard to argue in front of the Supreme Court the necessity of easily attainable Sound Suppressors (Justice Thomas, access to Sound suppressors should be made easier to prevent the prairie dog community from being alerted when I’m whacking their buddies, or to prevent my kids from waking up when I’m shooting intruders).

At least they are legal though, unless you live behind enemy lines. It’s something I might look into once I get my next M4 project done
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 11:29:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
Sound Suppressors aren’t exactly covered under the 2nd Amendment and for those outside the clandestine community, it's only real purpose is fun.







Sound suppressors help prevent hearing loss, and make shooting ranges less of a noise nuisance. That's why they are over-the-counter items in many European countries.
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 11:30:03 AM EDT
Hell yeah, I'd grab a bunch just for good measure.
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 11:55:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2005 11:58:26 AM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By Sigurd:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
Sound Suppressors aren’t exactly covered under the 2nd Amendment and for those outside the clandestine community, it's only real purpose is fun.







Sound suppressors help prevent hearing loss, and make shooting ranges less of a noise nuisance. That's why they are over-the-counter items in many European countries.



Wear proper ear protection, and none of my regular outdoor ranges are a nuisance to anyone as they are far from residential areas. Rightly so. Sound isnt a nuisance, flying bullets are. Properly designed and insolated indoor ranges can operate with minimal impact on nearby homes and businesses And do you really want to start modeling american gun laws after the europeans? I'm sure you dont.

Supressors are a luxury item at best, with a dubious classification under the 2ndA. Thankfully they are legal, and hopefully that will never change
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 12:00:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
Wear proper ear protection, and none of my regular outdoor ranges are a nuisance to anyone as they are far from residential areas. Rightly so. Sound isnt a nuisance, flying bullets are. Properly designed and insolated indoor ranges can operate with minimal impact on nearby homes and businesses And do you really want to start modeling american gun laws after the europeans? I'm sure you dont





Earmuffs are bulky and earplugs are annoying and uncomfortable. I'd rather use a suppressor.

US law on suppressors is retarded, I don't know why you're defending it. In this respect, yes, we ought to go the way of the Europeans, because they obviously don't buy into the Hollywood image of suppressors the way the US government seems to.
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 12:17:22 PM EDT


Earmuffs are bulky and earplugs are annoying and uncomfortable. I'd rather use a suppressor.



No firearms safety instructor or manufacture would ever endorse a sound surppressor as a replacment to proper hearing protection
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 12:20:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2005 12:24:50 PM EDT by uglygun]
Beyond the benefit of reducing the audible muzzle blast the additional benefits include: reduction to muzzle flash, as well as felt recoil, and reduced dust signature so as a shooter I don't have to put up with debris blasting up into my face when shooting from the prone.

I'll take those benefits any day of the week if I could go out tomorrow and buy the damn things unrestricted, would have been one of the first things I'd have gotten if I lived in a free state and not here in California. Several cans from integrally suppressed 10/22 or Ruger MKII, to the AR15s, to my 300WinMag, and my 308Win.


Everything I have heard on why sound suppressors were banned has more to do with poaching and the illegal taking of game during the depression years than it has to do with nefarious criminal acts against other humans.

God forbid we poach game animals or kill people with suppressed firearms, as if a person commited to doing one of those illegal acts would care one way or another if they were to break another law and simply manufacture one to use in their criminal act.

If they had the mind to do it what do they care? Break a law on manufacture, break a law on the use, and break a law on the act of poaching or murder. There are plenty of stupid badasses out there who likely don't care one way or another what laws they break. Let the biggest offense they commit be the poaching or the murder, abolish the stupid laws concerning sound suppressors and let the rest of us enjoy the merits of owning and using sound suppressors.


Even better, tell the states they cannot make laws going beyond the scope of federal law and make the 2nd Amendment be covered across the lay of the land using the 14th Amendment to assure we can all enjoy our rights equally.

Link Posted: 5/15/2005 12:41:43 PM EDT
yes
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 4:24:05 PM EDT
I'm buying one anyways, even though it's a pain in the ass.
Link Posted: 5/15/2005 4:42:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By uglygun:
(snip)
Everything I have heard on why sound suppressors were banned has more to do with poaching and the illegal taking of game during the depression years than it has to do with nefarious criminal acts against other humans.

God forbid we poach game animals or kill people with suppressed firearms, as if a person commited to doing one of those illegal acts would care one way or another if they were to break another law and simply manufacture one to use in their criminal act.

If they had the mind to do it what do they care? Break a law on manufacture, break a law on the use, and break a law on the act of poaching or murder. There are plenty of stupid badasses out there who likely don't care one way or another what laws they break. Let the biggest offense they commit be the poaching or the murder, abolish the stupid laws concerning sound suppressors and let the rest of us enjoy the merits of owning and using sound suppressors.

Even better, tell the states they cannot make laws going beyond the scope of federal law and make the 2nd Amendment be covered across the lay of the land using the 14th Amendment to assure we can all enjoy our rights equally.


+10^(10^100)

If more people had your widsom, the world in which we live would be very different, and dramatically better.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 4:38:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By Spooge5150:
Why a suppressor? So when I shoot an intruder, I don't wake the kids.





umm, no



Ummmm it's a joke.

UmmmmmmmmmmmK ?
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 5:11:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Only 33 states allow sound suppressors for firearms.

CRC



Is the glass half-full or half-empty?

Only 16 states (+DC) do not allow silencers for civilian ownership.

http://www.advancedarmament.com/owners.asp



$20 says you wouldn't say that if you lived here.

And, Variablebinary, sound definitely seems to be a major complaint of city folk living near gun ranges. If sound wasn't a nuisance, everyone would have straightpipes on their cars. It's called noise pollution............hmmmm, that sounds like a defense

WIZZO
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 5:12:37 PM EDT
By this time next year I will have one for at least every caliber i have (22, 223, 308, 9, 45)....Ideally i would have one for every weapon, wether i used it all the time or not....but dang...the transfer taxes alone would be more then 3K.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 5:13:37 PM EDT
I wont answer because I will be buying one wether they have them at 7-11 or not.
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 5:27:51 PM EDT
absolutely
Link Posted: 5/16/2005 6:00:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/16/2005 6:03:38 PM EDT by 444]
I own four of them now with no restrictions.
I didn't buy them at 7-11 though.
I did buy two from the AR15.com equipment exchange though.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top