Firearm silencer footage

[Soapy Sam]

I didn't. I found it rather interesting- more so than most JREF gun threads anyway.
As a totally non- gun savvy person, I did indeed accept the sort of TV sound effect Man from Uncle silencers as being realistic. I also concluded (from that) that a silencer must make a gun far less effective due to restrictions on normal gas expansion.
So it had not occurred to me that a sound suppressor would be used by hunters as the stopping power of the gun would be decreased- and after all, a hunter may fire only one shot in a whole day.
It seems a bit odd to me that a legislature would permit the weapons, yet ban the sound suppressor. I'd agree with most other Brits that I neither want , nor see any reason for the possession of such weapons, but that's not the issue. The issue is US (WA) law, which by the OP account seems a bit wierd to me.

 

[Ranb]

I'd agree with most other Brits that I neither want , nor see any reason for the possession of such weapons, but that's not the issue. The issue is US (WA) law, which by the OP account seems a bit wierd to me.

Why would you not want a device that makes a firearm safer to use? This applies to firearms used by police, military and civilians, none of whom are allowed to use them in Washington State.

Ranb

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

And yet another example of how deluded people are about themselves and believing that they are qualified, responsible gun owners who know what they are doing!

In great detail you explain to us how you were TOTALLY unable to identify your target, aimed where you "hoped" was on target and had ZERO qualms about discharging a deadly weapon! Congratulations - You are yet another poster child for why people shouldn't have guns!

Settle down, Mary. I KNEW it was a deer. I wouldn't have fired if I hadn't KNOWN it was a deer. I was going for a heart shot. Shot placement is different if the deer is quartering away or quartering towards. I saw the deer's silhouette. I could see his antlers.

You were "hunting" You EXPECTED to see a a pray animal, the one you were looking for - a deer. WHAT IF that was another hunter, or a kid out early morning playing cowboys and indians or a photographer birding? What if you MISSED? What was behind this deer where your bullet would have gone? How do you know that while you were sitting there waiting another hunter didn't line up opposite you and that is why that dear was sneaking through the woods coming your way? Just like people look up at the sky and the clouds and see bunnies, you saw what you wanted to! This time you were right, but based on your description of the events it was 50/50 and as a "responsible" gun owner the ONLY thing you see wrong with this scenario is "I didn't get to put the meat in the freezer". Nothing wrong with pulling the trigger when you're not clear
what you are shooting at or what's around.

Here, you were expecting to find an irresponsible hunter so that's what you read. Another hunter would have been wearing orange and would not have had antlers. I also knew where the other hunters were hunting that day. I took the precaution of letting them all know where I would be. This was on private property. A kid out playing "early morning cowboys and indians" would not have been a mile back in the thick pines. He also would not have been there the same time as me. I clearly began my story with, "One evening a few years ago..." I didn't mention what was behind the deer because it wasn't relevant. You assumed that I didn't know or care what was beyond my target. Since you are curious, the food plot ran down a hill towards a creek. The only thing beyond the deer was some trees and a large hillside. I knew exactly what I was shooting at and what was around us. I was unsure about which way he was facing, that's all. It was a safe and responsible shot.

By the way this whole thread reminds me of "I SHOULD be able to have nuclear weapons it just sucks that Coppertone Doesn't make SPF 30000. In other words, yet another TOTALLY lame excuse for why another gun nut acting like a spoiled child who wants their toys and damn the responsibilities.

Please, tell us how you REALLY feel about guns.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Here, it's against the law to hunt after dusk and your story is the reason why.

Here, the law says you can shoot one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. This was about 45 minutes after sunset. Each year I print out a list of official sunrise and sunset times for each weekend of hunting. My source is the US Naval Observatory.
http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/data-services/rs-one-day-us

ETA: I know very experienced and responsible hunters who have lost a deer in bright daylight. It happens. We try to minimize the risk of it, but it still happens.

 

[Ranb]

My updated video after listening to sadhatter's advice. I think they are better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBqn8zi0wK8 part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_M46TeOTgs part 2

And some other stuff I shot while in Vegas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPWaHx0DXmQ Ruger 10/22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkIhNtWCz6c Walther P-22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk-I9UF2HY4 458 Socom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lnBE9H_d8I 338 Remington Ultra Maagnum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69lxfhniL2g 308 Winchester
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEQoXmoYVfo 510 whisper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ5_UJTe1Z8 AR-15’s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGoPE7VQ9GY Nagant revolver

and a radio control model of a C-17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ZWQu8QaCA

Ranb

 

[Dragonrock]

One thing I noticed, in the scenes where you are facing the camera and speaking the sound is not in stereo. It's only coming out of the right channel. Although I suspect it's not really a problem unless you are using headphones.

 

[brodski]

Why would you not want a device that makes a firearm safer to use?

he said that he didn't want the firearm, and without a firearm the silencer is pretty useless

But as I said before, silencers (for legal weapons) are legal in the UK- the primary reason they are legal is that they are treated as a safety device.

 

[Ranb]

One thing I noticed, in the scenes where you are facing the camera and speaking the sound is not in stereo. It's only coming out of the right channel. Although I suspect it's not really a problem unless you are using headphones.

It is an equipment problem. When I have to choose between new computer stuff and more gun powder or paying another $200 tax to add to my silencer collection, guess who wins.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

he said that he didn't want the firearm, and without a firearm the silencer is pretty useless

But as I said before, silencers (for legal weapons) are legal in the UK- the primary reason they are legal is that they are treated as a safety device.

I thought he was speaking of silencers when he said "weapons"; silencers are controlled as such in the USA. I wish they were thought of as a safety device. They are the only mufflers in the USA that are not AFAIK.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

The range I shoot at is being sued by Kitsap county over land use restrictions, noise and alleged safety hazards like bullets leaving the range. I was asked by the club to make something that would reduce the noise of my 50 bmg rifle. The muzzle brake vents lots of gas/noise to the sides and is far louder than other sporting firearms. I built a large box into which the rifle barrel can be insert to help suppress the noise. Technically it is not a silencer, but it does reduce noise without being attached to the firearm. But I have run into a legal hurdle. Not only does WA law ban silencers, it bans any device used to suppress the noise of a firearm.

I wrote a few letters asking for clarification of the law and was told by the county DA that using any such device was illegal in the state. The DA's letter in part said;

The statute declares "any device" to suppress sound illegal. That's a very broad statement. Although I can say that pursuing someone for testing a device like the one you describe would rank pretty low on our list of priorities, it sounds like it would be technically illegal.

I cannot be arrested for breaking RCW 9.41.250(c) unless it is witnessed by the police, but I am not about to risk it or ask club members to take the same risk either. Not when the club is being sued by the county in part for noise complaints.

Here is a link to the law; http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.250

The bill to allow silencer use is supposed to be introduced again in January when the next session in Olympia starts. But this bill only makes exceptions for federally registered silencers. The ATF does not control or register berms and other structures like large downrange baffles, so they would still be banned by WA state law even if House Bill 1604 becomes law.

It would be nice if 9.41.250(c) was just eliminated instead of amended. It would be best for all involved as it is a really bad law.

Ranb

 

[H'ethetheth]

So, first off, let me just say that as a European pinko hippie, what I get from this is that you want to be able to play with your guns without going deaf.

Now, given that this is nothing out of the ordinary, I agree with you that this law seems pretty strange.
However, I have a few questions:
You say that the suppressed guns aren't much more silent than the unsuppressed ones down range, which, if I understand correctly, would make them no more practical to criminals. Except, to establish this, I'd need to know how loud they are down range. The only thing I can conclude is that bullet noise will probably be the dominant source at that distance.
For it to be more practical for criminal use, I'd think that the far field sound reduction would have to be significant, i.e. about 20 dB, which, from your data, can't be precisely established, but it sounds like this kind of attenuation isn't far fetched.

Plus, the 160 dB you measured on the bolt-action rifle don't tell me much unless you tell me the distance this was measured at.

 

[Ranb]

Not only do I want to "play" with my guns without going deaf, I want to do it without going to jail. If it was just a matter of protecting my hearing, I would just use hearing protection which is what I normally do anyway, even when using a silencer. But it is more than protecting only my ears. A silencer reduces noise thus protecting everyone's hearing. Imagine driving down the road and a large motorcycle with open pipes pulls along side; the deafening roar may make you appreciate mufflers of any type much more. A firing line filled with suppressed rifles is less likely to be the cause of noise complaints from those outside of the range

I don't recall saying that the suppressed guns were not any less noisy downrange; I believe I said they are still loud due to the bullet flight noise and to a lesser extent the muzzle blast. I think bullet noise is the dominant noise downrange.

I did not actually measure the noise as I do not have access to the proper noise meter. My estimate of noise levels was an educated guess based on the rifle, silencer and noise meter data from similar suppressed firearms. Noise levels are typically measured about one meter away from the muzzle as far as I know. Some high powered rifles with muzzle brakes attached will overwhelm the microphone requiring that it be placed farther back by the shooter's ear; or so I have read.

I was downrange behind a berm recently when a hunting rifle was shot past my location. The shock wave created by the bullet was more significant than the unsuppressed muzzle blast 100 yards away.

Ranb

 

[Anerystos]

Why don't you just get a bow and some arrows? Silent, just as deadly and perfectly legal.

 

[Ranb]

I have a bow. Not just as deadly; unless you are capable of hitting a small target 50 yards away with it. Remember, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. It takes much longer to achieve a high level of proficiency with a bow. That is something I have yet to achieve.

I can never understand the resistance to making a firearm safer to use. No one here can point to any violent crime problems caused by registered silencers in my state, so why not support their use?

For what it is worth, I sent over 100 copies of my video to members of the House in Olympia WA. As far as I know, they made very little impact. But if I was able to convince any of them that silencers are legal to make and own in the USA and WA, then it was not a total failure.

I have been able to make far better progress on my quest to make silencer use legal by contacting police associations and convincing them to take a neutral stance on this gun control issue. Cease Fire Washington has yet to take a stand, but if I can get them to support the bill or remain neutral, I might be able to get any future bill onto the House floor for a vote.

Ranb

 

[Anerystos]

I have a bow. Not just as deadly; unless you are capable of hitting a small target 50 yards away with it.
Ranb

I can. I've put six consecutive arrows into an 8 inch disk at 80 yards.

At 50 yards the question is whether I get all six in it every time. And I'm no Olympic archer.

 

[Ranb]

That is nice, much better than I can do. I still prefer a firearm to the bow. You ever get grief about using a string silencer? Probably not. Unless it is from a purist who insists on the absolute maximum velocity from the arrow.

Ranb

 

[brenn]

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).

The only suppressors I have personally used were some old ones in the 80's on some 9mm submachineguns. They were perfectly comfortable with no ear protection - far quiter than a .22 LR. I imagine with 20+ years of technology, and consider I was using some cheap ones on MAC-10's, I'd bet there are some really quiet ones now.

They are perfectly legal here and I can go to the gun shop and pick one up, after paying the $200 to the feds and waiting for paperwork, but they don't really interest me - I just use hearing protection. On the other hand, there is no good reason for them to be illegal - typical government reaction to things that look scary (mainly in the movies).

 

[Cicero]

You should contact Robert Silvers at rsilvers@photomosaic.com

Several years ago he made a video ranking different manufacturer silencers by their db's using fairly expensive sound metering devices. His results did cause a fire storm on Subguns and Sturmgewehr, as he was a Johnny come lately to the party.

 

[Skwinty]

I remember a movie where the bad guy uses a 2 litre plastic soda bottle as a silencer.
When are those going to be illegal as that is more sinister that a lathed piece of steel.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Imagine driving down the road and a large motorcycle with open pipes pulls along side; the deafening roar may make you appreciate mufflers of any type much more.

Yeah, it's a public service.