Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/24/2003 4:19:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 4:21:50 PM EDT by SouthernShark]
Those of you who have studied classic product liability litigation know that its origins were quite noble. Many products were dangerous to the public (such as lawn chairs that had the side effect of cutting people's fingers off). Such suits also had the benefit of forcing manufacturers to incorporate modern technology into old designs. But here in the USA (the proud sponsor of product liability litigation) gun manufacturers are allowed to sale and market firearms without silencers. Lets face it people the loss of one's hearing is a serious issue. A silencer could solve that problem. How many gun manufacturers take silencers seriously? Not many. Its as bad as the days when automobile manufacturers refused to incorporate seat belts into their designs. We live in a nation without silencers. Its time to change that. Our current situation is disgusting. Proud Americans buy their sons and daughters rifles and handguns every day which are not equipped with silencers. Thus demonstrating their complete lack of concern for their children's hearing. If you are going to buy a gun, use some common sense and buy a silencer to go with it. Write your congressman today. Let's make silencers MANDATORY with every new firearm (with certain exceptions for re-enactor guns such as Ruger Vaqueros). And lets make a national law legalizing silencers in EVERY state and town in America. And let's get rid of the stupid transfer tax on silencers while we are at it. Silencers SAVE EARS. Its time for American gun manufacturer's to take this health risk seriously. And its time for the American government to get rid of stupid laws which only harm people's hearing. Silencers SAVE EARS!!!!!!! write your congressperson today.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 4:30:00 PM EDT
It's funny, isn't it? In the US, the silencer is regarded as something that would facilitate murder. In Norway and Germany, it's common courtesy to use a silencer while hunting, to avoid disturbing the locals.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 4:43:09 PM EDT
It is truly sad that the tree huggers have missed out on such an important issue. Not only is the muzzle blast deafening to us, but it disturbs the wildlife. How many times have you gone hunting and when relieving Bambi of its struggle to find food in an ever dwindling habitat, have the birds and the squirrels been scared off by the sound of your rifle? Just think of all the little baby birds that have missed meals because some inconsiderate hunter failed to use proper sound suppression equipment to keep from disturbing other wildlife. How many spotted owls have had heart attacks by the sound of a 300 win mag going off nearby? What is really bad is that at my local indoor range, I can not fire anything larger than a .223 after 5 PM because it is considered too loud. WTF!?!?!?!?!? It is an indoor range with soundproofed walls. If I can handle being in there, you should be able to handle being outside with the closest building being over 100' away. Especially since it is right along the interstate. That is the really rediculous part.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:12:36 PM EDT
I had not considered the impact of loud gunblasts on the animals. I often fall into trap of focusing on human needs rather than our animal companions. Certainly silencers would be a benefit for them as well. I have often heard tree huggers complain about how loud firearm blasts disturb the natural environ and generally make them nervous. Silencers would eliminate that unpleasant side effect caused by shooting. Shooting would be safer, more environmentally friendly, and all around more enjoyable if silencers were more commonplace. We all need to work to overcome the bias against silencers and to encourage manufacturers to incorporate silencers into new designs. So far it looks like only H&K, Walther and Ruger are making much use of silencers with handguns. A few companies have put silencers on AR uppers, which is a good first step. But it isn't enough. I won't rest until Bushmaster, Armalite and Kimber start shipping a complimentary silencer with every gun sold. Trigger locks have become an industry standard. Its time to focus on silencers now.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:33:44 PM EDT
I, for one, want hunting rifles to be as noisy as possible. There's been a couple of times where some drunken yoyos have iether been shooting on posted land or shooting way too close to houses. I'd like to know about that before a 300 Win Mag slug whistles by over my head.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:37:54 PM EDT
We need silencers, do it for the children[BD]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:38:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: It's funny, isn't it? In the US, the silencer is regarded as something that would facilitate murder. In Norway and Germany, it's common courtesy to use a silencer while hunting, to avoid disturbing the locals.
View Quote
Here the use is also encouraged, they changed the hunting laws some years aho which allowed the use of a suppressor. Some claimed it would add poaching but it doesnt have a point since the poachers already used them... There are no permits required and one can walk into a store and buy one.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 6:54:11 PM EDT
What pisses me off is that my sheriff won't sign a form 4 for a silencer (or anything else for that matter), but have a loud exhaust on your car and a deputy will be more than happy to write you a ticket for it. [:(!]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 7:28:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PsyWarrior: What is really bad is that at my local [b]indoor range[/b], I can not fire anything larger than a .223 after 5 PM because it is considered too loud.
View Quote
Lucky you... You HAVE an indoor range that will let you fire .223 and larger... Up here, I don't even have access to an OUTDOOR rifle range without making a day trip of it. Our indoor ranges are 'pistol caliber only'...
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 7:58:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:05:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:11:15 PM EDT
why doesn't the military make a "silencer" a standard attachment on rifles?
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:13:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen: I'd like to know about that before a 300 Win Mag slug whistles by over my head.
View Quote
We'd all like to know that. Unfortunately, the 300 Win Mag (along with most other centerfire rifle cartirdges) is supersonic. So, you would in fact hear it AS is whistled (or rather, cracked supersonic) over your head. Depending on how far away you are from the rifle, you'd hear the blast some fraction of a second later. Sorry, I just had to be a smartass.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:15:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Red_Beard: why doesn't the military make a "silencer" a standard attachment on rifles?
View Quote
Because it reduces ballistic performance and require subsonic ammo (see above) to work as intended. It's also an expense, and isn't needed in most situations. Usually they're not trying to keep a low profile about the fact that they're shooting at someone/something, and they certainly don't care about woodland creatures.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:20:59 PM EDT
Actually, the regulation of silencers was first proposed by game wardens who feared silencers would help poachers. Useless trivia 101.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:51:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen: I'd like to know about that before a 300 Win Mag slug whistles by over my head.
View Quote
We'd all like to know that. Unfortunately, the 300 Win Mag (along with most other centerfire rifle cartirdges) is supersonic. So, you would in fact hear it AS is whistled (or rather, cracked supersonic) over your head. Depending on how far away you are from the rifle, you'd hear the blast some fraction of a second later. Sorry, I just had to be a smartass.
View Quote
I had actually considered that technicality as I posted that statement. What I meant was that I would know hunters were in the area by previous shots and I could either scram or kick them off my property before I heard the bullet whistle over my head.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:58:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
Originally Posted By Red_Beard: why doesn't the military make a "silencer" a standard attachment on rifles?
View Quote
Because it reduces ballistic performance and require subsonic ammo (see above) to work as intended. It's also an expense, and isn't needed in most situations. Usually they're not trying to keep a low profile about the fact that they're shooting at someone/something, and they certainly don't care about woodland creatures.
View Quote
I wasn't thinking of keeping a low profile, i was thinking of protecting the hearing of those firing the weapons. there must be some noise reduction even with supersonic ammo. the question was prompted by the post about losing hearing from having a gun go off 2 feet from an ear i suppose foam earplugs would be cheaper as for the ballistic performace loss, i've read that they don't have that much affect. in fact, one of the supressor manufacturers claims that it will increase the accuracy of the weapon.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 10:07:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
Originally Posted By Red_Beard: why doesn't the military make a "silencer" a standard attachment on rifles?
View Quote
Because it reduces ballistic performance and require subsonic ammo (see above) to work as intended. It's also an expense, and isn't needed in most situations. Usually they're not trying to keep a low profile about the fact that they're shooting at someone/something, and they certainly don't care about woodland creatures.
View Quote
Well, the normal detachtable suppressor [b]WILL NOT[/b] reduce terminal ballistics of a round, an integrally suppressed weapon like the MP5SD or the Sterling Mk5 will though have lower terminal ballistics since the barrel is ported to reduce the velocity. Theyre not trying to keep a low profile.. Ever heard of the word stealth, take look of the photos of western special operations units in the past 5 years for example, the use of suppressors has grown and grown. Military forces are beginning to realize the benefits of suppressors, as suppressor technology has also advanced. One drawback of even modern suppressors is the added fouling, but the added benefits are great: - no muzzle flash/ nor blast blowing sand etc.. - Good dB reduction - Confuses the enemy of the exact location - Nowadays they are light/compact
Top Top