Australia's Gun Problem

[Ranb]

If they're so good, why don't you use a silencer every time you fire your gun?

Actually they are not "so good"; there are limitations that go along with the benefits. they generally increase weight, length and expense. On auto loaders they usually have increased gas blow back into the shooter's face. They also heat up the barrel crown faster when rapidly fired leading to accelerated wear.

Why doesn't everybody? Why don't you just buy guns with built-in silencers? Why is firing a gun without a silencer not against noise pollution laws?

Due to the limitations above and some jurisdictions prohibit their use. I don't buy silencers, I make them. A detachable silencer is more flexible than an integral one. Not all firearms make acceptable hosts for silencers. Most revolvers and guns using black powders are examples. In some places unsuppressed gun noise is a violation of noise pollution laws.

It seems to me that silencers are an option - one that most people don't choose most of the time.

You are correct, but they are an option only in places that allow them. In Australia for example, they are not an option. Why is that?

It leads me to ask - why are you silencing your gun this time, and not other times?

Can you be more specific about when I do and do not use a silencer? One time I can't is during small bore competition. The target rifle used is not a suitable host and the rules prohibit use of baffles in the bloop tube.

Why don't you want me to hear your discharge this time, when you're perfectly happy for me to hear it at other times?

I have no objection to anyone hearing my rifle discharge. Where did you get the wild idea that I had anything to hide? The discharge of a suppressed hunting rifle (and nearly any other suppressed firearm) is entirely audible. The word silencer was used as a marketing gimmick back in 1905 and is now used as a legal term. It is a noun that is not entirely accurate about the effect it has on a gun. In other words a silencer does not make a gun silent.

Seems to me that you use a silencer only when you want to hide the fact that you're shooting.

Join me at the rifle range someday and ask me if it is possible for me to hide the fact I'm firing any gun chambered in a center fire cartridge. Bring ear plugs; a suppressed 308 or 223 is going to be loud when fired under weather protection.

If it were just about noise control, then everybody would be using them all the time.

Except in those backward people that ban them for some stupid reason.

Except for those who, like those wankers who ride unmuffled Harley Davidsons, just want to make as loud a noise as possible.

Some people think they look cool with a long can hanging off their gun; to me they are strictly about noise suppression.

I'm quite certain you're participated in threads that discussed everything I said in this post. Willful ignorance is petty.

Ranb

 

[devnull]

There ain't no way that's going to "hide the fact that you're shooting."

Theyre used to reduce the noise to below ear-drum busting level, that's all.

In Sweden (from memory?) it's illegal not to operate one, or so Ive been told.

To *ban* them is just the dumbest thing ever. There's no defense.

 

[Ranb]

Nobody ever claimed the legislation(s) was perfect, or that legislators have a strong grasp of the nuances in the many and varied firearms available.

If a legislator wishes to restrict something, they should have at least a basic grasp of the item they want to control. What I've seen so far is that the loud mouths calling a lever action the same as a self loading action are either stupid or believe their constituents are. I know them when I see them as the USA has more than their fair share and not just on gun politics.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Nup. Our current theory is the lawmakers think they make guns go "pew pew!", and are only used by paid assassins.

I wonder where they got this idea from? Has a paid assassin ever used a suppressed firearm to kill a person in Australia? Is this another trashy American culture item imported from the USA?

Ranb

 

[3point14]

Aren't silencers/suppressors a sort of disposable item anyway?

I thought they sort of disintegrated with use?

 

[tyr_13]

Aren't silencers/suppressors a sort of disposable item anyway?

I thought they sort of disintegrated with use?

Depending on the muffler design, not much more than the barrel itself. They have to be taken apart and cleaned, but it's more a video-game idea that you only get 30 shots out of the muffler while getting infinite out of the barrel.

I understand it that some older designs deteriorated much faster than modern ones.

 

[Ranb]

Aren't silencers/suppressors a sort of disposable item anyway?

I thought they sort of disintegrated with use?

Most modern silencers made in the USA are durable goods fabricated from aluminum, steel or titanium. The bullets do not touch the baffles unless it is misaligned. Heat/erosion are what degrade a silencer and make them wear out. I found this out when I used aluminum baffles for a 223 Remington silencer and allowed people to dump 30 round mags through it making it hot enough to melt the paint. But it took over 5000 rounds to seriously degrade the suppression though. My stainless steel cans will last tens of thousands of rounds unless overheated on a machine gun or prolonged rapid fire on a semi-auto

A few silencers were (and still are) made with wipes. Wipes are rubber disks with X shaped slots cut into them. The bullet punches through them which wears them out in a few dozen rounds, lowers velocity and degrades accuracy. I'm told they are very effective in reducing noise for the first few rounds. While wipes are the only part of a silencer I can replace without a license or paying another making tax ($200), I have to destroy the old wipes prior to making (punching out of rubber sheet) new ones. This means the wipe cartridges that come old military designs used would not be useful to me as I can't have extra wipes ready to be installed when I finish the second magazine of my 9mm pistol.

Most silencers intended high powered center fire guns are sealed with welded end caps and require little or no cleaning as the high pressure allows very little gunk to build up as most of it gets blown out. I merely re-paint the exterior of my cans occasionally and keep the mounting threads clean.

Ranb

 

[3point14]

Thank you both

 

[The Atheist]

How does that change what I said?

You made the claim about falling murder rates.

I was simply proving you wrong - they are increasing. Yes, they did fall, but they're now increasing.

I don't expect you to have an answer as to why that is.

Plot the rate of leaded gasoline exposure to the homicide rate 23 years later (because it is childhood lead exposure that is linked to violent crime as adults) and there is a very strong correlation.

Seen it. It might even be true.

So please explain why the rates are going up now.

Also, it seems that gun death rates are lower in states with the harshest gun laws.

I don't expect you to have an answer for that either.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Dude, Im an Aussie

Awww man, way to go ruining my vibe!

 

[Sceptic-PK]

If a legislator wishes to restrict something, they should have at least a basic grasp of the item they want to control. What I've seen so far is that the loud mouths calling a lever action the same as a self loading action are either stupid or believe their constituents are. I know them when I see them as the USA has more than their fair share and not just on gun politics.

Ranb

I don't disagree but the point you're making isn't particularly insightful.

 

[Damien Evans]

i can buy a lever action 30-30, but not a lever action shot gun, and this is sane?

Silencers are *banned*, and this is sane?

Yes.

 

[devnull]

Yes.

Tell me how?

If you think a lever action shotgun is more dangerous than a lever action centre fire, youve never touched a firearm in your life.

If you think silencers/suppressors are *dangerous* in any way, you know nothing about them.

Are you sure youre not a lawmaker yourself?

 

[arthwollipot]

Can you be more specific about when I do and do not use a silencer? One time I can't is during small bore competition. The target rifle used is not a suitable host and the rules prohibit use of baffles in the bloop tube.

"Bloop tube". That's great.

You've given me one example of when you don't use a silencer. Can you give me one or more examples of when you do, and why?

 

[Damien Evans]

Tell me how?

If you think a lever action shotgun is more dangerous than a lever action centre fire, youve never touched a firearm in your life.

If you think silencers/suppressors are *dangerous* in any way, you know nothing about them.

Are you sure youre not a lawmaker yourself?

I said they were Sane, not that they were good laws. There's a big difference between something that is sane and something that is good and effective.

For the record, I have held a gun but never fired one, and have no idea how much difference in sound a silencer really makes, other than knowing it doesn't sound anything like Pierce Brosnan pretended it does.

 

[devnull]

I said they were Sane, not that they were good laws. There's a big difference between something that is sane and something that is good and effective.

Splitting hairs for the sake of it.

If they set speed limits based on the air speed of an unladen swallow, would you be making the same claim?

 

[tyr_13]

A serious answer for you again. Perhaps you can remember it this time?

Silencers (or mufflers as they are also called in the US Code) reduce the noise of a firearm. Unless noise is the intended byproduct of a machine, a muffler or other noise abatement is usually a safety feature or benefit when used properly. Most rational people want noise reduction, is this hard to understand? Makes perfect sense to me and lots of other people.

I'm not sure why you would have a problem with a muffler that reduces the noise of a hunting rifle down to 135 decibels. A silencer has no effect on action noise, bullet flight noise and impact noise. It is impossible to completely hide the noise of a gunshot of a typical rifle. Pistols are even louder than rifles when suppressed.

I want a muffler for my rifle for the same reason I want a silencer on my motorcycle. Makes sense doesn't it? People/governments in many other countries including New Zealand and Great Britain see it this way, why not you and your Australian comrades?

Instead of appearing to be incredulous, why not explain why it seems you have a problem with silencers. Was there a silencer crime problem in Australia? I never heard of one.

Ranb

If they're so good, why don't you use a silencer every time you fire your gun? Why doesn't everybody? Why don't you just buy guns with built-in silencers? Why is firing a gun without a silencer not against noise pollution laws?

It seems to me that silencers are an option - one that most people don't choose most of the time. It leads me to ask - why are you silencing your gun this time, and not other times? Why don't you want me to hear your discharge this time, when you're perfectly happy for me to hear it at other times?

Seems to me that you use a silencer only when you want to hide the fact that you're shooting. If it were just about noise control, then everybody would be using them all the time. Except for those who, like those wankers who ride unmuffled Harley Davidsons, just want to make as loud a noise as possible.

Actually they are not "so good"; there are limitations that go along with the benefits. they generally increase weight, length and expense. On auto loaders they usually have increased gas blow back into the shooter's face. They also heat up the barrel crown faster when rapidly fired leading to accelerated wear.


Due to the limitations above and some jurisdictions prohibit their use. I don't buy silencers, I make them. A detachable silencer is more flexible than an integral one. Not all firearms make acceptable hosts for silencers. Most revolvers and guns using black powders are examples. In some places unsuppressed gun noise is a violation of noise pollution laws.


You are correct, but they are an option only in places that allow them. In Australia for example, they are not an option. Why is that?


Can you be more specific about when I do and do not use a silencer? One time I can't is during small bore competition. The target rifle used is not a suitable host and the rules prohibit use of baffles in the bloop tube.


I have no objection to anyone hearing my rifle discharge. Where did you get the wild idea that I had anything to hide? The discharge of a suppressed hunting rifle (and nearly any other suppressed firearm) is entirely audible. The word silencer was used as a marketing gimmick back in 1905 and is now used as a legal term. It is a noun that is not entirely accurate about the effect it has on a gun. In other words a silencer does not make a gun silent.


Join me at the rifle range someday and ask me if it is possible for me to hide the fact I'm firing any gun chambered in a center fire cartridge. Bring ear plugs; a suppressed 308 or 223 is going to be loud when fired under weather protection.


Except in those backward people that ban them for some stupid reason.


Some people think they look cool with a long can hanging off their gun; to me they are strictly about noise suppression.

I'm quite certain you're participated in threads that discussed everything I said in this post. Willful ignorance is petty.

Ranb

"Bloop tube". That's great.

You've given me one example of when you don't use a silencer. Can you give me one or more examples of when you do, and why?

Why on earth are you having a problem here? It's pretty obvious that Ranb uses a muffler most any time he can, for the exact reasons he has already repeatedly given in this and other threads.

Gun noise is loud enough to damage hearing. Mufflers reduce that so less extreme hearing protection is needed to safely fire them. The noise is also less of a nuisance. People don't use them because they are targeted by laws specifically designed to make them expensive, illegal, difficult to get, or in a legal gray zone that may or may not get you a felony conviction. That is in addition to the other issues (already cited in the posts you quote from), such as when they do and do not work, and when the drawbacks overcome the benefits.

What about these explanations do you not accept? What sources would you accept?

 

[Ranb]

"Bloop tube". That's great.

I get the feeling I have offended you, again. Not sure why this time. Do I need to explain what a bloop tube is or is the word itself somehow offensive to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurizing

The bullet dwell time is the time between cartridge ignition, and the time the bullet leaves the barrel. Like lock time, dwell time is a window for error, and can be minimized with a faster bullet or a shorter barrel. In some cases, a shorter barrel is desired to reduce dwell time, but without losing the sight radius of a longer barrel. In this case, a sight extension tube, or bloop tube, can be used. This is a tube that fits on the muzzle end of the barrel, providing support for the front sight, but that is bored to much larger than bore diameter. This provides the sight plane of a long barrel with less weight and dwell time.

Here are some photos; https://www.google.com/search?q=blo...ChMI0N-b9ujYxwIVBZWICh2zkAmB&biw=1093&bih=426

You've given me one example of when you don't use a silencer. Can you give me one or more examples of when you do, and why?

I use a silencer on any firearm I own which is a suitable host; rifles and handguns, no shotgun silencers yet. I use them anywhere they are legal to use; this includes hunting and target shooting. Silencers reduce noise and recoil; generally making shooting a more pleasant experience.

I made some baffles to fit into the barrel extension of my precision air rifle so it would not be as loud when I practice in my garage. Legally they aren't silencer parts, but they suppress the loud noise of the air rifle.

I've made an effort to answer every question you've asked of me. Why can't I expect the same from you?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I don't disagree but the point you're making isn't particularly insightful.

Is that because legislator ignorance of the activities they want to restrict is so common or is it not insightful for another reason? Just asking.

Ranb

 

[Belz...]

Why were silencers banned in Australia? Was it in response to a silencer crime problem?

Ranb

They should more appropriately be called suppressors, I think, and they don't suppress the sound much. I think opposition to them is mostly due to watching too many movies where a gun equipped with one just goes "phwik".