I didn't expect this topic (recent subscriber), but I appreciate it. As a new hunter and even newer firearm owner as of a few months ago, it's challenging to explain to my (predominantly non-hunter) friends why, for my hunting rifle, I bought a device they usually only associate with the likes of John Wick.
I'm thankful for the recent increase in public education (like this) about the benefits of silencers and the current efficiency of their approval process for eligible individuals. I never would've considered one if I were buying my rifle a couple of years ago, when I still held the perspective of most of my friends who sit outside the hunting / firearms bubble. Curious to see how public opinion continues to evolve.
Thank you so much for writing this, Wes. My gun mentor is a big silencer advocate, and I honestly wasn't sure whether to believe what he was telling me about this or not. His words and arguments completely echoed your own here, though. I'll get my silencers in the new year!
Wes, you write well. I read the headline and was not especially interested in the topic but decided to read the first few lines or so and next thing I knew I'd read it all. Cheers.
I should clarify just in case this isn't clear enough in the article: going from 140 to 120dB is by no means silent. But that's an awful lot easier on everyone's ears.
I have been concerned because I have a farm in the country surrounded by land where people hunt. We have had lots of poachers in the past and I have wanted to know where they are. If people are shooting across the River towards us, I don’t want to walk out on the river bank.
If you are concerned someone might be violating wildlife regulations, there's anonymous hotlines through which you can report them. And if there's an active threat to your safety, you can always dial 911.
If the suppressor was invented in 1902, how did Teddy Roosevelt use one in the late 1800’s? Did he have a prototype?
Great article and I laughed with the switchblade panic. I remember that well, and its later cousin, the butterfly knife panic after the kung-fu craze that hit in the 60’s.
Like many I was skeptical when I heard about this legislative change. I feel like I know more about a specific benefit of them (less ear-pro needed by users) after reading your piece.
However, since no exploration of any potential drawbacks was provided, I can’t say it has moved my position on them.
It still seems to me that the benefits of removing any impediment to ownership/distribution of suppressors for the sake of hunter’s ears don’t outweigh the drawbacks in a society that has shockingly loose control on who can have a firearm let alone who can operate one less conspicuously. Not trying to start an argument but some of us live in urban areas with strict gun laws that are blown apart by states with permissive laws.
I would agree with what it appears @MN-Julie and @Ann H Bellwood have already highlighted; the use of a suppressor could obfuscate the use of a firearm which could be extremely harmful for others depending on the circumstance.
Is your article meant to encourage the purchase of suppressors for owners’ hand guns and semi-automatic rifles?
A suppressor will reduce the noise made by any firearm, as addressed in the article. I'd encourage you to remain open minded and not assume everything you see in James Bond movies is real. Suppressors reduce noise levels by 20-30dB. Taking a 150dB gunshot down to 120 or 130dB still leaves it around the same levels as a jackhammer. So while they're extremely beneficial to recreational shooters, hunters, and anyone around them, they no no means conceal the presence of a gunshot. Using a suppressor is a more polite, safe way to enjoy shooting.
I appreciate the dialogue on the topic; I’m here for more than my own perspective.
But I’ll leave this information from a cursory search which is a little more tangible than 007:
“Shot alerting devices, which are designed to detect gunshots and provide notifications or alerts to law enforcement, typically activate at sound levels around 140 dB or higher. This threshold is based on the sound level of a typical gunshot, which can range from approximately 140 dB to 190 dB, depending on the type of firearm and ammunition used.”
I didn't expect this topic (recent subscriber), but I appreciate it. As a new hunter and even newer firearm owner as of a few months ago, it's challenging to explain to my (predominantly non-hunter) friends why, for my hunting rifle, I bought a device they usually only associate with the likes of John Wick.
I'm thankful for the recent increase in public education (like this) about the benefits of silencers and the current efficiency of their approval process for eligible individuals. I never would've considered one if I were buying my rifle a couple of years ago, when I still held the perspective of most of my friends who sit outside the hunting / firearms bubble. Curious to see how public opinion continues to evolve.
I live in California so the best the governor can do is muzzle comp.
Thank you so much for writing this, Wes. My gun mentor is a big silencer advocate, and I honestly wasn't sure whether to believe what he was telling me about this or not. His words and arguments completely echoed your own here, though. I'll get my silencers in the new year!
Wes, you write well. I read the headline and was not especially interested in the topic but decided to read the first few lines or so and next thing I knew I'd read it all. Cheers.
Thanks for reading Cory.
I understand your perspective. I just think they are an assassins tool.
Our land backs public land, and I prefer hearing a shot so I will avoid the area.
That's very much a fictional construct.
I should clarify just in case this isn't clear enough in the article: going from 140 to 120dB is by no means silent. But that's an awful lot easier on everyone's ears.
I have been concerned because I have a farm in the country surrounded by land where people hunt. We have had lots of poachers in the past and I have wanted to know where they are. If people are shooting across the River towards us, I don’t want to walk out on the river bank.
If you are concerned someone might be violating wildlife regulations, there's anonymous hotlines through which you can report them. And if there's an active threat to your safety, you can always dial 911.
If the suppressor was invented in 1902, how did Teddy Roosevelt use one in the late 1800’s? Did he have a prototype?
Great article and I laughed with the switchblade panic. I remember that well, and its later cousin, the butterfly knife panic after the kung-fu craze that hit in the 60’s.
Oh his model 1894… read the article too quickly!
Ha, no worries.
Like many I was skeptical when I heard about this legislative change. I feel like I know more about a specific benefit of them (less ear-pro needed by users) after reading your piece.
However, since no exploration of any potential drawbacks was provided, I can’t say it has moved my position on them.
It still seems to me that the benefits of removing any impediment to ownership/distribution of suppressors for the sake of hunter’s ears don’t outweigh the drawbacks in a society that has shockingly loose control on who can have a firearm let alone who can operate one less conspicuously. Not trying to start an argument but some of us live in urban areas with strict gun laws that are blown apart by states with permissive laws.
I will check out the NRA doc, thanks.
What would the drawbacks be?
I would agree with what it appears @MN-Julie and @Ann H Bellwood have already highlighted; the use of a suppressor could obfuscate the use of a firearm which could be extremely harmful for others depending on the circumstance.
Is your article meant to encourage the purchase of suppressors for owners’ hand guns and semi-automatic rifles?
A suppressor will reduce the noise made by any firearm, as addressed in the article. I'd encourage you to remain open minded and not assume everything you see in James Bond movies is real. Suppressors reduce noise levels by 20-30dB. Taking a 150dB gunshot down to 120 or 130dB still leaves it around the same levels as a jackhammer. So while they're extremely beneficial to recreational shooters, hunters, and anyone around them, they no no means conceal the presence of a gunshot. Using a suppressor is a more polite, safe way to enjoy shooting.
I appreciate the dialogue on the topic; I’m here for more than my own perspective.
But I’ll leave this information from a cursory search which is a little more tangible than 007:
“Shot alerting devices, which are designed to detect gunshots and provide notifications or alerts to law enforcement, typically activate at sound levels around 140 dB or higher. This threshold is based on the sound level of a typical gunshot, which can range from approximately 140 dB to 190 dB, depending on the type of firearm and ammunition used.”
I appreciate the informative perspective! I heard about no tax on silencers in the bill and thought it was a horrible idea.
I've been getting into self-defense and guns recently. Are you familiar with Kit Badger on YouTube?