Reporters and guns

Ouch, that is loud. It should read 120 decibels. Thanks.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
I did e-mail the reporter. My letter was polite, but I did tell him he needs to try to be more accurate instead of allowing his prejudice to get in the way of the truth. I am not expecting a reply. Reporters and news program producers are even less responsive than elected members of Congress it seems.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd have more luck getting a reply if you didn't accuse him of showing bias right off the bat. That's not really "polite."

I'm serious--I think this is simply a case of a reporter running off at the mouth. Stupidity, not malice.
 
Ranb said:
If I can make my AR-15 only 130 decibels instead of 160, why is this a bad thing?
Click to expand...

You have lulled yourself into a false sense of security.

http://www.cfah.org/factsoflife/vol6no5.cfm#recent_findings

Even more dangerous, fireworks produce bursts of noise as loud as 130 to 190 decibels, which can cause hearing loss in a matter of seconds. Handgun and rifle fire reaches 160 to 170 decibels which, if close to the ear, can cause hearing loss almost instantaneously.
Click to expand...

So, even with a silencer, you are going to suffer hearing loss. Perhaps even worse because without a silencer you are likely to wear hearing protection but, believing that a silencer is enough, you could be shooting all day without protection. Indoor target shooting would be even worse.

Hearing loss can occur at as little as 82 dB.
 
I used to work for a Class 3 dealer. We built and sold suppressors (among other things). One of our most popular models was an integral suppressor for the Ruger 10-22. The biggest market for these was turkey farmers. They'd use them on vermin. Without the suppressor the bang would panic the turkeys, often resulting in the injury and death of a lot of them.

Robert
 
Basically, when it comes to guns (and many avenues of science) too few reporters know the facts or proper terms. I've seen the all too common misrepresentation of semi-automatics being called automatics, shotgun rounds called bullets and even semi-automatics (handguns) called revolvers. Is this nit-picking? ... perhaps. But what it leads to (IMHO) is a sense of knowing facts about one and then applying those facts erroneously to others due to mislabeling.
 
Last edited:
qayak said:
You have lulled yourself into a false sense of security.

So, even with a silencer, you are going to suffer hearing loss. Perhaps even worse because without a silencer you are likely to wear hearing protection but, believing that a silencer is enough, you could be shooting all day without protection. Indoor target shooting would be even worse.

Hearing loss can occur at as little as 82 dB.
Click to expand...

I partially disagree. The link does not differentiate between continuous noise and impulse noise. The ear is able to withstand higher levels of impulse noise.

My ear muffs are good for a maximum of 30 decibels if worn properly, this is why you sometimes see double (plugs and muffs) protection worn at ranges when shooting larger rifles equipped with muzzle brakes.

An ar-15 with a typical suppressor installed and shooting standard ammo is not going to be hearing safe when shot under a roof or inside of a room. The same set-up shot away from structures or with subsonic ammo will be much less noisy.

Here is a link that includes impulse noise. http://www.lowertheboom.org/trice/safedblevels.htm

The silencertests link I provided also shows that many suppressors are not hearing safe, but many of the tests that used subsonic ammo are less than 130 dB.

Ranb
 
Wowbagger said:
Naw, "Disaster Area" is louder than that. You can hear the noise they make between planets, even if there are no particles to carry the sound through space! The sound just carries its own particles with it!
Click to expand...

1120 decibells would be around a super nova. 300 is in the range of nuclear weapons.
 
Potatoes suck. :) Actually, only importers, dealers and manufacturers need the license and class 1, 2 or 3 SOT to have silencers. The rest of us only need the $200 tax stamp. In order for the potato to be legal, it also needs my name, city/state and serial number stamped on it at least three thousands of an inch deep. From what I have heard, they work poorly for the first shot, and not at all for all the rest.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
Potatoes suck. :) Actually, only importers, dealers and manufacturers need the license and class 1, 2 or 3 SOT to have silencers. The rest of us only need the $200 tax stamp. In order for the potato to be legal, it also needs my name, city/state and serial number stamped on it at least three thousands of an inch deep. From what I have heard, they work poorly for the first shot, and not at all for all the rest.

Ranb
Click to expand...
So if I buy a gun in a private sale, what do I need to do to stay legal if a silencer comes with it?
 
rtalman said:
So if I buy a gun in a private sale, what do I need to do to stay legal if a silencer comes with it?
Click to expand...

If the silencer is detachable, then pay for both and take the gun home. You will only be able to take home the silencer after the BATFE sends you the approved form 4 with the canceled tax stamp.

You need to live in one of the 36 states that allow civilians to own them; AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NE, ND, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY. I got this list from http://www.silencertests.com . You will need to check your own states laws to verify any additional requirements, such as the WA state ban on using them, or TX which requires proof they are registered.

Assuming you live in the same state as the seller, you need to obtain an ATF form 4, a certificate of compliance attesting to your citizenship, (both from BATFE or online at http://test.titleii.com/form4.html ), two fingerprint cards and two passport sized photos. If you live in a different state then you need to use a licensed dealer who will help you with the same forms. Fill out the form 4, then bring it to your local sheriff and ask him/her to sign the back. Some will not sign. There are others who are allowed to sign in some counties, such as DA's and judges. If you can not get a signature, then you can form a trust or a corp, then no photos fingerprints or sheriff's sig is required. However, the trust, not you own the silencer, but this can make it easier for your heirs to inherit if you wish.

Last I heard it is taking the BATFE about 1-2 months to approve the forms. After you get the form back approved, you can return to the dealer or owner and pick up the silencer. The ATF tax form is the only proof that you legally own the silencer. If you loose it, then the other copy held by the BATFE might not be available even if it is requested by yourself. It is a confidential tax form, only the BATFE can demand that you present it on demand. Some states (like TX) ban silencers except for those that are registered IAW the NFA of 1934. This means if the police demand that you prove it is registered, you need to show them the tax form. Most NFA weapons owners keep a copy of their ATF tax forms with them whenever taking their machine guns or silencers out of the house.

I am not entirely sure about buying directly from an unlicensed person as I made all of my own silencers using ATF from 1’s. You may need to use a dealer for all transfers. The people at www.subguns.com or www.silencertests.com will be happy to answer any questions. I hope this is what you wanted to know.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
Potatoes suck. :) ..... From what I have heard, they work poorly for the first shot, and not at all for all the rest.

Ranb
Click to expand...

For heaven's sakes, show some self-sufficient pride & ability and use a bloody sackful of potatos.

You can cook and eat the remnants afterwards too. *

___________

* With a very mild risk of stomach cancer owing to the then-added nitrates, but hey.
 
Ranb said:
I have read that silencer (moderator) use while hunting is encouraged in countries like England
Click to expand...

It's not exactly encouraged, but it's not generally prohibited. You do have to note in your Firearms Certificate (FAC) application that you have one, and you need to show that you have good reason for having it. This isn't really very onerous, since "good reason" can be obvious things like not wanting to scare other quarry away or not bothering neighbours at a range.

Edit: For deer stalking a silencer is thought to be fairly pointless since the supersonic round makes its own noise that startles the deer.
 
Last edited:
Gurdur said:
For heaven's sakes, show some self-sufficient pride & ability and use a bloody sackful of potatos.
You can cook and eat the remnants afterwards too. *
* With a very mild risk of stomach cancer owing to the then-added nitrates, but hey.
Click to expand...

Yuck yuck yuck! Have you seen what is inside of a suppressor after lead ammo is shot through it? It is filthy disgusting. Double that when the suppressor is shot wet. Some of that black gunk is lead from the bullet heel and the primer. :) You try it first and tell me how that $200 potato tastes.

Ranb
 
richardm said:
It's not exactly encouraged.....
Edit: For deer stalking a silencer is thought to be fairly pointless since the supersonic round makes its own noise that startles the deer.
Click to expand...

Thanks. A supersonic round will not startle the deer it hits until after the bullet it going through it, unless you miss. :) I have read about various people who use subsonic ammo in suppressed rifles for hunting, mostly those outside of the USA. They use the heaviest bullet they can to help make up for the low energy of the subsonic round. In most states where hunting is allowed with silencers, it is only for non-game animals.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
Thanks. A supersonic round will not startle the deer it hits until after the bullet it going through it, unless you miss. :)
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, one hopes that the deer you're shooting at will get the good news first anyway ;) I was thinking about the rest of the herd, I suppose. Although for a sporting stalk I'd think that shooting at more than one deer would be considered Bad Form on most estates.

Just for you interest Re: Subsonic rounds; the calibre and muzzle velocity of the rounds used for deer are set by law:
In England and Wales rifles must be at least .240 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,700 ft/lbs. In Scotland, for Roe deer rifles must be at least .222 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,000 ft/lbs and a muzzle velocity of at least 2,450 ft/sec.
For other species of deer the rifle must be at least .243 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,750 ft/lbs and a muzzle velocity of at least 2,450 ft/sec.
Click to expand...


Hollow point rounds are illegal to possess unless you're shooting large animals or vermin (e.g. foxes, or if you want to humanely destroy an animal). You are required by law to use soft/hollow point rounds for deer.
 
Last edited:
That's a lot of punch for a small deer. The laws in the USA vary much when allowing certain firearms for hunting. I have a small .510 caliber carbine that shoots subsonic 750 grain bullets and gives me about 1800 ft-lbs, but I guess I would be out of luck wanting to use it there. :) It would tip over a moose rather well I think.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom