Firearm silencer footage

[Ranb]

However, firearm silencers are illegal under Federal Law, therefore even if the state of Washington actually does repeal their law on firearm silencers, then you will still have to contend with the Federal Law on firearm silencers.

Sorry, but I really think that you need to research the procedural aspects of this issue a bit more.

This is the kind of woo that I am very sorry to see on this website. You have no good reason to actually believe something is true, but you claim it anyway. Why not post a link to the federal law that says what you claim? You won't because there is no such law. There may be some people on this website stupid enough to believe what you claim, but I am not one of them. I am certainly not stupid enough to post a video of myself breaking the law.

I make silencers without a license as a hobby. The feds only require a license if a person makes a silencer as a business. They do not require it if they are made for personal use. The process is simple. I download the ATF form 1 from the ATF website here; http://www.atf.gov/forms/firearms/ . I fill it out and sent it in along with a check for $200. Since I use a trust to own the silencer for me, so I do not need to send in form 5330.20, finger prints or my photos.

ATF approval is a routine matter and I have never heard of anyone being denied authorization to make a silencer as long as they filled the forms out correctly. The simple fact is that I do not need a federal license to own, buy, make, sell or use a silencer in the USA.

What I do need is to live in one of the 37 states that allow civilians to own a silencer. I also need to get WA State law changed before I can use one here. The WA RCW's prohibit all silencer use; they do not make exceptions for anyone, police and military included. I have heard that the police routinely use them, but they are not prosecuted even though the AG claims there is no exemption for the police.

If there were fewer fools in Olympia that behave like you, then I think I could have gotten the law changed years ago. I have to deal with this crap often and it gets old at times. But in 13 years I retire and will leave WA for good and not have to deal with the idiots in Olympia anymore.

Ranb

 

[roger]

I also wouldn't worry about your voice not being "lively and animated". You sound calm, and methodical. Which is what you want for a video like this, I think; you're not wanting to be sounding at all excitable and gung-ho You're not making entertainment, you're trying to convince legislators.

I agree about entertainment - I chose the wrong example. I tend to like exaggeration to make a point. I wasn't saying present like the mythbusters - just try to engage the viewer. Think a national news reporter. They aren't presenting like the mythbusters to be sure, but they are modulating their voices. They stress important points. Etc. Monotones are deadly. Think of Brokaw opening the news. "Tonight in Bangladash (pause) we will take an inside look in ...." I can hear that in my head right now, and it sounds nothing like ranb. Brokaw would have me engaged to the end of the video - I only stuck with ranb because it's a forum member.



5-10 seconds of silence while somebody works a bolt action and reacquires a target is deadly. Cut the scene, or tell me something I need to know. I don't know why a legislator needs to know the rifle fires at 2500fps. I'm sure it has technical relevance to the design of the suppressor or whatnot, but does it matter for policy? I doubt it. Tell me instead that this is standard hunting rifle that 3 million people own (or whatever), and that they are being fired everyday at the range next to the precious ears of a 10 year old. Or whatever the key point is. We are dealing with guns: "I want it - and the constitution doesn't prohibit it" is not a strong argument with the audience he is targeting. They've shown they are not interested in 2nd amendment rights.

I know ranb said he is covering this sort of thing elsewhere. However, reiteration is golden. It depends on the person, but I tend to grasp things better when it is applied to a concrete situation - you have more 'things' to hang the new information on. I think we all remember sitting in some lecture desperately trying to remember some point the professor made a minute ago because you are sure it applies to what she is talking about now, but can't quite make the connection. Now, this isn't rocket surgery, but still.

-----------------
A separate thought. I loved the point about the 2 AR1-5s firing in the same frame. But, if you do stick with a single gun per frame format, why are you telling us that you can fire this weapon without ear protection? Show us. Take off the ear protection, pick up the suppressed weapon, and fire it.

---------------
I'm with the others. I have no idea why suppressors are important to you, other than the 2nd amendment issues. The more you can make this point, over and over, even during these shooting demos, the better.

 

[Crossbow]

This is the kind of woo that I am very sorry to see on this website. You have no good reason to actually believe something is true, but you claim it anyway. Why not post a link to the federal law that says what you claim? You won't because there is no such law. There may be some people on this website stupid enough to believe what you claim, but I am not one of them. I am certainly not stupid enough to post a video of myself breaking the law.

I make silencers without a license as a hobby. The feds only require a license if a person makes a silencer as a business. They do not require it if they are made for personal use. The process is simple. I download the ATF form 1 from the ATF website here; http://www.atf.gov/forms/firearms/ . I fill it out and sent it in along with a check for $200. Since I use a trust to own the silencer for me, so I do not need to send in form 5330.20, finger prints or my photos.

ATF approval is a routine matter and I have never heard of anyone being denied authorization to make a silencer as long as they filled the forms out correctly. The simple fact is that I do not need a federal license to own, buy, make, sell or use a silencer in the USA.

What I do need is to live in one of the 37 states that allow civilians to own a silencer. I also need to get WA State law changed before I can use one here. The WA RCW's prohibit all silencer use; they do not make exceptions for anyone, police and military included. I have heard that the police routinely use them, but they are not prosecuted even though the AG claims there is no exemption for the police.

If there were fewer fools in Olympia that behave like you, then I think I could have gotten the law changed years ago. I have to deal with this crap often and it gets old at times. But in 13 years I retire and will leave WA for good and not have to deal with the idiots in Olympia anymore.

Ranb

While it is true that I did over-state things a bit, however there is no reason to personalize such things such as you are doing. Especially when you are the one who is asking for help.

Also, if you took a bit more time to look at my other posting I did acknowledge that Federal law does not ban silencers, instead I pointed out that Federal law does regulate silencers.

And also, you never pointed out (until now) that you made silencers for personal use. Instead, you started off by stating how you were working to change the law about silencers.

 

[roger]

A separate thought - if you are addressing anti-gun people , do you really want an AR-15 type weapons (OMG! an "assault weapon"). Actually, come to think of it, I don't remember if it was an AR-15, or I just thought that when you said .223. Anyway, I'd stick with bolt action deer rifles and .22s just to avoid negative associations popping into their brains (they popped into mine, and I like guns).

 

[Beady]

A separate thought - if you are addressing anti-gun people , do you really want an AR-15 type weapons (OMG! an "assault weapon"). Actually, come to think of it, I don't remember if it was an AR-15, or I just thought that when you said .223. Anyway, I'd stick with bolt action deer rifles and .22s just to avoid negative associations popping into their brains (they popped into mine, and I like guns).

Just as a thought, to lessen the gun-ignorant fear factor even more, you might want to use an older (obsolete) firearm. On an episode of the TV show "Wild West Tech," David Caridine demonstrated a silencer mounted on a Model 1895 Winchester. This might make the firearm seem a little less fearsome to the audience.

 

[Ranb]

While it is true that I did over-state things a bit, however there is no reason to personalize such things such as you are doing. Especially when you are the one who is asking for help.

You did way more than over-state something. Do you really expect us to believe that at one time today you were confident that silencers were illegal, then suddenly 35 minutes later you knew they were not? I’m not buying it.

I posted the video link on this part of the forum to discuss my inadequacies as a movie maker, not whether or not I was breaking the law by using a muffler on a gun. Your crap belongs in the politics forum.

Also, if you took a bit more time to look at my other posting I did acknowledge that Federal law does not ban silencers, instead I pointed out that Federal law does regulate silencers.

So why could you not have admitted that silencers are legal in your first post? Show me why you thought they were illegal then. I just want to know why you believe something that you have no good reason to think is true.

And also, you never pointed out (until now) that you made silencers for personal use. Instead, you started off by stating how you were working to change the law about silencers.

There is no reason to assume that a person is breaking the law unless they give you good reason to do so. Making a silencer without a license is a routine matter, too bad you chose to remain ignorant about it until now. Like I said before, it is people like you that make it hard to overturn stupid laws like RCW 9.41.250 (1) c.

I should not need to assure people that I am obeying the law when doing something as innocent as making and using a silencer where it is legal to do so.

Ranb

 

[Vic Vega]

I'll never understand you lot and your fascination with guns.

Do some reading about the Wild West in the US in the late 19th century and it may become clearer. An interesting time that had a lot to do with how Americans view the world.

Never mind trying to ban silencers, ban the frigging guns.

There is this little problem called the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Ranb]

A separate thought - if you are addressing anti-gun people , do you really want an AR-15 type weapons (OMG! an "assault weapon"). Actually, come to think of it, I don't remember if it was an AR-15, or I just thought that when you said .223. Anyway, I'd stick with bolt action deer rifles and .22s just to avoid negative associations popping into their brains (they popped into mine, and I like guns).

Those were ar-15's you saw shooting side by side. That is a good idea about using an older gun. I have footage of a single shot carbine that I can use. I also have a lever action model 94 Winchester that I could use, but it requires an offset silencer to look more "period". I am trying to design one, but it is harder than making a symetrical one.

I am only able to get out of the state once or twice a year to use the silencers I make. I have started to store them in a secure location out of state (yeah its legal, Crossbow) so that I can minimze the weight in my gun case. It is difficult to just take off and get some new gootage after finding what I have is not good enough.

I have been trying for almost a year to obtain good mpeg footage of suppressed gunfire, but no one has offered me any. I have had plenty of offers of flv footage, but it is poor quality.

I think I will edit the video to include portions of myself in front of the camera briefly descriving the rifle, then shot two rounds unsuppressed and suppressed. I have footage of a Nagant revolver that uses my 9mm silencer; not sure if that look benign enough though.

Ranb

 

[Cleon]

Ranb,

If you really want to actually convince and have dialogue with the anti-gun crowd, perhaps you might want to re-think your tone. If you speak to the average gun-control advocate the way you're talking to Upchurch, you're going to get nowhere fast.

Just a thought.

 

[Ranb]

Yep, I'd imagine most of us Brits wouldn't have a clue what your talking about, I certainly don't. I'll never understand you lot and your fascination with guns. Never mind trying to ban silencers, ban the frigging guns.

I've met more than a few Brits (online) that know what I am talking about. They just choose to keep their heads out of the sand. You need to get out of the house more and open your eyes.

What in my posts or the video indicated any kind of fascination with guns? Or were you trying to de-rail this thread by discussing another topic? If you want to talk about banning guns, then why not have the courtesy to start your own thread instead of trying to de-rail mine?

I want to use a muffler on my guns for the same reason I use mufflers on my cars, they are less noisy that way. Simple isn't it?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Think about who your natural political allies might be.
Those interested in firearms but maybe others, like hearing protection advocates. Not only will it give you more substance if you can make a coalition, but you also get a chance to see how impressive your point is and how well you are making it before you go to the big tent with your stuff.

Good advice, but hard to actually make happen. Most gun owners could care less about gun control, even fewer care about devices that protect the ears. I have tried to get Cease Fire Washington to give me an opinion on bill 1604, but no answer. The same for the Pink Pistols. I figured they would jump on the chance to make a bad law go away, but nothing from them so far. My Senators and Representatives have demonstrated reluctance to meet with me to discuss the bill. I was able to meet with the House Judiciary chairman who told me he would not give the bill the time of day until someone in the House told him it was a priority; something even the bill sponsors have been unwilling to do.

I have had a few successes though. One of the bill sponsors told me he sent a letter to the chairman asking for a hearing on the bill next session. My local sheriff was willing to listen to my explanation of the law and no longer thinks silencers are illegal in the USA. The local rifle range is willing to sponsor a silencer shoot if I can get some sort of legal clearance from the local prosecutor; the same ones who refuse to punish the cops for using silencers.

Ranb

 

[Michael Redman]

Over the weekend, I fired a .357 mag revolver a friend owns for home protection. We were outdoors, in a corn field. My friend stated that he had never fired the gun without hearing protection. We each fired once. That was enough. I have no doubt that firing that weapon indoors a couple of times would lead to permanent hearing loss. What harm could possibly come from allowing him to lower that blast to a managable level?

 

[Crossbow]

You did way more than over-state something. Do you really expect us to believe that at one time today you were confident that silencers were illegal, then suddenly 35 minutes later you knew they were not? I’m not buying it.

I posted the video link on this part of the forum to discuss my inadequacies as a movie maker, not whether or not I was breaking the law by using a muffler on a gun. Your crap belongs in the politics forum.



So why could you not have admitted that silencers are legal in your first post? Show me why you thought they were illegal then. I just want to know why you believe something that you have no good reason to think is true.



There is no reason to assume that a person is breaking the law unless they give you good reason to do so. Making a silencer without a license is a routine matter, too bad you chose to remain ignorant about it until now. Like I said before, it is people like you that make it hard to overturn stupid laws like RCW 9.41.250 (1) c.

I should not need to assure people that I am obeying the law when doing something as innocent as making and using a silencer where it is legal to do so.

Ranb

A rant like the above makes me think of this old saying:

Never wrestle with a pig!

Because both of you will get dirty and the pig enjoys it

With that in mind, I will not bother to correspond further with 'Randb' since he is obviously too smart to listen to anyone.

 

[Ranb]

If you really want to actually convince and have dialogue with the anti-gun crowd, perhaps you might want to re-think your tone. If you speak to the average gun-control advocate the way you're talking to Upchurch, you're going to get nowhere fast.

Upchurch? I do not see any of his posts in this thread.

I am normally much more patient and polite when speaking in person. I have people tell me to my face that I am breaking the law just as often as it happens online. They generally seem to believe me when I say that silencers are legal and that the ATF routinely approves making or buying them, especially when I show them an approved tax stamp application. Even the police are apologetic when they see they have over stepped and accused the wrong person of breaking the law.

What Crossbow did is just plain rude. Crossman had all the time he wanted to decide whether or not silencers were illegal, but decided not to take the high road. Those kinds of people do not deserve respect and are certainly not going to get it from me. His kind of help I do not need.

I did not post this thread discuss politics. Frequently when I post about guns on this forum or others, I have to fend off those who tell me I am doing something illegal or defend myself against rude behavior (like Crossman's) or even harassment (from some others on this forum).

So yeah you are right. I may have to pat a few people on the back who insult me to get things done, but I also like to sleep peacefully at night. Patting prejudice on the back is disturbing to me.

Ranb

 

[SezMe]

Flash suppressors are there so that the muzzle flash isn't visible for the shooter, not the people down range. You may think "whoop de do", but at night time the muzzle flash can temporarily destroy your low-light vision.

Interesting. The rifles I've fired didn't have any flash that I'm aware of, although I've never used one at night time. Can you make any statement of how "large" a gun must be to cause a flash that has the potential to harm low-light vision. Or is it primarily a function of barrel length?

 

[SezMe]

They also greatly reduce noise pollution near rifle ranges.

But didn't the video demonstrate that down-range noise was NOT affected?

 

[sadhatter]

Quick question. And i don't intend it to be sarcastic, i would like to know why this would happen.

I am a big fan of mob literature. Not fiction, but real accounts, preferably from the mobsters themselves.

Now one of the standard pieces of equipment for a mob hit ( not by any means the only, but one of the more popular sets of equipment. ) is what is called a " hit kit". This consists of a 22 pistol with a silencer. From all evidence i have heard from first hand experience, this is perfect for taking out a person in an apartment or other semi crowded area, due to a lack of any large blast noise.

So, is this simply untrue? Is a silenced .22 pistol loud enough to still attract attention through the walls of an apartment, or other semi public place? I have a moderate experience with guns, but none with silencers. And am open to having this shown to be false. But it raises the question of why it is in consistent use.

 

[Ranb]

But didn't the video demonstrate that down-range noise was NOT affected?

I did not compare suppressed and unsuppressed fire from the downrange point of view. If I had, I'm certain it would have shown that unsuppressed fire would be louder.

I had originally hoped that the sonic boom made by the passing bullet would be the most prominent noise on the video when I set up the camera. The camera was 75 yards downrange from the shooter and 25 yards from the berm. The bullets passed within two feet of the camera. It seems that the muzzle blast is louder than the bullet flight noise even down range.

I read posts written by Marines that pulled targets in the pits at the 600 yards matches. They claimed the most prominent noise was the cracking noise of the bullet as it passed them overhead. One guy even claimed he wore ear muffs to protect his ears from the noise.

I can only use this footage to show that a high powered rifle is still noisy at a distance when used with a silencer.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

deleted

 

[Ladewig]

What I do need is to live in one of the 37 states that allow civilians to own a silencer.

Did any of those states have laws against it before legalizing it? If so then the legislators or the lobbyists in that state might have helpful information