MrDontPlay
New member
^ but those are usually the coolest toys.
Is a silencer worth the having?
- Thread starter ftballgod
- Start date
Too each his own...
I have had plenty of just for fun guns so how people spend their money is their business. The suppressed guns I fired where not comfortable to shoot. No balance at all and to forward heavy to hold on target. I wouldn't teach someone to shoot with one because the gun was very difficult to manage. As for hearing, put plugs in and a headset and you won't hear anything from anywhere. Defiantly wouldn't use for home defense, just not balance and manageable to me.
But if you want one get one, just not for me.
I have had plenty of just for fun guns so how people spend their money is their business. The suppressed guns I fired where not comfortable to shoot. No balance at all and to forward heavy to hold on target. I wouldn't teach someone to shoot with one because the gun was very difficult to manage. As for hearing, put plugs in and a headset and you won't hear anything from anywhere. Defiantly wouldn't use for home defense, just not balance and manageable to me.
But if you want one get one, just not for me.
In the movies you sometimes see a suppressor on a revolver - 
Obviously, whomever puts those two items together don't know anything about firearms.
Having owned at least one suppressed weapon, (MAC-10 .45) I can tell you that I didn't think it suppressed much of the racket that came from the gun firing at 1200+ rounds per minute. Certainly, not like the movies. Suppressors on pistols may look cool but they throw the balance off considerably. The one suppressed firearm that I was impressed with was a Ruger MK II with an integral suppressed barrel.
As far as acquiring one. the CLEO sign off can be a real headache if the CLEO doesn't think civilians should own such items. And there are the other little things that you find out about ownership. For instance, only the person named on the ATF form can have access to it. If you move across the street or intend to move intrastate you have to ask permission and fill out forms before you can do so. There is some leeway but it's a real pain in the ass to have to deal with the ATF and everything takes forever.
Obviously, whomever puts those two items together don't know anything about firearms.Having owned at least one suppressed weapon, (MAC-10 .45) I can tell you that I didn't think it suppressed much of the racket that came from the gun firing at 1200+ rounds per minute. Certainly, not like the movies. Suppressors on pistols may look cool but they throw the balance off considerably. The one suppressed firearm that I was impressed with was a Ruger MK II with an integral suppressed barrel.
As far as acquiring one. the CLEO sign off can be a real headache if the CLEO doesn't think civilians should own such items. And there are the other little things that you find out about ownership. For instance, only the person named on the ATF form can have access to it. If you move across the street or intend to move intrastate you have to ask permission and fill out forms before you can do so. There is some leeway but it's a real pain in the ass to have to deal with the ATF and everything takes forever.
Edward429451
Moderator
Suppressors are way cool and very useful. When I think suppressed weapon I think MKII and small game hunting and no muff practice. 22 pistols are pretty darn loud and it would be a joy to have a quiet 22 pistol.
Not on a self defense pistol though, 'cept maybe for the full auto guys, lol.
Not on a self defense pistol though, 'cept maybe for the full auto guys, lol.
Would you say the same thing about engine mufflers? It is only because people are conditioned to believe that guns are supposed to be loud and those around them should wear hearing protection instead of taking some sort of measures to reduce the noise of the machine (firearm) making it.
Expecting any machine to be loud enough to damage a person's hearing is nuts. If there is a simple and effective way to reduce the noise, then it should be acceptable to use it and not call it limited value.
Ranb
Weight added; 1.5 pounds (15%). Length added; 5 inches (15%). Change in handling; improved/minor. Reliability affect; none. Price increase; $250 (25%).
Weight added; 3.6 ounces (17%). Length added; 5.5 inches (45%). Change in handling; improved/minor. Reliability affect; improved. Price increase $240 (48%).
BEST ACCESSORIES EVER!
Ranb
Last edited:
Your second example bears out the validity of my observation once the math is corrected.
The length was increased by 87%--pretty close to doubled which is quite obvious from the picture. The gun is 6.3" long without the silencer. With the silencer it's 11.8" long--about twice as long. Consistent with my observation.
The weight increase is 24% (3.6 oz is 24% of 15 oz) It would likely be a bit more of a significant increase for a centerfire suppressor per the OP's question, but even so I don't think there's much question that hanging an additional weight, equal to about a quarter of the total weight of the gun without the silencer, off the muzzle would "change its handling characteristics significantly".
As far as the price, unless you paid $500 for your Walther P22, I believe your math is off again. I'm guessing you paid about $250 for it which means that the silencer nearly doubled the price of the overall package.
You indicate that reliability was affected (improved). Reliability is much less likely to be affected in fixed barrel pistols than in recoil operated centerfire pistols with floating barrels, but regardless, my observation was merely that adding a suppressor could affect reliability and your comment indicates that my observation was certainly correct although in this case the effect was positive.
Your first example is not applicable to the context of the question. Handguns: General Handgun Forum. Silencers don't add as much percentage to the weight or length because rifles are much larger and heavier than handguns. Handling characteristics are less likely to be affected for the same reason. In addition, reliability tends to be less of an issue because there aren't a lot of recoil operated rifles with floating barrels. It appears your math needs some work in this example too.
Sadly, you missed the entire point of my post. You saw my comment as being a dig on silencers--the MAIN point was actually that mufflers are a TERRIBLE analogy for handgun silencers for the reasons I pointed out and others I didn't.
Some other reasons mufflers are not at all like silencers: cars come with mufflers already installed by the manufacturer, mufflers don't require special paperwork or governmental fees and owning a car with one doesn't place any special legal obligations on the owner. In addition, mufflers and their use are legal in all 50 states--everywhere in the world, in fact--which means I can drive or transport my muffled car anywhere I want without having to read up on the laws about mufflers or getting a specially licensed person involved to help me deal with the legalities of taking a car with a muffler on it into another country or state. Nor are silencers, generally speaking, as effective as mufflers. Mufflers virtually always reduce engine noise to safe levels. Generally even pleasant levels. It's not uncommon for silencers on centerfire firearms to not reduce the noise level down to the point where hearing protection can be ignored.
The OP's question was actually whether silencers are worth having. I'd say that they are worth having in a number of situations or even if a person just wants one badly enough. But that's not nearly the same thing as saying that they're as simple, effective or practical as mufflers. If mufflers were even remotely similar to handgun silencers in terms of practicality, effectiveness or simplicity of ownership, then EVERYONE would have one. Like mufflers they would come standard on every applicable purchase and the vast majority of purchasers would use them every time they shot without ever even thinking about them.
The length was increased by 87%--pretty close to doubled which is quite obvious from the picture. The gun is 6.3" long without the silencer. With the silencer it's 11.8" long--about twice as long. Consistent with my observation.
The weight increase is 24% (3.6 oz is 24% of 15 oz) It would likely be a bit more of a significant increase for a centerfire suppressor per the OP's question, but even so I don't think there's much question that hanging an additional weight, equal to about a quarter of the total weight of the gun without the silencer, off the muzzle would "change its handling characteristics significantly".
As far as the price, unless you paid $500 for your Walther P22, I believe your math is off again. I'm guessing you paid about $250 for it which means that the silencer nearly doubled the price of the overall package.
You indicate that reliability was affected (improved). Reliability is much less likely to be affected in fixed barrel pistols than in recoil operated centerfire pistols with floating barrels, but regardless, my observation was merely that adding a suppressor could affect reliability and your comment indicates that my observation was certainly correct although in this case the effect was positive.
Your first example is not applicable to the context of the question. Handguns: General Handgun Forum. Silencers don't add as much percentage to the weight or length because rifles are much larger and heavier than handguns. Handling characteristics are less likely to be affected for the same reason. In addition, reliability tends to be less of an issue because there aren't a lot of recoil operated rifles with floating barrels. It appears your math needs some work in this example too.
Sadly, you missed the entire point of my post. You saw my comment as being a dig on silencers--the MAIN point was actually that mufflers are a TERRIBLE analogy for handgun silencers for the reasons I pointed out and others I didn't.
Some other reasons mufflers are not at all like silencers: cars come with mufflers already installed by the manufacturer, mufflers don't require special paperwork or governmental fees and owning a car with one doesn't place any special legal obligations on the owner. In addition, mufflers and their use are legal in all 50 states--everywhere in the world, in fact--which means I can drive or transport my muffled car anywhere I want without having to read up on the laws about mufflers or getting a specially licensed person involved to help me deal with the legalities of taking a car with a muffler on it into another country or state. Nor are silencers, generally speaking, as effective as mufflers. Mufflers virtually always reduce engine noise to safe levels. Generally even pleasant levels. It's not uncommon for silencers on centerfire firearms to not reduce the noise level down to the point where hearing protection can be ignored.
The OP's question was actually whether silencers are worth having. I'd say that they are worth having in a number of situations or even if a person just wants one badly enough. But that's not nearly the same thing as saying that they're as simple, effective or practical as mufflers. If mufflers were even remotely similar to handgun silencers in terms of practicality, effectiveness or simplicity of ownership, then EVERYONE would have one. Like mufflers they would come standard on every applicable purchase and the vast majority of purchasers would use them every time they shot without ever even thinking about them.
Sharpsdressed Man
Moderator
...and yet it is still a muffler. Let's not think that car muffler have no ill affect on the internal combustion engine. The muffler on an ICE creates back pressure on the exhaust flow which affects efficiency negatively. Negative efficiency is demonstrated in power and fuel costs. These affects are constant and the extra expense adds up over the years; not to mention they have to be replaced every so often @ hundreds of dollars for parts and labor.
Drivers have calculated that the benefit of a muffler is greater than the liabilities. Some shooters have made the same calculations. In fact, as with automotive mufflers, what some believe are liabilities, other do not recognize as such at all. My suppressors add 7.5 inches to the overall gun length. So what? They each add 15-ish oz (they are stainless so they weight more than the others) to my pistols. I don't care. It's a gun, not a purse.
Perhaps the suppressor is not ideal for all circumstances. It's a good thing they come with threads so I can take them off when necessary.
Sometimes ther are cycling issues with some Browning style action pistols. That has mostly been addressed by the addition of a Nielsen device/piston/LID. My suppressors were tuned by the manufacturer in collaboration with HK specifically for the pistols they ride on. There are no reliability issues period.
Drivers have calculated that the benefit of a muffler is greater than the liabilities. Some shooters have made the same calculations. In fact, as with automotive mufflers, what some believe are liabilities, other do not recognize as such at all. My suppressors add 7.5 inches to the overall gun length. So what? They each add 15-ish oz (they are stainless so they weight more than the others) to my pistols. I don't care. It's a gun, not a purse.
Perhaps the suppressor is not ideal for all circumstances. It's a good thing they come with threads so I can take them off when necessary.
Sometimes ther are cycling issues with some Browning style action pistols. That has mostly been addressed by the addition of a Nielsen device/piston/LID. My suppressors were tuned by the manufacturer in collaboration with HK specifically for the pistols they ride on. There are no reliability issues period.
Last edited:
Correct me if i'm wrong but looking at the walther two posts above mine, it looks like the supressor is blocking the line of sight. That has been corrected on the other gun in the photo by adding a different means of sighting.
If the primary means of sighting the weapon has been blocked that would render it fairly "useless" to me. Maybe not to everyone though. In this case the liabilities do not outweigh the benefits.
Off topic, but the comparison to the car muffler, I'm gonna agree with JohnKSa. As expensive as they are when they need to be replaced, they dont cost what a supressor costs in relation to the gun. And contrary to popular belief, most modern exhaust systems dont restrict airflow enough to affect power and fuel economy to a measureable degree. There were some restriction problems in the 80's but they have long since been corrected.
If the primary means of sighting the weapon has been blocked that would render it fairly "useless" to me. Maybe not to everyone though. In this case the liabilities do not outweigh the benefits.
Off topic, but the comparison to the car muffler, I'm gonna agree with JohnKSa. As expensive as they are when they need to be replaced, they dont cost what a supressor costs in relation to the gun. And contrary to popular belief, most modern exhaust systems dont restrict airflow enough to affect power and fuel economy to a measureable degree. There were some restriction problems in the 80's but they have long since been corrected.
Sharpsdressed Man
Moderator
We all find our remedies for what ails us, and you are correct: the sights are obstructed on the the Walther, with that particular suppressor. However, using the gun as-is, and superimposing the 3-dot sights on targets out to 25 yards, and I can hit a 6" metal disc reliably. I just bring the gun up under the target so the sights rise to where the target is, and touch off the shot. The top part of the target is just above the sights/can, so I know I am aligned left/right. If I can hit something as small as a 6" target, I can stay on a silhouette torso at the same range or closer. Another option is to just use a smaller can, or bigger sights, like on the green 1911 I poster further up the thread. Oh, and I also have a Laser Devices laser module for the Walther, but it is only useful on dark days or at night. It goes on and off with little to no change in zero.
Really? A muffler? Really?
People can buy whatever they want, thats their business. But last time I checked mufflers are required by law. Suppressor are prohibited by law, unless you get special exceptions.
I for the life of me can not find one reason why I would own a suppressor. Certainly couldn't conceal carry. For hunting I'm in the "as compact and as light as possible" crowd. So no use there. Whats left?
If people want them fine, buy them, use them, enjoy them. But lets not dream up fairy tales to justify them. They are what they are.
People can buy whatever they want, thats their business. But last time I checked mufflers are required by law. Suppressor are prohibited by law, unless you get special exceptions.
I for the life of me can not find one reason why I would own a suppressor. Certainly couldn't conceal carry. For hunting I'm in the "as compact and as light as possible" crowd. So no use there. Whats left?
If people want them fine, buy them, use them, enjoy them. But lets not dream up fairy tales to justify them. They are what they are.
It's negligible. Besides, no one claimed that mufflers have no negative effects, the claim was that they don't have any practically significant effect on reliability--a true statement.
Sure, some folks believe silencers are worth having. Some don't. Some just don't really care one way or the other.
I might get some someday, I can see that they offer some benefits, but in my current situation those benefits don't outweigh the negatives.
I'm not really trying to make a case for silencers or against them. I'm just pointing out that trying to compare them to mufflers is really a terrible analogy. There is only ONE way that mufflers are somewhat like silencers. In nearly every other respect they are so different that it wouldn't be far off to say they're opposites.
JohnKSa said:
If it's so negligible, why are they not found on race cars? I'm not trying to split hairs, but if you ask 50 people what a muffler does, none of them will describe any of what you did about them except that they muffle the exhaust noise....which is exactly what a suppressor does. Who cares if they have different characteristics otherwise? Suffice it to say, that some appreciate a suppressor while shooting, and others don't.
Because race cars are trying to squeeze every last little bit of performance out of the engine and also trying to cut every last little bit of weight from the car that's possible. That's not exactly a situation where practicality is an issue.
Someone made a comment about the limited practicality of silencers and was rebutted by someone claiming that they were, in fact, practical and using the muffler analogy to support that assertion.
Mufflers and silencers are alike in terms of function--in that they both reduce sound. However, in any other context, especially the context of practicality--the context in which the analogy was being used--they are dramatically different in virtually every respect.
Precisely. The problem comes when someone tries to make them sound like something they aren't--whether they're trying to make them sound more practical than they are or whether they're trying to make them sound more useless and problematic than they are.
I think we agree.
I just know as a gearhead that muffler back pressure is not negligiable especially when one calculates the cost of performance and fuel over the life of a vehicle.
The point almost doesn't matter enough to be worth the trouble of typing it though
Edit to add: I think it would be better I if I invite you over to shoot with mine. I'll buy the sodas...
I just know as a gearhead that muffler back pressure is not negligiable especially when one calculates the cost of performance and fuel over the life of a vehicle.
The point almost doesn't matter enough to be worth the trouble of typing it though
Edit to add: I think it would be better I if I invite you over to shoot with mine. I'll buy the sodas...
Last edited:
I've shot several suppressed guns and had a blast doing it. The most fun was with a Walther P22 using a suppressor that was actually made for an AR-15. Since I knew the range owner and the place was empty at the time, we set up and shot from the gun shop into the range through the open door so we could get a feel for the sound of the suppressed pistol in a normal environment. It was a bit strange to hear the hammer fall, the target strike and the slide cycle with virtually no other sound to let you know that the gun had fired.
We also shot the range owner's full-auto AR with the same suppressor. It was a lot louder and the suppressor got a lot hotter. The AR was also restricted to the range--no shooting in the shop area.
We also shot the range owner's full-auto AR with the same suppressor. It was a lot louder and the suppressor got a lot hotter. The AR was also restricted to the range--no shooting in the shop area.
That's why they make hearing protectors.
And your analogy doesn't really make much sense. At any given time there are probably at least 50,000,000 cars being driven on the road in the U.S. At any given time there are probably NOT 50,000,000 guns being shot.
Cars have mufflers so that your neighbor doesn't wake you up from a sound sleep at 3:00 A.M. when he gets home from work or the bar.
Suppressors are fun to to play with, but, I repeat: Realistically they have very limited value in the REAL world.