I recently bought a couple of RAR Predators, a 204 and a 6.5 Creed, both come with barrels threaded for suppressors. Unless you are hunting/shooting in an urban or suburban area, I can't see that the added value is worth the extra cost.

Can somebody explain this trend to me?

Tactical!

My four year relationship with an M16A1 was enough "tactical" to get me through the rest of my life.

Unless you've had the chance to shoot suppressed firearms, you can't imagine how much nicer it is that they are significantly quieter. Sure, any bullet over the speed of sound is going to have a crack to it,but nearly eliminating the report is nice.
With 22lr in a pistol and the right ammo, the loudest thing is the action operating. No need for hearing protection in that case.

We're trying to get them legalized here this year.

I can see it on a home defense weapon so you don't deafen yourself if you have to shoot inside your house.

I'd probably also equip at least one .22 rimfire with one so I could shoot in the back yard if I want without disturbing neighbors.

They would be great for a varmint rifle, or for a night hog killing rifle.

They help a lot on varmint rifles, whether for coyotes, hogs or prairoe dogs, because they don't alarm multiple varmints nearly as much. I'm probably going to put one on some sort of varmint rifle soon, but probably not an AR, because the clatter of the action alerts animals far more than the report.

In other countries they're often considered polite, so are required for at least some hunting. We tend to think that other countries often have much stricter gun laws, but there aren't any of the fees and legal hoops for suppressors we have in either New Zealand or South Africa, two places I've seen them used, or even used them myself.

Love the 2 we now have. So nice not to scare all the deer in a half mile when the gun goes off. Have seen the deer 50 yards away from teh shot one just look up and go back to normal then even...

So nice to shoot around the house even though we are rural, without having to find a pair of plugs or muffs.

22s are pure joy, just a click clack and no hearing protection needed.

Not at all sure why everyone wouldn't want to tame that noise.

Just like taming the noise on my airboat, the quieter I can make it the happier I am and everyone else around me.

Reduced recoil. Reduced muzzle blast. No dirt, sticks and crap kicked up when shooting prone. Able to shoot without taking my hearing aids out and putting plugs in! It increases my ability to shoot well.

Bob

For most reasonable shooting, as said, the allure is noise reduction. It does make a significant difference.

But don't discount the number of goofs out there who like the "tactical" part of it.

No point in wrecking your hearing. Or just being loud.

My attitude comes from dirt bikes and other whatnot. Once you get the system unplugged, there's a limit to how much more noise makes sense. And some cartridges just talk too much.

They reduce the sound that is created when you discharge a firearm. So if you want to reduce that sound, people buy one.

Also, there has historically been a lot of mystique around anything Class III. But the internet has made the information so readily available, more people realize how easy they are to acquire than ever before.

Also, our current president has a desire to fucgk with anything even remotely cool so people are buying as much cool schit as they can.



Travis

It's like most "tactical" stuff...

"CDI"

(Chicks dig it)

At least that's what we used to tell ourselves when we were covered with the latest and greatest tacticool stuff we could get...

Oh, and yes, the suppressor equipped firearms are wonderfully nice to shoot!

Regards, Guy

Good God, that's exactly how I feel, except I had mine for eight years.

Either cold, wet, and hungry or hot, dusty, and thirsty.

Then don't get one?

I've got a rimfire suppressor, about to buy a CF one rated up to .300 WM that I intend to use on several firearms and studying on a .45 ACP can that will be used on several other handguns and long arms.

Been shooting more than 50 years now and want to do all my game shooting possible with suppressed firearms, because I've not much hearing left. Plus benefits Deflave mentioned.

This is a factor with larger centerfires. I shot a buddy's suppressed 308 and the reduction in 'shock and awe' was significant. Personally, it's not worth the NFA hassle for me but he sure loves his 'can'!

I wear hearing protection when I shoot, always ear plugs, and if the firearm/cartridge combination is particularly loud, like the 257 Roy or almost anything fired from an XP-100, both ear plugs and ear muffs.

I doubt that I will buy a suppressor, but find it interesting that Ruger has chosen to thread the barrels of the RAR Predators and Ranch Rifles for suppressors. It seems like a marketing ploy, but Ruger's marketing people have a good feel for the firearms market, so maybe this is a trend that will last and factory threaded barrel on sporting, as opposed to "tactical", rifles will become the norm, rather than the exception.

People sure get hung up on labels. I suppose if you saw my AR laying in the corner with the suppressor attached somebody would think it was tactical.

In reality it's nothing but a calling rig.



Travis

Although I do use certain tactics when calling dogs so maybe it is tactical?




Travis

Pop'n Flop has its place.

Hog Whisperer

I think of military style firearms as being "tactical" as opposed to "sporting". Just so that you don't think I'm "anti" anything, I have a couple of ARs, one at home and one in the car, and a couple of cases of Norinco SKSs in my storage unit.

I think of all the guys who are pretend snipers and special ops warriors as being pretend tactical shooters. You know, the guys who wear an SPCS with a full load of pull-tabbed 30-round magazines, and a 9mm in a cross-draw holster, just to go to the range.

They're almost as good at recoil reduction as a good brake, plus they're SO much nicer to be around, whether you're the shooter or just somewhere nearby. If I'm self-centered, that's enough reason to use one. If I'm at all polite, there's an additional reason.

I'd like it if my rifle was a lot quieter.

I'd like to keep what's left of my hearing. To me, it's a public and personal health issue. The restriction of suppressors endangers every shooter with unnecessary loss of hearing, and impacts everyone around them because of it.

Recoil reduction!

Game does not get spooked


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeluX399ACg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gwI-2qxTmg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOast__5V24

Like nearly everything else, the restrictions on suppressors are based on a mountain of lies and the lies and benefits are beginning to be exposed to the light of truth.

This is why I would like one.

If it was the workplace OSHA would require suppressors and fine us if we didn't use them.

That is not to say I want them on every, or even most, of my rifles

Personal hearing protection, minimal disturbance to non-targeted game, courtesy to neighboring landholders.....

I can kill more hogs out of a group with a Supressor before they wise up and haul ass.

one should probably ask, what is the fear of suppressors?

upsides have been mentioned, downside is..... they cost some money.

I bought 2 cans last month for a good chunk of cash. for me the upside is when I teach my kids to shoot they won't be afraid of the boom, or recoil. not to mention the hours of family fun we will have plinking at the range. in addition to all the advantages to hunting with them. I think if more people used them, we could actually do something to get them to drop the silly "tax stamp" that scares everyone away.

I guess the downside is anyone who buys one is automatically an assassin for the mob or something.

They are quiet. Duh.

I guess that "quiet" is a more important consideration for some folks than it is for me.

They are all the rage over here and I hate them.
In the UK they use them because they are shooting on smaller private properties a lot of the time, and dont want to upset the neighbours.
Over here there is no justification for them, they are just fashionable; something else for gun guys to fiddle with.

They ruin the balance of a rifle and so every fool that gets one
makes sure his barrel is cut down to 16 inches, wrecking perfectly good brand new rifles.
The used rifle market is going to suck in ten years.

Oh, and deer don't suddenly go stone deaf just because someone screwed a suppressor on.

I've never found LOUD to be an advantage to QUIET whilst hunting/shooting. If there is a reason that LOUD is better, I'm all ears.

Our politics are so half assed backwards over here in regards to suppressors.

In England where you've got to jump through hoops to legally own a gun you can buy cans over the counter. They essentially look at rifles as being a health risk (hearing) when you don't use one and are highly recommended.

On long range rigs they're wonderful. Still a loud report, but not deafining and as mentioned also very good for recoil reduction.

I took a Roe deer in Scotland with a suppressed .243 as well as a Stag with a suppressed 7mm Rem Mag and spotted the impact both times.

I never said that I thought that "loud" was better, it just isn't an issue that I've ever considered a problem. Loud is certainly not good when doing urban herd reduction shoots that happen in people's backyards and in neighborhood streets in the middle of the night. That is my only experience with suppressors and using them allowed us to do a job that couldn't have been done if the residents had been aware that we were there.

I think that a hunter generally needs to be quiet while hunting, but once he/she squeezes the trigger, the bullet will reach the target before the sound of the muzzle blast. Unless you hunt in an area that is thick with hunters, which I don't, I think that deer, for example, are more sensitive to people moving about in areas where they normally don't encounter people and that is more disruptive than the muzzle blast of a firearm. There have been deer hunting seasons when I've never heard the muzzle blast from another hunter. I've also shot deer from as close as 30' while in a tree stand and believe that the other deer were spooked by the erratic behavior of their mortally wounded companion, rather than the muzzle blast. After all, game animals live in the wild and they hear the crack of lightening and the boom of thunder all of their lives.

I also like a well balanced firearm and for me, screwing several inches of weight onto the muzzle of a firearm would throw it out of "normal" balance. I don't find suppressors alluring based on my experience and my situation, but everybody has different experiences and different situations and must tailor his kit to meet those needs.

You do know that people hunt critters other than deer, right?

At my gun club, all the officers are older retired military guys. The first meeting I went to, I thought they really didn't like each other. Because they were all yelling.

Likely a little of both..

As would most.

The suppressors I have used affected rifle balance and handling in a bad way.

Thanks, but no...

I've heard that.

Besides deer, which are more "shot" than "hunted";

I hunt squirrels with the 17HM2, but haven't noticed that the noise bothers them to any degree.

I call 'cats and shoot them with a 22Mag, but don't ever recall shooting more than one 'cat at a particular set up. The only bobcats that I recall seeing in a group have been a mama kitties with kittens and I wouldn't shoot the mother or the kittens.

I shoot pdogs, but I drive to a point over-looking the pdog village and shoot from a portable bench. The pdogs may see the vehicles and people milling around, but seem fairly indifferent. If they do pop down into their holes, that given me time to swap rifles or to let the barrel on the rifle that I'm shooting cool down.

For me, at this point in my life, a suppressor is a superfluous accessory. And, being a notorious gadgeteer, that is saying something, 'cause I'm often among the first to buy and try the new and untested.

I was a mortar platoon leader in a mech infantry battalion for about eight months, so I can appreciate the hearing loss suffered by a lot of artillerymen 'cause a 4.2" mortar fired from inside an M106 carrier is nothing if not LOUD. I can only imagine how loud it is inside an M109 series 155mm howitzer.

Huh, what did you say? I can't hear you cause there's ringing in my ears.

I wish that suppressors were more affordable. I'd have them on every rifle I own. The only drawback is the extra length of barrel. I hope there are suppressor designs coming out that will not have the added length issue.

Why does anyone want to have mufflers on the cars/trucks/any engines?

I do not understand your question!

This. Suppressors are great. The only drawback is the weight on the end of the barrel and dealing with the wait time for something that ought to be unregulated.

I"d say don't buy one then.

We get somewhat similar from fellow airboaters.... folsk don't like the loud noise and we are all trying to put on better mufflers, quiet the prop down etc...

Not only does it make others happy, but it is much nicer driving a quieter one to me.

But then tehre are the ones that don't care and like it loud. Thats their call.

Myself being quiet while shooting is a plus to me. Now if there was a workable reasonable shotgun suppressor... would shoot more doves at the house, but since its almost bow season then, and I don't want the deer to figure out that its about to be legal to stick them, being that a bunch of shooting has started, I just don't often shoot doves until bow season is over.

Agreed, air-boats are noisy! Folks run them up and down the Platte River and they can be a bit distracting. Our local Boy Scout camp is on the south side of the Platte River near Fremont, NE, and the air-boats running at night are noisy enough to keep you awake if you have the bad luck of drawing any of the campsites on the bluffs above the river.

The original question arose from my recent purchase of two RAR Predators which come from Ruger with the barrels threaded for suppressors. I was surprised that there was enough consumer demand for a major manufacturer to offer factory threaded barrels in a whole series of regular production firearms. Other than deer herd reduction shooters, I've never seen anybody with a suppressor.

One nice thing about threaded barrel is it allowed me to put a cheap flash hider to protect the crown. My rifle lives jammed between the seats muzzle down on the floor of my truck.

A beneficial unintended consequence!

I am now totally deaf in my left ear and have only about 30-35% hearing in my right. I used to shoot a lot of hot-loaded 220 Swifts. No one used hearing protection in the 1950's and '60's and I (and many others) are paying the price. I now use high quality earplugs AND ear muffs to save what''s left. A suppressor sure sounds good to me.

I like .260s and I'm a vet. If your four years were enough "tactical," are the 2 ARs and 2 cases of SKSs "strategic?"

Your parents generation had their rights stripped by the NFA because politicians wanted to look pro-active during the age of motorized bandits and bootleg gangsters. and you were brought up on TV and movies that suggested only bad people used such devices.

Such attitudes can lead to more Draconian legislation, like, say, green tip 5.56 for your ARs being verboten.

Don't buy a suppressor if you don't want one, sir.

I traded for one of the ARs with a member here back in 2010, it is a DPMS Sportical, and the other is an A2 parts gun with a Plum Crazy $129 lower and an upper that I bought from a member here, also in 2010. The SKS are left over from the early 1990s when you could buy NIB Norinco SKS for $50 or $60 per unit if you bought them by the case, so I drove to Minneapolis and picked up three cases from Bill Hicks.

It seems to me that regulations that keep criminals from easy access to fully automatic firearms is a good thing. I'm not a Class III dealer, so I don't deal in fully automatic firearms, have no desire to deal in them, and have never gone to the trouble of learning the ins and outs of them.

Jeff,

I believe the Salvo would suit your dove hunting needs.


Travis

And with this, the reason our rights have been slowly stripped away is evident.

That's fucgking brilliant.




Travis

So, you want criminals to have easy access to fully automatic firearms???

I really would prefer to have criminals locked up and kept there..

I really would prefer to have criminals locked up and kept there..

Sure do.




Travis

In case you haven't noticed, making something illegal has never prevented criminals from easy access, it has only hindered access to law abiding citizens.

I want the American citizenry to have unfettered, uninfringed access to any and all weaponry they deem necessary. You know, kind of like the Bill of Rights says?

I am not naive nor obtuse enough to believe that a law is the only thing keeping a criminal from having a machine gun, a grenade, or a pointy stick.

I use to cringe when I heard the term "Fudd," but the older I get, the more I realize its a valid description. Gun owners who believe that some guns are OK, as long as they are the ones they like, do more damage to our rights than all the ant gunners on earth. Makes me sick.

I would prefer that serious criminals, including felons in possession and people who are convicted of a felony that involves the use of a firearm were required to be executed. America is weak on crime, witness the millions of illegal/undocumented aliens who are living without fear of repatriation in your State.

Let's require a tax stamp on handguns so we can keep them out of the hands of criminals.




Travis

It's amazing how few people grasp the concept of freedom and liberty. Sadder still how many are terrified of the prospect of living in a world where there isn't a law, rule or ordinance covering every aspect of life.

Nice sidestep there....

That statement is actually worth making twice.

pretty much....basic definition of a criminal is someone that ignores the law.....when has any gun law actually kept any gun out of a criminals hands? only thing gun laws do is keep guns out of the hands of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.....full auto guns are easy to get on the black market, phug sake whole lot of semi auto guns are not that hard to convert especially with every dumb arse having access to the internet.....laws dont keep full auto guns out of the hands of criminals any more than drug laws keep drugs out of this country...

If you say so.

pretty obvious....out of 240,000 the legally owned machine guns in private hands in the US registered since what 1934? there have been 2 incidents of these guns being used in a crime, both times by cops.....yet how many full autos have been used in crimes? hell of alot more than two....hell there was more than that in the one LA bank robbery.....all full auto guns obtained illegally.....

The number of transferable machine guns that I've seen cited is only 182,619, but 57,000 more or less is just a number. I don't see any chance of the current restrictions being loosened anytime soon, but if I was in the market for a fully automatic firearm, I'd just go through the background check process, write a check, and take it home when all the "Ts" were crossed and all the "Is" dotted.

I don't know how it is in Montana, but in Nebraska most crime involving firearms, involves stolen handguns, often in the hands of convicted felons who are likely to have a gang affiliation. Even when a convicted felon is found in possession of a firearm, the charges are often plea bargained down or dropped entirely as part of a plea of guilty to a reduced charge and a shorter prison terms.

Again, a sidestep....

You are either a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, or you are not. It is quite obvious you are the latter.

Blathering isn't helping your case.



Travis

As long as the military has full auto weapons, so will anyone who has lot of money. The trouble with making it illegal for criminals that fully intend on killing others is that these criminals have no fear of the law. If a drug dealer is making 10 million dollars a year on his importing of cocaine. He will be armed along with his employees with the most sophisticated guns available. Joe the plumber is spending his money on his kids and saving for retirement. He doesn't have $10,000 for a M16.
I don't know how many armories there are in this country or others. But if I offered $100,000 for a M16, I'd get it and almost anywhere in the world, I'd get it. When I was in the Marines I was on guard duty at Camp Pendleton. Somone broke into one of our armories and stole M-16's. The thieves may have sold them for an extra-ordinary amount of money or they used it themselves or for their employers. Having strict gun laws only benefits these people as they will have guns and the law abiding often won't due to the high cost and due to the hassle of going through the fed's.
The people who obey the laws won't pay that much since people don't have the resources that criminals do. Drug traffickers make insane amounts of money.
So, a dreamer with no contact with common sense or reality (AKA Democrats) thinks that what a wonderful world this would be if there were no killings anymore and then comes up with the idea, hey lets not let others have guns and we'll pass laws that will stop the killings.
The sad thing is laws only regulate those who are willing to follow laws.
This is a concept that is too difficule for just plain idiots.

Lilivsdad -- you are disscussing this issue with one such idiot.

I would have to agree with you.

Been saying it for YEARS. Lots of Fudds out there that are no less the enemy to the Constitution than is Obama and his ilk.

Oh no,....THAT would be absolutely awful, wouldn't it ?

sarcasm OFF.

Than and again one might live in and around the very EPICENTER of that goddam "Fast and Furious" debacle, and have absolutely no patience with your romantic notions, and totally [bleep] up concepts regarding control.

You're an azzwhole.

GTC

Ouch.

Okay, Rocket Scientist, and Political Commissar extraordinaire,
please put Fast and furious on the table beside your proposed "System" and tell us about the merits of having GOVERNMENT handling alla' this,as opposed to the people of this country.

I think the point is that criminals, by definition, don't care about what is legal or not; law-abiding citizens, however, do. Therefore laws intended to stop criminals from "easy access to <fill in the blank>" only stop us from defending ourselves.

You'll note that drug dealers and thugs get what they want when they want it, while we get jerked around by gov't bureaucrats enforcing laws that are "just intended to protect us" (from ourselves apparently).

Therefore, such laws in fact suppress us from our natural right to self-preservation and create a target-rich environment for criminals.

Once a shooter passes 60 "What?" IS the allure of suppressors

I see what you did there.

GTC

I have no idea what you think I did.

Wasn't talking to you, sorry.

That was for Phil.

GTC

Quick Reply now references the OP. GTC was referencing 458Win in his reply.

Fast and Furious was obviously a mistake, but the exception, rather than the rule. I don't claim to have any expertise regarding the issue of fully automatic firearms and the fact that they are tightly controlled under current law is irrelevant to me 'cause I have no desire to own a fully automatic firearm.

As I understand it, under current law, anybody who can pass the background checks and pay the associated costs can own a fully automatic firearm unless that ownership is proscribed by local law. Where I live, there are no restrictions, so no hurdle that I can't pass.

Yes, but did you HEAR it?

Who do think elected the brown clown and his ilk to office?

Ahh, the old "I dont like those guns, so I dont care what happens to them" argument. Like I said earlier, gun owners like you have done more damage to our rights than any gun control organization.

Just to clarify, you feel that a tax, background check, and the permission of a local law enforcement head is not an infringement on the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment? How do you feel about high capacity magazines, concealed carry permits, or waiting periods?

I know, a WHOLE bunch of Yankee 'conservatives'. I've met my fair share of them.

They think because the hunt 2 days a year that they are conservatives. They just happen to be the leper with the most fingers.

Epic stupidity.



Travis

I'd say WILLFUL stupidity.

It was evident at the outset that this was not going to be a pro 2A exercise on the OP's part.

"....the exception, rather than the rule..."

'nuf said.

GTC

Seems to me I recall some well-known hunting writers blog including, "I call them terrorist rifles," when referring to AR-15's a few years ago. He didn't get it either, but has since been educated.

Funny... I've spent enough time in different parts of the country to know that there are those everywhere who take big brother and his "gifts" of safety & security for granted.

of course to call oneself conservative all he has to do is find one person more liberal than himself. That ain't hard, whether you're north or south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Conservatism, as in the system of thought, is a little bit more complicated than that. Lucky you're far enough south to be able to skip over such complexities.

Fact is, there are an awful lot of people content to let the gov't "protect" them whether that be from some faceless rich capitalists, criminals here, or dark-skinned hate mongers across the sea. No matter the justification it just makes the gov't more powerful, and the people more dependent upon it for daily sustainance.

As Ben Franklin said, anyone who'd give up his freedom for security deserves neither.

Shared a camp in Namibia last year with a couple of Englishmen. They both had "Moderators" on their .308s.
Came in real handy for multi-target scenarios, like baboons and jackals.
They also found them useful in culling Gemsbok with missing/broken horns.

OK, I don't get the allure of suppressors and fully automatic firearms, but I don't see how the current Federal laws are so onerous that they keep anyone who can legally own one from going out and buying one. Yes, there are hurdles involved, but those hurdles are no greater than those that must be negotiated to get an FFL and getting an FFL isn't very hard.

Dig all you want, you have made a home of this hole.

A complete ban on new machine gun production forcing prices to astronomical amounts, a forced tax, a background check, the begged permission of law enforcement, and a wait of up to a year...and you dont find this onerous?

Personally, I find ANY firearms law onerous, but because of "sportsmen" like you, they are a reality that will never go away.

And this is how the post-1986 full auto ban went into place.

And how the myriads of creeping bans in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, etc. are taking place.

Find enough people who don't care about a class of firearms and put some bans into place. Then put another "sensible" restriction in place. And another. And another.

You just have to find people who don't care because it doesn't directly affect them.

Rory,

You live about as close to me and any other 24HCF member and you and I can both own any class of firearm we want. If there is any restriction in Nebraska, it is the handgun purchase law that requires a resident to obtain a handgun purchase permit. You go to the county sheriff's office, fill out a form, pay $10 for three years, and if you pass the cursory background check you walk out with your permit. It is a restriction, but hardly an onerous restriction.

I have long thought that a national firearms purchase permit, a Federal version of the Nebraska handgun purchase permit, would make buying a firearm easier for everyone involved, both the buyers and the sellers.

EDIT: I am frequently reminded that most people don't care about issues that don't directly impact them. Reference the futility that is represent by the Omaha Public Schools. If the movers and shakers in Omaha cared about the low academic performance by a large portion of the OPS student population, the resources necessary to boost performance would be found and changes implemented.

You should have to pay $10 to voice your opinion.

Holy [bleep]....one does need a permit to exercise a right. I will say this again, slowly.....ANY restriction on a right is onerous.


That being said, I can tell your mind will not be changed. Be aware, however, that you are the enemy, as much or more so than the Brady Coalition, MDA, or the entire Democratic party.

Jeff, have you compared what the prices of full auto firearms were before the 1986 ban and what they are now? That price increase was fully intended, and is a block to more people being able to own a full auto firearm.

And I would like to buy a fully automatic M4. Please tell me how I can do that?


And, yes, we have the handgun permit. But did you know that if you place the national crime rate up against the Nebraska crime rate, that the handgun permit for Nebraska shows no significant drop in crime compared to the rest of the country?

So why have the freaking handgun permit process, if it provably doesn't help reduce crime?

He's clueless

I am still trying to understand how paying the state $10 to exercise your right to own a firearm is a good deal.

its only $10 bucks. Not TOO onerous.....JFC....

Because they could make you pay more if they wanted to.

You really should thank them.

Hey, if a must issue handgun permit actually significantly reduced the crime rate and saved many lives, then I'd say there "might" be an argument for it.

But I think Nebraska's implementation pretty much proves that mandatory firearm owner permitting does nothing.

Well not nothing; it does increase income to the gov't, and remind NE residents of where their rights come from.

I've never priced a fully automatic firearm 'cause I have no interest in owning one.

If you talk to a Class III dealer, he/she can probably help you purchase an M4. Price is often a hurdle when making a purchase, regardless of what you're seeking to purchase. A Kia costs less than a Porsche, a Ruger RAR cost less than a Forbes, etc., etc. I believe that there is a Class III dealer in either Ralston or LaVista.

The zip code that I live in doesn't have any violent crime, so nothing I could or would do would make any difference.

Some of us would prefer not to be put in the boiling water.



If you want a good soak, have at it, but don't force the rest of us in with you.

You really are a special snowflake....I truly hope you never see the freedom you deserve, although I fer we all will.

May the chains rest lightly.....


" First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

As you state, you have no clue. Fully automatic arms produced after 1986 cannot be legally transferred, hence you can't own an M4 by ordering one from a class III dealer. And those legally transferable fully automatics are running $15,000-40,000.

Well, you could if you became a class III dealer, pay $3000 for a 3 year FFL and order a sample. Of course then you are fully open to the BATF inspecting you whenever they please and you'll have to keep up that $1000 annual fee so long as you possess that M4. That isn't too onerous, is it???

First word popped into mind on reading the above ?

SMARMY

...you do that chit well.

GTC

You're an idiot.



Travis

No, pretty sure he couldn't help me with a select fire M4. No full auto firearm can be owned by civilians that was made after 1986, and the M4 I think came out in 1994.

Back when I was "just a hunter", I didn't bother with the NRA because 95% of their talk back then was about handguns, and I didn't care about handguns. And nobody was ever going to pass laws that would impact with my hunting....

Then California bans lead ammo, and other states consider it. EPA is itching to do that same ban nationwide and has floated the possibility publicly. ATF starts planning on banning all metal ammunition which can be fired from any pistol --> and there are pistols that shoot pretty much any rifle cartridge.

It literally is a world where gun owners need to band together and stop ALL encroachment on anything.

First because none of the encroachment has ever helped crime rates.
Second because the encroachment never ends.

Below is a chart of Nebraska crime rate with all "gun control" policies that were intended to lower crime. If anybody can make a correlation to any of them actually lowering crime, I'd like to hear it.

Don't read my posts?

Use the "Ignore" option?

I don't understand how my disinterested in owning a fully automatic firearm or a sound suppressor has any impact on anybody other than me. If you want one, buy one. I don't care, I just don't care.

It's not about whether you want to own one or not; it's about your RIGHTS under the Second Amendment and how infringement of those rights can, does, and will impact far more than firearms you don't are about.

Nice try. But you already flew your flag.



Travis

The all white one?

Rory,

You are more concerned about encroachment and restrictions than I am. Maybe your decision to band together with other gun owners will have a positive outcome and you'll have the knowledge that you sacrificed your time and effort to champion a cause that benefited not only you and your family, but all those people who didn't have your foresight and your commitment.

Me, I'm content to count the years until the kids are done with college, my Wife chooses to retire, and we can move to Vail and live the Colorado mountain life.

Pure, unadulterated Fudd.

You'll fit in great in Colorado.




Travis

I'm looking forward to use those guaranteed landowner permits and to be able to walk out the door and ski every day that Beaver Creek is open if the mood moves me.

Hopefully that "right" will outlive you.

Me too.

I don't ski so I won't care if they ban skiing.



Travis

I has a better chance if you work to defend that right and stop not caring as and when it's undermined.

Probably end up getting nailed as a felon in Colorado after you hand your rifle to your friend to hold for you while you step over a fence.

Illegal firearm transfer. Off to jail with you!

But since this doesn't affect Nebraskans, I probably shouldn't care?

That'd be WA state, currently, but I'd not be surprised to have CO go that way.

Same reason you put a muffler on a vehicle

I've read some stupid posts on the fire in the years I've been on here but you sir, take the cake, as they say!! Absolutely moronic post sir. Maybe you can self medicate in Colorado to help ease the pain. If you don't care sooo much as you say then why even post such useless drivel? Just to prove to the campfire how idiotic you really are?

I have two cans currently waiting on the tax stamp approval. Not that I feel I need to justify anything to you but I purchased the 22 rimfire one so I could teach my 5 yo little girl how to shoot and try to make it more enjoyable for her. So, hopefully, she will have a much greater appreciation for the rights she has than you obviously do. You are the infestation plaguing this once great country. It's the all about me attitude!! Who cares as long as I get to do what I like. How hard do you think it would be for Colorado to decide they don't want to issue the landowner permits you can't wait to get? If they don't have a problem crushing the Bill of Rights how much of a problem do you think they will have taking that away?

GFY (and not in the pleasant campfire way)

Dick!!

This thread has been enlightening as I had not really given much thought to suppressors. After reading through it, I have identified the following benefits:
1) hearing protection for the shooter and those nearby
2) politeness in not annoying those within hearing distance
3) not startling game in the vicinity of the shot
4) introduction of new shooters to the sport without the noise
turning them off
5) the chance, through use and/or support, to establish one's
cred as a True American
6) the opportunity to add to one's collection of "cute"
firearms-related terms through the use of "cans"

Can anyone add to the list, or conversely, point out any negatives about them?

They're expensive.

Both dealers I have used (two separate ones) sucked. And I mean, they SUCK.

If you use one at a public range people will ask you a lot of questions about "how you got it." Even though they have no intention of ever buying one.

More difficult to get out the window of the truck.

Next to impossible to test before purchase (for most people)

Few people have multiples of the different types. Meaning one guy won't typically purchase three different cans designed for 22LR, so getting an objective, unbiased review is difficult. Meaning you pretty much have to buy blind.

Idiots that can't figure out their usefulness for sporting purposes and having to explain it as they go cross-eyed and keep mumbling "tactical."

That's some of the drawbacks. Hope this helps.



Travis

Yes and this too,

Most only work correctly with the correct ammunition, meaning sub sonic.

Many do not work at all........

Yea really

What do you mean by "work correctly?"



Travis

260Remgay is going to fit in great living in Vail. Gonna' be bummed when he figures out you can't shoot big deer off of a pivot though....

I am curious as to this as well. I have yet to see a suppressor that didnt work correctly...some of them are crap, but they all do pretty much what they are supposed to.

Wa

Suppress sound as advertised (sound reduction).

You do realize that each dB rating is specific to the exact platform tested on, correct? Unless you are shooting the exact same gun with the exact same ammo as used in the testing process, its only a rough estimate....This is not false advertising, or poor construction, its just the way it is.

Thanks you for confirming what I wrote. They just don't work!

I guess....every one I have ever been behind seemed to work just fine.

You got a stamp, I'll send you one that don't work.

Out of curiosity, what is it? I have heard, not seen, of a couple of certain manufacturers that WILDLY overstate their reductions. Oddly enough, these are the same folks who seem to have quality issues as well.

Papers are packed in boxes. It's for a 22cal. I have used it on a threaded RUGER 22. Basically POS bought it in Al, think the factory is also Al.

Here's a pic

Thats interesting, as typically even the cheapest .22 suppressors work just fine. How does it sound with Subsonic?

7)Reduced recoil (no noisy break required)

8)Possibility of increased accuracy

9)Reduction of muzzle blast

As to the issues of weight and balance, there are cans available in Europe where these common complaints have been addressed. Within the next year, I hope to have production of one such solution started in the US with a can that provides hearing safe solutions with an increase in the length of the rifle of about 4" and an increase in weight of about 7 ounces. This isn't an ad for them, merely pointing out that many of the deficiencies some of the posters have identified as to why they wouldn't buy a suppressor can be mitigated with intelligent design and some advanced materials.

Oh and the OP is a classic example of the kind of back stabbing idiot who doesn't get and will never get the whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment. Those kind of people are who helped get semi auto rifles banned in the UK in the 1980's and assisted in accepting 'reasonable restrictions' on other firearms which led to the next ban on handguns in the 1990's. Its the thin end of the wedge and ANY restriction on the rights of the people need to be vigorously resisted. And yes, its all or nothing; you're either with us or against us.

And to the guy who claims to have a .22 can that doesn't work: I have an SOT and would be glad to look at it if the manufacturer won't stand behind their product. However, you need to understand you will still have a sonic 'boom' if you're using hyper velocity ammo. Much of the standard velocity .22 ammo is inconsistent too with some of them exceeding the speed of sound every few rounds. With quality standard velocity or sub sonic ammo, even the most basic .22 can will reduce the sound of the round to a 'click' of the firing pin striking the round, a dull 'whap' sound and then the noise of the round impacting the target. If the can doesn't do that, its a REALLY crappy can....

Well Guess I have a REALLY, REALLY crappy can.

Try Imodium

your correct of course, really need to get rid of the runs and flush the can.

Maker is the following

Advanced Armament
2408 Tech Center
Lawrenceville, GA 30043

Model is: Element
Serial is EL-1253

I had the opportunity to use a Browning semi-auto with a full length suppressor which made it look like a bull barrel target rifle. We took it to a prairie dog town and had lots of fun with sub-sonic ammo. It was not effective with high speed ammo. Prairie dogs had no clue what was happening to them.
The only noise was the bolt slapping back and forth and the impact of the bullets.
It was explained to me that this design utilized replacement washers or baffle plates. I wonder what the life expectancy would be using high speed centerfire ammunition?
I can/do see the value for a 45 acp pistol.

I would love to have them on all my Rifles.That being said I have a 200 yard range outside my back door.The target is in a food plot.As soon as I am done shooting,the deer are feeding.Gun shots do not scare them at all.

Ed, that sucks.

Is it for sale?



Travis

Not yet. I'm going to disassemble and soak in carbon solvent then try it again with different subsonic ammo when I can get it. I'll let you know.

The AAC Element is a pretty well regarded suppressor. If it continues to make you unhappy, I would contact the manufacturer. In the end, you may simply have unrealistic expectations. With subsonic ammo, however, that can should be nigh on silent.

Back to the "allure" of suppressors? I got mine mainly for hog hunting. I hunt mostly on my own small property, and often at night. Less noise is good. When Col. Pete Flores was still head of the TPWD Law Enforcement Division (Game Wardens) he told me he thought they should be mandatory, for ear protection and noise pollution alone. Mine is on a 14" Contender .44 mag barrel,in a carbine stock. It balances fairly well with the 12" suppressor, but is heavier than might be expected by just looking at it. It is a short range weapon, over about 75 yards the bullet drops like a rock. I was disappointed in the amount of noise suppression at first, but shooting 300gr+ hard cast bullets at 1050 - 1100 fps is a LOT quieter than a full power .44 mag. It is hard to hear the shot from any distance, and if you heard it, would be hard to tell exactly where it came from. As to making multiple hog kills, I've only done that when I got more than one with one shot, otherwise, when one hog goes down bleeding and kicking, maybe squealing - the rest don't need to hear a shot to figure out something is wrong! I have also watched deer in an open field hear a large caliber rifle shot fairly close, raise their head and stare, then go back to eating if no danger appeared. For the use I put it to, I like my suppressor, glad I have it. Would not necessarily want one on every rifle I own, but I'd like to have at least one more - mine is welded to the 14" barrel, to avoid also needing a Short-Barreled Rifle "Permit", so I can't switch it over to my 16" .45 Colt barrel as I would like to. Would like to see the restrictions eased up more. Have no idea how a thread on suppressors turned into a discussion on fully auto weapons, except that they are both restricted in a similar manner?

You probably have a can that's filled up with lead, or else you're using supersonic ammo and expecting to not hear the "crack".

That can with subsonic ammo on a bolt action rifle should be no louder than snapping your fingers.

To claim that suppressors simply don't work, based on your one experience, seems a bit naive. Would there be such a large industry around them if they just didn't work?

I have a variety of different subsonics if you want to try some.



Travis

Was the Element new when you bought it? If not, how many rounds have you fired through it?

I've got an AAC Aviator I wish could be disasembled for cleaning.

Sometimes folks just don't know what they don't know.

Two examples:

1. My brother has an AAC M4-2000 that he can use legally for hunting in his state. I got him an AAC brake and a threaded 10-22 barrel for Christmas few years back. He bitched to me about it being as noisy as his 6920 was when he was shooting PDs with it suppressed. I asked him what ammo he was shooting, "CCI Mini-Mags" says he. I explained what was happening. "Oh..."

2. Today at an Academy near here I was mulling ammo and two gun newbies older than me (55) were explaining handgun loads to a chubby granddaughter or third wife and bemoaning the lack of white box .357 "practice ammo" loaded with FMJs like all the .38 loads...I didn't explain it to them.

Here we explain, encourage and even offer ammo to folks. Some like the OP, however, reveal themselves beyond hope due to their ingrained gov.org sensibilities.

Keep wanting to add something to this, but every time I try nothing comes out.

The wife wanted me to tell y'all suppressors are great.

I don't get it.