>Talking to two fudds
>One of them mentions "silencers"
>"Why would anyone need a silencer? The only point of one is to kill someone without anyone hearing the shot"
>I ask him wouldn't you like to hunt without ear protection?
>he starts laughing
>You can't hunt with a silencer, it slows the bullet too much
>I tell him that he is wrong
>yeah a silencer works by dissipating the sound by friction making the bullet slower, that's why silencers have holes because they heat a lot
>I show him actual data on my phone, bullet speed using a suppressor vs no suppressor.
>Fudd 2 replies: It might not lose speed but the bullet will have less kick, you can't kill an animal with a weak bullet
At that point I just gave up, have in mind that these two people were self proclaimed "hunter experts" and "gun enthusiasts"(in a fudd way).
What should I tell them next time? How to reason with this kind of people.
>It might not lose speed but the bullet will have less kick
Obviously, because silencers remove small shavings of material from the bullet as it passes through the silencer, therefore reducing its mass, kek.
Why did you even respond to him after "The only point of one is to kill someone without anyone hearing the shot" part? He was clearly retarded after that.
It's only going to drop the sound to tolerable levels, not take a fucking .303 and make it go "pewp" like in the movies.
Point out that farmers in Britain, France, New Zealand, etc. use suppressed firearms for pest control all the time.
In New Zealand you can buy a suppressor online and have it shipped to your front porch.
There probably isn't any point in arguing with them, they're most likely set int their ways. You can try though, I had a similar story the other day.
>be behind the other side of the counter at a big box store
>handling a 4473 for a customer buying an 870 Express
>he has a ton of other assorted family and friends with him
>one of them asks if we sell suppressors
>tell them no but I'm waiting on a Form 4 at a nearby LGS
>the oldest one in the groups asks why I would even need one
>explain that it's mainly for hearing protection
>that I've shot a lot of firearms without ear pro because of being and young and dumb muhreen
>they all agree
Stupid Git, if its louder its obviously stronga and fasta. To make it quiet is to take away stopping power!
>mfw 'Umies cant into superior Redneck Ork logic
I call them stupid to their fat fuck face, then relentlessly berate them on their lack of knowledge. They deserve it, and won't change their bull shiting niggery ways till someone pushes their shit in.
Unless it's at an indoor range, don't want to make the owner sad.
>Go to old surplus store
>Some fudd looking old men are talking to owners
>"Goddam state wont issue me gun license"
>"Its ok I can buy a muzzle loader without a license and get the powder from the next state over"
>"They arent gonna stop me protecting my home"
>I picture him missing his first shot and shitting himself when the robber starts shooting back
MFW I realize the gentleman looked like a old pedo, cant get a license cause of felonys and is yelling about this in a run down surplus store.
>talking about guns irl
you're cruisin fro a bruisin, OP. not everyone spends a portion of their time on the internet obsessing over guns every day, so naturally they're gonna have stupid pleb opinions.
in situations like this, when everyone but you is retarded, you just go with the flow man. silencers make guns do less damage and are only used by assassins are criminals.
He has a Playlist labeled "redneck science"
He was making a joke when he said he didn't like being called a redneck. It was a setup to introduce his ar converted into a bullpup configuration with a bit of wood and a hacksaw blade trigger linkage.
Do you not know that there exist muzzle loaders with 6/7 shots? Wheel guns from before cartridges where made. And they are perfectly adequate for home defense, and do not require a license.
>the only reason you need a silencer is to kill someone with anyone hearing the shot
He's right you know. Also hunting with a silencer is illegal in most places and if not it's incredibly unsportsmanlike. Hate to sound like a gun grabber or fudd but you really do have zero use for a silencer.
I'll take that as a no. They are not special or high end. They are common and cheap. You can get one in the most librul of states for like $200. Ammo is cheap and common as well. Only requirement is that you are over 18.
>He's right you know. Also hunting with a silencer is illegal in most places and if not it's incredibly unsportsmanlike. Hate to sound like a gun grabber or fudd but you really do have zero use for a silencer.
Self/home defense without going deaf.
>He's right you know. Also hunting with a silencer is illegal in most places and if not it's incredibly unsportsmanlike
Also, its only unsportsmanlike if bow and arrow is also unsportsmanlike.
But you will never defend your home anon, no one actually breaks into houses or anything
Face it you will never need a silencer, give it up you bloodthirsty /k/ommando
I mean, you're pretty much limited to heavier caliber sub-sonic ammo, which is going to be less flat shooting.
So while he doesn't know what he's talking about in physics, he does know that hunting with a suppressor would suck.
I personally want one so that yes, if I had to defend myself in my home and shoot someone, it would not fucking ruin my hearing, and I could actually get effective and accurate follow ups.
If suppressors are so amazing, and don't reduce accuracy or effectiveness, why doesn't the military give it to their infantry? Or adopt integrated suppressor designs for a new rifle?
In b4 it's too expensive, because it wouldn't be that much if they incorporated it into a design to replace the m16/m4
pretty decent question.
why dosnt some company produce a .300blk rifle with a silencer permanently attached? The fixed muzzle device would be considered part of the barrel by law. And since a "silencer" is anything that reduces the noise produced by a weapon while firing, it would be good to go, since the attached muzzle device dosnt reduce the allready quiet sound made by a factory firearm
and I can just buy the complete rifle with mo fancy NFA forms?
it wouldnt be silencing, muffling, or diminishing anything because its allready quiet from day 1
Being able to engage a threat without him being able to pinpoint muzzle flash or cracks of your shots as easily?
I know we have flash hiders and stuff, but it's still pretty easy to detect where gunfire is coming from. I can't imagine a suppressed shot from 300-400m is going to be easy to track aurally.
Also, just being able to have infantry who can go without hearing protection 24/7, without fear of hearing damage or discomfort from loud gunfire
I'm not a lawyer, but I can imagine when you're getting the patent approved, and the committees engineers ask "so what is this porting here? And this here?"
And you have no answer other than "to reduce the sound", you've effectively built an NFA firearm under those strict definitions in your image
it is to reduce the sound, but the ATF definition refers to something added to an existing firearm that reduces the sound it makes.
For example: M4 with birdcage: 100db
M4 with silencer: 50db
my gun, from the factory: 50db
Im not ADDING anything to try to deminish the report of the rifle. Under the ATF definition thats not illegal.
and expanding on this definition, wouldnt putting a longer barrel on some firearms be a supressor? Like if I build an AR10 with a 10" barrel, and a ridiculous 6" muzzle device (not a silencer in any way), then later swapped out uppers for a 20" barrel, that would reduce the noise, right? Unburnt powder exploding out of short barrels and such
Although the movies show silencers being used by villains of the period, I have found only a single documented case of a crime committed with a silencer prior to the Gun Control Act of 1934. Two men used silenced rifles to kill six horses on a New Jersey farm, and they attempted to extort $800 from the farmer as the price for sparing the rest of his livestock. The scoundrels were caught, but the salient point is that one misuse of technology does not constitute a crime wave.
Apparently, silencers were subjected to the same controls as machine guns in 1934, because the Great Depression created a lot of hungry people. Few of us today understand the depth and breadth of hunger in America during the Depression. William Manchester writes in his memoir about combat during World War II, Goodbye, Darkness, that "in 1940 two out of every five draftees had been rejected, most of them victims of malnutrition." That suggests that at least 40 percent of the adult population was not getting enough food during the Depression.
Thus, it is at least understandable that the pandemic hunger in the United States of the early 1930s led game managers to fear that silencers might be used by poachers and that this fear led to the heavy restrictions that were placed on silencers in 1934.
Even though legal silencers are once again becoming commonplace in the United States, according to federal government records on one registered silencer in the hands of a civilian as ever been used for poaching or any other illegal act since 1934. The only two illegal actions involving registered silencers or machine guns since 1934 involved law enforcement officers who ran amok, not civilians. Thus, civilian owners of registered silencers and machine guns have a better track record as law-abiding citizens than the law enforcement community, the United States Congress, and even the Presidency itself.
Note 1: This book was published in 96. The N. Hollywood Shootout occurred in 97.
Tons of military use suppressors. It's usually special forces and whatnot, but you'll occasionally see regular grunts with them.
Here are some reasons why they aren't issued to every soldier:
>If you shorten the barrel to deal with the above, you lose muzzle velocity and a bit of accuracy
>The gas system in most AR's needs to be tuned for suppressors for maximum reliability/lifespan.
>Additional blowback, though this one isn't really an issue.
Basically, it's additional cost/logistics for not a whole lot of gain, with some exceptions (special forces). If hearing damage/tinnitus becomes a costly problem for the DOD, we could see this change.
If they did implement it, the suppressor would probably be permanently attached to the barrel.
The Gun Control Act of 1934 forced people in the Unite[d] States to destroy their silencers or register them. The original owner had a brief amnesty period in which to register the silencer without cost. If not registered within that period, the silencer became unregisterable contraband, which could subject the owner to a big fine and jail sentence. Most owners never got the word in time. Others decided it was too much trouble since each time a register silencer was sold, the new owner had to pay a $200 transfer tax. That was an incredible amount of money in the depths of the the Great Depression. Therefore, few Maxim silencers survive to this day,and these tend to be expensive. Some models perform well by modern standards. Others do not. After the Gun Control Act of 1934, the user of silencers in the Untied States virtually ceased.
Some people are nearly impossible to reason with, even with actual data, because certain ways of thinking are too ingrained in their head. For example, I know an old cop who, while being a great guy, oftentimes will debate things or criticize 7.62x39mm for being too large compared to 5.56 while swearing that 9mm is completely inadequate compared to his .45 1911 no matter how many more bullets yours can hold.
This wouldn't be a problem and in general, they could be safely ignored, except that these same people vote on policy and representatives based on this incorrect way of thinking. This is why shit like the import ban and NFA goes through with little opposition, because it doesn't directly affect them, they believe. My recommendation is that if you're going to make an effort to convince them of something, don't expect to win them over in 10 minutes. The only way you're going to change someone's thinking is if you present a clear argument and give them time to mull over the information on their own.
No, it is still a barrel. No way can a rifled barrel act as a supressor, so what if it happens to be quieter from a larger barrel? Still not a supressor mane. NOT A SUPRESSOR ATF PLS GO
>"ANY DEVICE for silencing, muffling, or diminshing the report of a portable firearm."
for ARs, the lower reciever is the firearm. ANYTHING else that you would change on that rifle that diminishes the report would be a silencer, per ATF definition.
Plenty of range stories out there of guys being annoyed by dudes with extra short barrels and their crazy loud muzzle blasts.
>Amerifat fudds being fat and fudd
Here in Europe, it's almost recommended to use suppressors, since it's safer for the shooter and using one obviously reduces the noise to the environment as well.
MA. You have to have a license to own a gun or ammunition. "Ammunition" includes BP, so while BP guns are not regulated it is illegal to possess BP without a license.
We also have a registration scheme that isn't called registration. When you buy a gun you have to send a form to the state with all your personal info + the serial, make and model of the weapon.
electronic ear pro is shit. There's nothing directional to it.
Definitely better than regular hearing protection, but I'd much rather hunt with a suppressor than hearing protection.
>ear muffs are uncomfortable.
How's that huge vagina treating you?
i missed 20 of the 30
one that i knew the other was about the location of the caliber mark on the pistol revolver and rifle
i missed the revolver
As soon as someone tells me they are a gun owner and that they hunt a lot I disregard their opinion. Most of them have a hunting rifle, shotgun and maybe a revolver and don't know jack shit about guns and think "assault weapons" should be banned.One told me the other day, "Well just take away those big clips, nobody needs those.
Even though it's a built in device it still counts as a suppressor because it is purpose built to reduce noise, whether it's factory or not doesn't matter. You can however take a barrel that would normally be an SBR, permanently affix a suppressor and avoid having a second stamp for the short barreled rifle, just one for the can. Griffin Armament makes one set up for that.
One of the key factors here is that the barrel is integral to the functioning of the firearm. The baffles are not and serve no purpose but to suppress sound. You might be able to get away with it (maybe) by designing a new action that by function end up quieter, but not design things into it that do nothing but.
>talking to guy at LGS that I thought knew his shit and I somewhat actually respected his opinion on things
>I mention that I'm getting into long range target shooting and we start talking about rifles and scopes
>He mentions that he dropped $2K on a Zeiss because "I was always taught that you need to spend twice as much on your glass as you do on your rifle", and it took him a year to pay it off
>mfw I have a $230 optic on a $600 gun
>I ask him how he likes it, and if it's mil/mil
>"no man, it's BDC"
>Oh neat, so it matches for your 300WM? Even out pretty far?
>"Yeah, it's calibrated for a .30 cal bullet"
>You sure it's not mils or moa?
>"No man, I said it's calibrated for a .30 cal bullet..."
Thank God you brought this to our attention OP. We'll get right on it.
>hammered fired adds more power to your pistol than striker fired
>complaints about quieter guns with less recoil being less powerful even when using the exact same ammunition producing the exact same velocities
Are you sure you weren't talking to orks?
>Or get a few extra muzzleloaders
Fuck you. You're wrong, you're stupid, and you're counterproductive to reasonably taking back rights the NFA stole based on lies.
1: Suppressors do not make a shot silent, just quiet enough to shoot outdoors without protection.
2: You are less disruptive to nature with a suppressor.
3: Suppressors tend to make a rifle more accurate, meaning there's a higher chance of a clean kill.
Nice the spring actions are just how I imagined so I guess the force of the two could be different if say force needed to stretch a spring x cm takes y much and the force released from a compressed spring x cm is y.
Oh forgot the link here it is if you're interested
Semi related question, /k/, on a video I saw years ago that's since vanished
It was of a guy firing a full auto AR 15 with a 10 inch barrel, with a SCAR-L suppressor and CMAG drum
Basically it was to show why a setup like that is problematic, as flames started shooting out of the suppressor and magazine well...
Anyone else seen it, or even better have a link?
>If hearing damage/tinnitus becomes a costly problem for the DOD, we could see this change.
They've found it cheaper to just make some form of combat earpro, either plugs with impulse control valves or active headsets (MSA/Peltor) or plugs (Quietpro) than to bother with mass-issue of a device that has a relatively short useful life and could see maintenance/wear issues in soldier hands.
>those fucked up proportions
I guess Orkfags are stupid as Orks.
a muzzle device is not integral to the functioning of a firearm, yet they are considered part of the barrel. A fixed muzzle device, barrel, and barrel extension are al l"the barrel" according to the ATF, and a barrel is very much so integral to the functioning of a firearm.
Thats why you can use a 10" barrel provided all the other things permanently attached to it are greater than 16" or you have an SBR obviously.
my logic is undeniable
I missed one at the end because I read it wrong and I wanted it to be over with because >Bass pro takes SIX MILLION YEARS TO DO ANYTHING
and I felt like a fucking retard. God, imagine how you must feel.
>>Fudd 2 replies: It might not lose speed but the bullet will have less kick, you can't kill an animal with a weak bullet
What the fuck am I reading
1. Say the same thing.
2. When bullet power/killing power gets mentioned, say this: "Thats why I cut a cross on the front of the bullet so it explodes in the target. My uncle was with the special forces in nam, he used to shoot VC with prepared bullets and silencer. If you shoot with silencer and listen you can hear the bullets explode in the targets.
It's just on one platform - the M110 (it's a BII standard issue item with this rifle - which is issued standard to snipers and designated marksmen now).
As for suppressors on M4's and SAW's, there is no reason for regular grunts, everyone can order them provided they have unit funds, Infantry scout platoons usually keep a few for M4's in their arms rooms.
Also in Russia regular infantry scouts can get issued the VSS/VSK/etc integrally suppressed 9x39mm guns
>It might not lose speed but the bullet will have less kick
Kinetic energy, how does it work?