Is a silencer worth the having?

[JohnKSa]

My terminology was not spot on either, but you seem unwilling to accept my photos as evidence of added length and instead stubbornly go on and on about my grammar and math.

I haven't said a thing about your grammar. As far as the math goes, you asked why it was a sticking point and I answered.

...you seem unwilling to accept my photos as evidence of added length...

Ok, my apologies.

I am willing to accept your photos as evidence of the veracity of the comments I made in the post immediately preceding yours. Thank you for providing that supporting evidence.

Are we saying that dimension defines function? That because a device is larger, smaller, increases overall weight, affects the technique of the user, it no longer can be defined as the purpose of its function?

I don't see where anyone has said that at all, or even implied anything along those lines.

The fact that centerfire handgun suppressors are typically quite large doesn't affect their functionality negatively, but it certainly DOES affect their practicality. And practicality was the point of my initial comment about the dimensional issues.

My go-to self-defense firearm is a handgun because it's relatively compact and easy to carry. I have a holster for any of the handguns that I consider to be self-defense handguns so I can carry them in a holster to make them even more convenient to use and carry. If I add an attachment to the handgun that doubles its length then it's no longer practical for the purposes I want to use it for. It might be a really fun range gun, but it's no longer practical from my perspective. And if it won't fit in a reasonable holster it might still be a blast to shoot, but it no longer fits my definition of "practical".

Does anyone actually remember how this phase of the discussion started?

How about a refresher.

Realistically, a silencer/supressor is just an expensive toy with very limited practical real world value.

Would you say the same thing about engine mufflers?

I responded with a comment to the effect that: "adding a muffler to a car doesn't nearly double the length of a vehicle, change its handling characteristics significantly, affect its reliability to any practical extent nor increase its price by nearly a factor of two."

The whole focus was that someone tried to make the point that the muffler analogy proved that silencers were practical. I think we can all agree that if car mufflers doubled the length and the price of the car (forget the other two aspects of the comment entirely) that NO ONE would think they were practical in the remotest sense of the word.

In other words, if there is evidence that silencers are practical (and there may be--although not for my personal handgun applications), the muffler analogy AIN'T IT. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[IMTHDUKE]

Ya'll lost me on the muffler analogy .....I was going to suppress my car till I found out the ATF would need to get involved.

Just kiddin....guys...

 

[reticle]

Quote:

Are we saying that dimension defines function? That because a device is larger, smaller, increases overall weight, affects the technique of the user, it no longer can be defined as the purpose of its function?
I don't see where anyone has said that at all, or even implied anything along those lines.

The fact that centerfire handgun suppressors are typically quite large doesn't affect their functionality negatively, but it certainly DOES affect their practicality. And practicality was the point of my initial comment about the dimensional issues.

My go-to self-defense firearm is a handgun because it's relatively compact and easy to carry. I have a holster for any of the handguns that I consider to be self-defense handguns so I can carry them in a holster to make them even more convenient to use and carry. If I add an attachment to the handgun that doubles its length then it's no longer practical for the purposes I want to use it for. It might be a really fun range gun, but it's no longer practical from my perspective. And if it won't fit in a reasonable holster it might still be a blast to shoot, but it no longer fits my definition of "practical".

I must have misunderstood then. I thought you were saying that because of it's dimensions and proportions it doesn't fit the definition of a muffler. What you were saying is that because of it's relative dimensions and proportion it doesn't meet the definition of practical....for some people; yourself included.

I get it. I think the analogy was to illustrate what it does rather than practicality. I could be mistaken though. If I care enough later, I'll re-read the thread.

 

[JohnKSa]

I thought you were saying that because of it's dimensions and proportions it doesn't fit the definition of a muffler.

No, that's not it at all. It doesn't fit the definition of a car muffler because it's not a car muffler. It does function similarly to a car muffler but that has nothing to do with its dimensions and proportions, that's specifically a matter of function. And I didn't say anything about silencers not fitting the definition of a muffler, the comments were that the two things were very different in terms of practicality.

What you were saying is that because of it's relative dimensions and proportion it doesn't meet the definition of practical....for some people; yourself included.

That's closer but that's still not it. My initial comment really didn't have anything to do with whether handgun silencers met the definition of practical or not nor whether they met my particular personal definition for practical based on my specific circumstances and state laws.

What I was saying was that because of the massive differences in relative dimensions and relative cost, mufflers are a terrible analogy to use in support of the practicality of silencers.

In other words, my initial comment was only intended to point out the reasons why it was a bad idea to try to prove that silencers are practical using the analogy of car mufflers. It didn't even weigh in on whether or not silencers were impractical or practical, it only made the point that it would be necessary to find some other method to prove their practicality because the muffler analogy failed miserably in that regard.

I was trying NOT to weigh in on one side or the other of the "are they practical argument" because, as I said in another post, it's entirely possible for different people to look at the same facts and come up with different conclusions. And, realistically speaking, not everyone is even looking at the same facts because laws vary and specific applications vary.

In other words, the fact that handgun silencers are impractical for my particular applications has limited relevance to the discussion in general. Not everyone uses handguns in exactly the same way or for exactly the same purposes I do, nor are others necessarily limited by the same state laws when it comes to silencers.

I think the analogy was to illustrate what it does rather than practicality.

I took it as related to practicality because it was apparently made in direct response to a comment about the "very limited practical real world value" of silencers. But who knows. Maybe the poster quoted the wrong text when he composed his post.

 

[robertsig]

I don't understand what the fuss is about. Putting money and time aside (lets face it, that is not a deterrent to this hobby/passion whatsoever), the fact is suppressors tame the noise which can be very useful in some circumstances. I think a nightstand gun is the perfect application. I don't have one myself, but would love to get one.

If I had to defend myself, indoors, with 8' ceilings and hardwood floors, I'd personally think a suppressor would be mandatory. In the middle of the night, I don't have time to put on hearing protection, nor do I for my wife who sleeps right next to me. And putting hearing protection on stops you from hearing the BG in your house. Yes, I realize its better to be deaf than dead, but if I don't have to make that choice, why would I? Even in the interest of saving my 8 yr old daughter's life, I don't think I could live with myself that I would be the cause of giving her permanent hearing loss. At that point, the money for a silencer becomes negligible.

 

[Sharpsdressed Man]

^^^^^Cost of a suppressor with tax: $400-$1000. Cost of hearing loss prevention: priceless.

 

[JohnKSa]

And putting hearing protection on stops you from hearing the BG in your house.

I'm not arguing for wearing hearing protection in a self-defense encounter, just pointing out that there is active hearing protection available that can actually enhance a person's hearing, not just protect it.

If I had to defend myself, indoors, with 8' ceilings and hardwood floors, I'd personally think a suppressor would be mandatory.

Would you also put up a sign up that requires anyone who breaks in to use a silencer?

At that point, the money for a silencer becomes negligible.

As long as the assailant is not also armed with a firearm, a handgun silencer does offer a concrete benefit for indoor self-defense in situations where carry/concealment is not an issue. One should keep in mind that significantly increasing the length of a handgun makes weapon retention more difficult and also that there are experts who believe the use of a silencer (or any other NFA item) in a self-defense shooting has the potential to complicate the post-shooting legal situation.

 

[Sharpsdressed Man]

Once a weapon is out of the holster, and in your hand, weapon retention becomes fully a matter of training vs. good/bad luck. While a gun (with or without suppressor) is holstered, the longer weapon probably has the edge in favor of "weapon retention", but becomes slower to draw. Everything is a compromise. In a defensive situation, being suppressed at least removes HALF the possible ear damage. If you incapacitate the bad guy before he gets a shot off, you eliminate ALL the hearing damage (unless you shoot the bad guy in the ear).

 

[JohnKSa]

Once a weapon is out of the holster, and in your hand, weapon retention becomes fully a matter of training vs. good/bad luck.

Leverage and access are also issues. The farther the weapon sticks out away from you the easier it is for your opponent to access and the more leverage he has once he does access it.

While a gun (with or without suppressor) is holstered, the longer weapon probably has the edge in favor of "weapon retention", but becomes slower to draw.

Retention in the holster is more of a problem for law enforcement, less of an issue for home defense and nearly moot for suppressed handguns since there aren't a lot of holster options for suppressed handguns.

In a defensive situation, being suppressed at least removes HALF the possible ear damage.

We're probably getting down to hair-splitting, but since the bad guy's gun is pointed at you while yours is pointed away from you, all else being equal, in a fairly close encounter, his shots would probably direct more sound energy at you than your own. So suppressing your own shots probably wouldn't reduce the amount of damage by half--the actual amount of reduction would probably be less.

If you incapacitate the bad guy before he gets a shot off, you eliminate ALL the hearing damage (unless you shoot the bad guy in the ear).

Again, this is getting down to hair-splitting, but generally speaking, if we're talking about centerfires, even after suppression, discharge noise can be louder than the threshold of hearing damage.

In fact, this is also true if one looks at how much sound is blocked by hearing protection. Hearing protection often doesn't reduce the discharge noise of a centerfire handgun to below the threshold of damage.

If the total elimination of hearing damage is the goal, and we're talking about typical self-defense handgun calibers, that would probably require both suppression and hearing protection together.

 

[Sharpsdressed Man]

So, since a suppressor MIGHT create a slight disadvantage during a retention effort, and MIGHT still contribute to hearing loss, should we factor the suppressor disadvantage at around 60/40% in favor of an unsuppressed weapon, or maybe 70/30%? Then there is also the possible advantage of being able to retain night vision in a dark room by not blinding one's self during gunfire (most suppressors greatly reduce muzzle flash), and the faster recovery of repeat shots (suppressors also reduce muzzle flip, and flinch). This may swing the advantage pendulum back in favor of suppressed weapons. If there are multiple assailants, a suppressed weapon might also give one the advantage of reducing the number of aggressors with stealth, allowing the ability to retain the advantage of surprise regarding one's location or other tactical advantage (like your type of weapon, number of shots fired, number of neutralized bad guys, etc.) Now we are definitely leaning in favor of suppressed weapons for defense, for some of the same reasons tactical teams use them.

 

[JohnKSa]

You can get low flash ammunition--some of the better companies to integrate this feature into their premium self-defense ammo. At any rate, raising this issue gets back to the reality that even if our muzzle doesn't flash, the opponent's muzzle will.

I don't think a lot of "tactical teams" (if we're talking about law enforcement) use suppressed handguns. They're certainly used for some military applications, but the issue is typically when stealth is a concern, not reduction of flash or concern about hearing damage. If the military is operating at night, they are usually equipped with night vision which is designed to deal with muzzle flash. As far as hearing protection goes, I suspect that the teams that would be in a position to use suppressed handguns would probably be using active hearing protection with integrated comms.

And, of course, they wouldn't have any legal concerns whatsoever about using NFA items because their actions aren't going to be reviewed in a civilian court of law.

I suppose it's possible to make a case that handgun suppressors might offer more benefits than negatives for self-defense, but I think that it's not going to be a very strong case.

The hearing protection/flash reduction benefits don't offer a lot of support to the argument because it's not practical to constrain the attacker to using reduced flash ammo and a suppressor. Once the sound suppression benefit is more or less neutralized, it's really hard to find things that suppressors do for you that something else doesn't do better.

And when you're all done with the arguments based purely on tactics and function, even if it comes out relatively even at that point, you're still left with the possible complication of mixing NFA items and civilian courts.

 

[reticle]

I like how when mine are suppressed and I run out of ammo, instead of throwing my gun at him, I can hold it like a hammer and beat the bad guy into submission.

 

[youngunz4life]

answering the original post's question

Is a silencer worth the having?

In my opinion: "No."

 

[PPKman]

Great thread

Take home for me: They are not only cool as he-- but practical in several uses for 22lr, maybe up to 32 acp. Sharps you sold me. Thanks to all for the discussions, sublime to arcane.

 

[Sharpsdressed Man]

For those that break into the "Wrong GD rec room".

[/IMG]

 

[robertsig]

I can only understand the legal arguments, and even those are subjective. I don't understand any of the others. Barrel heavy, feeding problems, leverage or "no holsters" all sound like nitpicking. Heck, a carbine as a HD weapon has a long barrel to grab onto, no holster, and could be construed as barrel heavy too.

What if everything was reversed and guns were naturally non-ear splitting? Say you could add a noise-extender to the end of your barrel which enhanced the sound. You know....so your enemies could hear you a mile away and quake in their boots. Nobody would be arguing that softer shooting guns which don't blow your eardrums are a bad idea. If anything, the argument would be "why do you need it so loud to wake up the neighbors?"

IMO, legal self-defense reasons is about the only argument worth having. For anything else (plinking, target practice, hunting, etc), I must be completely missing something from those who object.

 

[Sharpsdressed Man]

If I ever defend myself against an armed threat in my home with a suppressed firearm, I think my legal argument for the use of a suppressor would be to demonstrate it to any jury seated to try me. Once they had their ears blasted by a simulated (but very loud) gunshot, we could then offer them the logic of a suppressed gunshot. Most intelligent people would "get it".

 

[imthegrumpyone]

What ever !! Don't want or need one, "cool" nah ! I'll take the big bang, like to have them know a special something is on it's way. Besides the out of pocket cost isn't worth it, and why have something that isn't practical on your gun ? (Well that's a hole nother area)