I think I am about to take the dive and buy one. Right now to get the tag and trust approved is just under a year. The one I am considering is found on this link. Any thoughts?
https://rebelsilencers.com/dfndr9
Printable View
I think I am about to take the dive and buy one. Right now to get the tag and trust approved is just under a year. The one I am considering is found on this link. Any thoughts?
https://rebelsilencers.com/dfndr9
It's something I have little practical knowledge of...I've used them, and it is kind of fun to shoot without ear protection, but it's just never been a high priority for me...:zzz:...Ben
Do you have some contracts you are waiting to execute?
“Leave the gun, take the cannoli.” Unfortunately, the suppressor would be easily traceable if you are licensed.
Yes I need to fill out the ATF forms, get fingerprinted and I am preparing the trust documents myself. Once those are done I will have my dealer order the unit and wait almost a year for the ATF to clear me and issue the stamp. I am only doing this hedging my bets that if our friends on the other aisle take over all this kind of stuff will be toast..............
Well like most post around here these days and there's no interest in the subject matter of what I posted about and about the only thing that goes on is a couple of three people that constantly Feud with each each other in the politics section a section that I refuse to contribute to any more because it's utterly ridiculous so I guess there's where I am
You asked for thoughts on buying a “silencer,” and I gave mine. You did not like them. That’s OK.
I need some more info. Does use of a silencer leave any trace on the bullet fired? I just don't know.
My old department had a few silencers for SWAT use. They were relatively quiet, but not as quiet as I thought they would be. They were on semi-auto handguns, but I'm not sure if that had anything to do with it.
Hunter
Tom, I have been thinking of getting one, too. It's not real high on my list of priorities, so "thinking about it" is as far as I've gotten. From what I've read, it shouldn't take as long as you indicate.
The murderer in Virginia Beach reportedly used one, and people in the building still heard and recognized him shooting and coming their way.
They don't "silence" the sound of the shot, they just suppress it. They can make a big difference it how loud it is though. The use if the term "silencer" is a misnomer. I once fired a full-auto Uzi with a suppressor. The sound of the bolt opening and closing was louder than the sound of the shot.
Below is an article on the Virginia Beach mass murder and about use of the shooter’s suppressor. Earlier reports I read quoted people in the building saying they “heard the shooting” and barricaded themselves in their offices. The killer was reported to have had two weapons, so it is possible one had a suppressor and the other not such that the non-suppressed weapon was being heard. We will have to wait for further info on what happened and the big “why” this guy went bezerk.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/did-...nage-1.7314182
As Mike says, the action of the gun and the shell casings dropping are a give away to knowledgable folks.
A little known author once wrote this in one of his unread books::whisper:...BenQuote:
I recall a particular rifle, built on a Sako action in .300 Win Mag, equipped with a noise suppressor which ran the full length of the barrel...It was topped with a fourth-generation nightvision scope, and coated with a material which did not reflect infrared light...
This rifle was being evaluated by the above-mentioned and unnamed man for an undisclosed government agency, together with a ghillie suit also invisible to infrared...He, this author and a local unnamed police chief will always disavow any knowledge that this rifle was tested on a local golf course after midnight, and that the only sound heard from the rifle as it was fired was that of the firing pin striking the primer...I also claim no knowledge of verifying the quarter minute-of-angle groups of which the rifle was capable at 1,000 meters...
Some guys even use suppressors for hunting :shrug: I don't see where I would ever use one unless maybe i was target shooting indoors. I looks like a pita to clean but i guess I thought it would cost more than $400.
Unless of course this is a gateway accessory to a full blown class 3 machine gun. Then I think you should do it:pimpgrin:
"I recall a particular rifle, built on a Sako action in .300 Win Mag, equipped with a noise suppressor which ran the full length of the barrel...It was topped with a fourth-generation nightvision scope, and coated with a material which did not reflect infrared light...
This rifle was being evaluated by the above-mentioned and unnamed man for an undisclosed government agency, together with a ghillie suit also invisible to infrared...He, this author and a local unnamed police chief will always disavow any knowledge that this rifle was tested on a local golf course after midnight, and that the only sound heard from the rifle as it was fired was that of the firing pin striking the primer...I also claim no knowledge of verifying the quarter minute-of-angle groups of which the rifle was capable at 1,000 meters..."
Inquiring minds want to know more. How much does this weigh? What kind of scope? What hole?:rolleyes:
Imparting such information, especially on a public forum, would imply that the disavowed intel may or may not exist, and that the shooter(s) and/or witnesses may or may not have been present at the alleged yet unconfirmed event...Such disclosure could trigger a late night visit from representatives of the undisclosed government agency resulting in an uncomfortable question-and-answer session ending with the subject's never-ending sorrow at having broached the inquiry...
This post may or may not self destruct in five seconds...:run:...[signed] Someone who looks like but probably isn't Ben
Ok, hypothetically :wary: if such a rifle were to exist, are we saying the bbl would be somehow perforated along its entire lenght? :blind:
I'm curious why you would need one?
I've been wondering lately why explosives get lumped with guns for the gun control argument. You have to admit the discussion deteriorates when it gets there. I dont know which side of the argument needs explosives more.
Our alphabet-oriented government can take at least part of the blame by letting the BATF become the BATFE with the broadening of their umbrella to cover explosives...Its roots lie in the Bureau of Prohibition, leading to Eliot Ness and his "untouchable" Alcohol Tax Unit, which eventually assumed authority for collecting tobacco taxes...Adding firearms to the mix inevitably led to the bright idea of including explosives...
Next up is the addition of Internet Addicted Diesel Truck Fans since they're trying to control all the traditionally fun things for guys...I fully expect the man-hating Hillary Clinton to be named Director of the new BATFEIADTF...:party:...Ben
The previously mentioned unknown author of the unread book I quoted would probably rather have you buy your own copy so he can make an ill-gotten buck and spread his fame...Rumor has it that the barrel length was optimized for stealth as well as accuracy, but you didn't hear me say that...:uhuh:...Ben
I get the ATF part but I'm talking about the guy who's only interest in the gun control argument is making sure the gooberment doesn't take away the .270 his grandpa gave him. Someone convinced him to support Joe's right to a Claymore. I suspect the NRA. Seems like an odd hill for the average gun owner to die on is all.
And you do realize discussion boards were invented so we wouldn't have to read the book, right?:angel:
The only person I remember equivocating the right to own a bird gun with having the right to your own fully armed F/A-18 in your driveway was Fulltimer, and he only said it to start an argument...But if the 2A were interpreted to expand John Q. Citizen's right to a pump Remington as being the same as his right to nuclear airburst devices, would the NRA, which supports strict adherence to 2A rights be negligent in their duty if they did not support it fully?...Personally I draw the line at Joe with a Claymore though, the guy is a lawyer after all, and dangerous enough as just a mouthpiece...
The unknown author will be disappointed to know why his sales are so dismal until he can figure out how to get paid by the word on discussion boards...:doh:...Ben
How long a barrel is required for a, say 80 grain 243 . To reach max velocity ?. And, if such a velocity could be obtained in say 30 inches of projectile travel, could the next 10 -15 inches of barrel length have the afore mentioned holes with the silencer attached over that portion . And if that was done would it actually silence the rifle ?
A handloading manual could give you the ballistic data on the .243...I'm no manufacturer of such devices, but it's my guess that your proposed suppressor would dampen the decibels to a certain degree...However, the trick in noise suppression in firearms is dampening the effects of the supersonic projectile as it exceeds the so-called sound barrier...This is why the great majority of suppressors are used with subsonic ammunition...IE: .22 LR, 9MM Parabellum or .45 ACP...:whisper:...Ben
Speed of sound at sea level at 70 degrees is 1100ft/sec. Most rifles exceed that easily. A competent whip snapper can get that crack by exceeding the speed of sound, but I was never able to accomplish that singular distinction despite many attempts trying.
I have learned much about suppressors on this forum. Kudos to the crew.
Hunter
Maxmum velocity and the lengths some people will go. :eek: Check this thread out:
https://www.longrangehunting.com/thr...-brass.220747/
I consider myself a gun nut. I can barely wrap my head around some of this stuff. :smokin: And there's a suppressor page there as well.
In some of my recent research on naval rifles I read of the common practice in years past of making seagoing gun barrels as long as possible thinking that this one factor increased range and accuracy...As scientific study took hold, it was discovered that at some point in each case extra length was detrimental, and actually worked against the desired result...When the guys with the slide rules took over design, efficiency in battle became the watchword at sea, but the beautiful designs on the outside of the barrels disappeared...
One of my go-to sources on ballistics has always been "Hatcher's Notebook"...Some of his research is approaching 100 years old, and still valid...:boom:...Ben
Well this may be all for naught a bill has been introduced in Congress to outlaw them....................