toddinjax wrote: I seem to remember (hearing a long time ago) that in Massachusetts simply having a silencer in your possession will get you ten years. Certainly a good law, but also one you don't want to break.
Please explain why this is a "good law".
Really? You can't figure out for yourself how a silencer could be used on a handheld firearm that would warrant such a law? I'll be respectful enough to suggest that you are merely "playing" dumb for some reason.
Not "playing dumb" at all. And I was naively expecting some kind of reasoned argument on your part, perhaps dealing with the following points.
- If silencers are legal in England while virtually all handguns and many rifles are outlawed, at least some virulently anti-gun people don't see them as a threat. What do we know about the dangers of silencers that they don't?
- When is the last time you heard of a crime in which a silencer was used?
- Do you believe that the passage of legislation outlawing silencers has had the effect of actually eliminating them from existence? Unlike similar legislation outlawing, for example, guns in Chicago or alcohol or drugs?
IMHO the outlawing of silencers is just another feel-good and totally ineffectual attempt at dealing with the problem of violence in the U.S., and is no different from most of the other firearm restrictions. It's a bandaid approach to a gaping wound, and it's not even placed on the wound.
Man oh man, it's happened again. I find myself entirely agreeing with FredB on this occasion. Must be a sign of the Apocalypse or something... But yeah, any law restricting or even preventing suppressor use on firearms or airguns is absurd. Just as alcoholics and just happy drinkers had no difficulty finding booze during prohibition, dope smokers have little trouble finding weed today, and suppressors are being used all the while by criminals as they please without regard for legality. Why would a fellow worry - if he's going to murder someone, doing so with an illegal device is the least of his concerns should he get caught. For legitimate users who just want to shoot quietly I don't see any reason to fear suppressors, except if one believes the Hollywood nonsense about them making guns whisper quiet. Even a .22” shooting subsonic rounds isn't getting any quieter than 100dB with the very best suppressor design. Not exactly going to make it tempting to do target practice in urban settings.
The UK and New Zealand examples are excellent, demonstrating conclusively that even in places with SEVERE firearms restrictions, which came into effect under ENORMOUS public pressure due to media hype, suppressors are not only allowed but even encouraged as hearing protection and as community minded, good neighbour type devices. Further the French seem to have no trouble finding and using suppressors, often costing $50 or less for quite usable and quiet devices. The semi-prohibition on suppressors in the USA has contributed mostly to the profits of manufacturers, and of course the $200 per stamp 'tax' makes a tidy sum for the federal government with the tens of thousands of stamps being bought each year. Even the finest commercial suppressor takes no more than an hour of machine time to build, often far less, so retail costs of $1,000 or more per unit are absurd. It's no wonder so many enthusiasts (witness silencertalk.com) resort to making their own, once a $200 stamp is in hand. Here in Canada we don't even have that option, so it's noisy shooting for everyone. YAY! :[
Gwhite wrote:Laws against the possession of silencers are only obeyed by the law abiding.
If someone decides to shoot somebody in a deliberate, premeditated fashion, with enough advanced planning to go and get a silencer for the task, they have already demonstrated that they have no regard for one of the most universal moral no-nos in society. Adding another minor infraction to the list of their crimes isn't going to slow them down one bit.
Prohibitions against silencers are like most other gun laws. They affect the honest citizens FAR more than the criminals.
Seriously off topic but this man gets it. One of the few cases where NZ gun law is surprisingly reasonable.
Nice to not fry your ears whilst shooting, too.
If you shoot out a window with the muzzle inside the window frame with a silencer you get a double silencer effect - excellent for sniping rabbits off the lawn. Rabbit when cooked slow is really pretty good.
As for winding down your airgun - I wouldn't bother. They do get quieter, but with a decreased velocity brings longer locktimes for the airgun.
I finally threw in the towel and adjusted the velocity. The gun as it was sold to me was shooting R10's at 530 fps, higher than the 508 to 525 fps window that Steyr recommends for this gun, so it needed adjustment anyway. I just kept lowering it until it was at a comfortable, "backyard friendly" decibel level, and ended up with it at 450 fps. Since I'm used to shooting my IZH 46 at 360 fps, this is still a good leap up in velocity for me, and plenty fast enough to still knock down rams at 18 yards when the Silhouette bug bites. This is almost exactly what my K58 was shooting anyway, and it was always enough. It smoothed out the gun some and still groups as tight as ever.
Adjustment was ridiculously simple, way easier than any of the other options I was considering, and I'll get more shots per cylinder to boot. All in all, very satisfied.
Thanks to everyone for your suggestions and encouragement,
