Firearm silencer footage

[Ranb]

I have been trying to get the WA law banning silencer use changed for the last several years. Part of the problem is that I keep hearing from my Senators and Representatives that silencers are illegal in the United States. To help clear a few things up, I am putting together a video explaining silencer design, legalities and a demonstration at a rifle range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxFfWVusAjc

This is the rifle range footage I shot and edited using a Canon HF21 and Pinnacle Studio version 9. Comments are welcome.

Ranb

 

[roger]

Pretty draggy. I didn't need to see you fire each of the bolt action guns 3 times. You didn't have a lot to say, so there was a lot of dead air. I only kept watching because I wanted to help out a forum member.

You don't explain the significance of the louder sound of the supressed gun downrange. I can guess - perhaps legislators think suppression mean silence, and you are pointing out that the desire for suppression is only for the shooters hearing and comfort (pure guess on my part). You can't use it to commit crimes without anyone hearing. But I was left trying to guess at what your point might be.

I know we each have to do things with our own style - but think of how the mythbusters (say) would present this. There would be an lively/animated explanation, and then a demonstration. "What we are going to see here is that for the shooter the suppressed gun is much quieter - so quiet you don't even need ear protection! But the important and interesting thing is how loud the gun still is downrange. The movies have it wrong - you can't use silencers to hide the fact that you are shooting." And then just one or two shots for demonstration, with again some lively voice overs "Okay, now listen to the supressed rifle - it's much quieter. (immediate cut to downrange) "But listen to that same short just 50 yards downrange - it's loud!! Almost as loud as the unsuppressed rifle. Here, we'll play it again, first the unsuppressed rifle, and then the suppressed rifle downrange (bang..bang). See, almost exactly the same!"

I'd also be a lot more impressed with a sound meter rather than just asking me to compare the sound.

I don't know, but I'm going to guess your audience doesn't know what a .308 vs Ruger 10/22 is. They'll probably recognize the AR-15 from a recent attempt to have it outlawed .

The information you do present is great. I just suggest dressing it up, and presenting more information via voice. If you do for some reason really want to show 3 shots in a row, fill the dead air with some info. "This rifle is a standard hunting rifle capable of taking deer and elk ..." or whatever. But I'd prefer an explanation of what is going to happen, followed by a very brief demonstration of same.

 

[Cain]

I think Roger's right on target (you see what I did there? "on TARGET"? Get it, "target"? Yeah, go **** yourself).

A meter would help us, I dunno, quantify the sound of the blast. In movies, silencers spit bullets and no one's the wiser. Nobody gives a **** about the Winchester 308 vs. the surrogate penis 338 or how it's all captured on Canon HF21, which has 44 days left on its warranty. This propaganda video sucks.

 

[Ranb]

I get the points. Keep the comments coming.

Unfortunately I am not lively and animated. I stutter and slur my speech when I get excited and thus make a poor narrator

I can not afford a proper noise meter, they cost about $3500. They need to have a minimum rise time of 20 micro seconds, which is something the inexpensive meters do not have. When I have money to burn, I will get one. I have only heard of one person in all of Washington State who has a suitable meter, and he is not offering to let me use it.

In the first part of the video which I did not post, I explain more about silencer characteristics. My target audience is quite stupid when it comes to firearms; they are the Senators and Representatives in Olympia who tell me silencers are illegal or that only criminals use them.

Ranb

 

[marplots]

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.

 

[Cleon]

I get the points. Keep the comments coming.

Unfortunately I am not lively and animated. I stutter and slur my speech when I get excited and thus make a poor narrator

Solicit help. I'm sure there's someone else interested in this issue who would be willing to lend their voice - perhaps even an acting student who's looking for resume filler.

I can not afford a proper noise meter, they cost about $3500. They need to have a minimum rise time of 20 micro seconds, which is something the inexpensive meters do not have. When I have money to burn, I will get one. I have only heard of one person in all of Washington State who has a suitable meter, and he is not offering to let me use it.

I'd suggest calling some places that rent A/V equipment, and see if they have one available.

 

[autumn1971]

I get the points. Keep the comments coming.

Unfortunately I am not lively and animated. I stutter and slur my speech when I get excited and thus make a poor narrator

I can not afford a proper noise meter, they cost about $3500. They need to have a minimum rise time of 20 micro seconds, which is something the inexpensive meters do not have. When I have money to burn, I will get one. I have only heard of one person in all of Washington State who has a suitable meter, and he is not offering to let me use it.

In the first part of the video which I did not post, I explain more about silencer characteristics. My target audience is quite stupid when it comes to firearms; they are the Senators and Representatives in Olympia who tell me silencers are illegal or that only criminals use them.

Ranb

I appreciate your efforts to educate people, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't suppressors only useful for police and military applications in which a target is also potenially going to be firing back based on the muzzle-flash? As you pointed out, it is pointless for any sort of hunting application, unless the target is also armed with a gun.
Why should suppressors be generally available if their only uses are against non-civilian targets?

 

[Ferguson]

I appreciate your efforts to educate people, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't suppressors only useful for police and military applications in which a target is also potenially going to be firing back based on the muzzle-flash? As you pointed out, it is pointless for any sort of hunting application, unless the target is also armed with a gun.
Why should suppressors be generally available if their only uses are against non-civilian targets?

I don't know much about the topic specifically, but I would imagine in a home-defense situation, one would not have time/access to hearing protection, so the suppressor would be useful so as to not go deaf defending your life. Also could have the same benefit as you mentioned above, i.e. intruder not seeing your muzzle flash.

From my very limited knowledge, with the best $1000+ suppressors you can hope for a 50% reduction of sound -- still quite loud, but less ear damage. The sci-fi "pew-pew" that sound engineers came up with for spy movies has no relation to a real suppressor (not suggesting anyone here thinks they do, just like to mention this since it's a common perception).

 

[SezMe]

I don't know much about the topic specifically, but I would imagine in a home-defense situation, one would not have time/access to hearing protection, so the suppressor would be useful so as to not go deaf defending your life. Also could have the same benefit as you mentioned above, i.e. intruder not seeing your muzzle flash.

Really? I seriously doubt a home defense weapon is going to be a loud rifle or a humongous hand gun that needs suppression. In a real encounter, the whole scenario is going to be over in a matter of seconds so the presence of muzzle flash is bogus. In a hurricane, one does not worry about the fan blowing the candle out.

 

[richardm]

Pretty draggy. I didn't need to see you fire each of the bolt action guns 3 times.

Agreeing with this. But I thought the section where there are two of you firing the .223 AR-15s together - one suppressed and one not - was a more impressive and interesting demonstration of the difference than seeing the others separately. It meant that the sound levels could be directly compared, without having to try to remember what the last one was like or employing a sound meter.

You don't explain the significance of the louder sound of the supressed gun downrange. I can guess - perhaps legislators think suppression mean silence, and you are pointing out that the desire for suppression is only for the shooters hearing and comfort (pure guess on my part). You can't use it to commit crimes without anyone hearing. But I was left trying to guess at what your point might be.

Seconding this too; spell it out!

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.

Good luck!

 

[welshdean]

I don't know, but I'm going to guess your audience doesn't know what a .308 vs Ruger 10/22 is. They'll probably recognize the AR-15 from a recent attempt to have it outlawed .

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.

 

[dtugg]

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.

From what I understand, these types of guns aren't even banned in the UK.

 

[fagin]

From what I understand, these types of guns aren't even banned in the UK.

Guns aren't banned in the UK, there are just restrictions on their ownership and use.

 

[dtugg]

Guns aren't banned in the UK, there are just restrictions on their ownership and use.

Yeah, that's what I thought, at least for shotguns and rifles. I was under the impression that handguns are banned though?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Really? I seriously doubt a home defense weapon is going to be a loud rifle or a humongous hand gun that needs suppression. In a real encounter, the whole scenario is going to be over in a matter of seconds so the presence of muzzle flash is bogus. In a hurricane, one does not worry about the fan blowing the candle out.

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.

 

[Crossbow]

I have been trying to get the WA law banning silencer use changed for the last several years. Part of the problem is that I keep hearing from my Senators and Representatives that silencers are illegal in the United States. To help clear a few things up, I am putting together a video explaining silencer design, legalities and a demonstration at a rifle range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxFfWVusAjc

This is the rifle range footage I shot and edited using a Canon HF21 and Pinnacle Studio version 9. Comments are welcome.

Ranb

Well, ...

I have not seen your video yet, so I cannot comment on it.

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.

 

[Ranb]

I appreciate your efforts to educate people, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't suppressors only useful for police and military applications in which a target is also potenially going to be firing back based on the muzzle-flash? As you pointed out, it is pointless for any sort of hunting application, unless the target is also armed with a gun.
Why should suppressors be generally available if their only uses are against non-civilian targets?

You are wrong. My video is about sound suppressors (silencers or mufflers), not flash suppressors. They are useful anytime a person wants to reduce the noise of their firearm. A good silencer will reduce noise by 30 decibels. This is a 1000 fold decrease in intensity or an 8 times reduction in loudness. They can prevent hearing damage for shooters and bystanders alike. They also greatly reduce noise pollution near rifle ranges.

Silencers were invented by a civilian for civilian use over 100 years ago. It took a long time for the military to get interested in them.

If you are saying that I said they were pointless for any hunting application, then you must have been reading some other post, I never said anything like that. In fact hunters can benefit greatly with a good silencer since they frequently do not use hearing protection while hunting.

Where do you get your information to back up the silly claims you are making? Can you even name just even one time when a registered silencer was used by the legal owner to shoot at a person during a violent crime? Your willfully ignorant attitude is precisely the kind that prevails in my state government and the main reason I am making this video. Silencer in WA is a victimless crime and I want to change it.

Ranb

 

[dtugg]

Well, ...

I have not seen your video yet, so I cannot comment on it.

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.

Silencers are not banned by the federal government.

 

[Crossbow]

Silencers are not banned by the federal government.

True! Federal law does not explicitly ban silencers.

However (and a big "however" here), silencers are extensively regulated by Federal law.

For example:

> One is supposed to obtain legal permission from the federal government before equipping a firearm with a silencer.
> Nonimmigrant aliens cannot legally import any unregistered firearms (including firerams with silencers) into the USA.
> If someone uses a silencer equipped firearm to commit a federal crime, then that person will face a much stiffer prision sentence than he would if the firearm was not equipped with a silencer.
> And so on.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

If you are saying that I said they were pointless for any hunting application, then you must have been reading some other post, I never said anything like that. In fact hunters can benefit greatly with a good silencer since they frequently do not use hearing protection while hunting.

This is exactly why I want one. I need to be able to hear deer walking through the woods. I have tried those hearing aids that cancel out muzzle blasts but they just don't work for hunting. I need to be able to hear and shoot without going deaf.