Thought on using a suppressed pistol for HD
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
Maybe wake YOU out of a sound sleep, but other people can be quite different, and a suppressed firearm sound is different enough from a regular gunshot that it might not "register" as a gunshot especially when someone unfamiliar with the sound is just woken up.
Not saying its a vitally huge factor, just something to consider if there are other people in the house with you...
If you've got a family plan on what to do if there's a fire, you should have one on what to do if there is an intruder, as well.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I've read most of the thread and there are just a few points I'd like to address. That said, it's early and I'm pre-coffee, so please bear with me while I ramble a bit.
1. Affirmative Defenses -- as a general rule, the party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of (affirmatively) proving it. IOW, if SD is an affirmative defense in your jurisdiction, it will be on the SD Shooter to prove that his or her shooting of another person was, in fact, an act of self-defense. If the prosecutor has to prove that the act was not SD, then SD isn't an affirmative defense in your jurisdiction. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense
2. IMHO, the real problem with using a suppressor on an HD weapon is not a legal one. It's a jury perception problem. I think the modern media would call it 'an optics problem.' Right, wrong or indifferent, the American public thinks that suppressors are assassins' tools. In my jx, suppressors are completely legal, so I'm not worried about the legality of using one. I note, however, that if I shoot someone, and the Prosecuting Attorney doesn't buy my (incredibly honest and forthright) tale of how it went down, a jury really could allow that suppressor to cloud its view of everything I did, and everything I said.
3. The prosecutor doesn't have to spend a lot of time talking about the suppressor to make #2 happen, either. If I were prosecuting it, I'd have a photograph of it blown up. In particular, I'd want either one of it next to a ruler, or one of the gun next to the little sandwich-board-looking evidence markers. That way the jury knows it was photographed at "the scene of the crime." I'd put it up in the jury's view during my case in chief and basically leave it there as long as defense counsel would let me.
4. Even knowing all of the ways in which using a suppressor for HD could go wrong, I'd still use one if I had one suitable for it. Personally, I think some subsonic .45 ACP would work just fine. I'm 50 and concerned about my hearing. And it's not just my hearing. I'm concerned about my wife, daughter, 2 cats and a dog. I don't want to deafen any of them, either, and I'm perfectly willing to tell a jury that.
As an aside, a State Trooper in this area had someone break into his home a few years back. BG tried to come in through the bedroom window while Trooper was asleep. Trooper shot & killed him. I heard it freaked the Trooper's dogs out so bad he had to take them to live out in the country for months before they settled down. Next time I see that trooper, I need to remember to ask him about that to see if he'll confirm about the dogs.
1. Affirmative Defenses -- as a general rule, the party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of (affirmatively) proving it. IOW, if SD is an affirmative defense in your jurisdiction, it will be on the SD Shooter to prove that his or her shooting of another person was, in fact, an act of self-defense. If the prosecutor has to prove that the act was not SD, then SD isn't an affirmative defense in your jurisdiction. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense
2. IMHO, the real problem with using a suppressor on an HD weapon is not a legal one. It's a jury perception problem. I think the modern media would call it 'an optics problem.' Right, wrong or indifferent, the American public thinks that suppressors are assassins' tools. In my jx, suppressors are completely legal, so I'm not worried about the legality of using one. I note, however, that if I shoot someone, and the Prosecuting Attorney doesn't buy my (incredibly honest and forthright) tale of how it went down, a jury really could allow that suppressor to cloud its view of everything I did, and everything I said.
3. The prosecutor doesn't have to spend a lot of time talking about the suppressor to make #2 happen, either. If I were prosecuting it, I'd have a photograph of it blown up. In particular, I'd want either one of it next to a ruler, or one of the gun next to the little sandwich-board-looking evidence markers. That way the jury knows it was photographed at "the scene of the crime." I'd put it up in the jury's view during my case in chief and basically leave it there as long as defense counsel would let me.
4. Even knowing all of the ways in which using a suppressor for HD could go wrong, I'd still use one if I had one suitable for it. Personally, I think some subsonic .45 ACP would work just fine. I'm 50 and concerned about my hearing. And it's not just my hearing. I'm concerned about my wife, daughter, 2 cats and a dog. I don't want to deafen any of them, either, and I'm perfectly willing to tell a jury that.
As an aside, a State Trooper in this area had someone break into his home a few years back. BG tried to come in through the bedroom window while Trooper was asleep. Trooper shot & killed him. I heard it freaked the Trooper's dogs out so bad he had to take them to live out in the country for months before they settled down. Next time I see that trooper, I need to remember to ask him about that to see if he'll confirm about the dogs.
Yes, if you are attacked in your own home, and if you are alone-how is anyone supposed to know you used it ? Also my understanding is that it is prolonged exposure to loud noise that is harmful.
My exposure to silencers/suppressors-of the homemade variety-is they can interfere with functioning on an semiauto pistol.
My exposure to silencers/suppressors-of the homemade variety-is they can interfere with functioning on an semiauto pistol.
Because if you are an HONEST citizen, it will be on the gun when the police show up. And, of course if the attacker you shot doesn't die, they will tell the police THEIR story (and no, you aren't allowed to put a couple in the back of his head as he lies there bleeding, to keep him from talking
)There are few things you are allowed to do at a crime scene that aren't usually considered "tampering with evidence", things that have a potential impact on the safety of others. You can't go "police up your fired brass" Even if you keep it on scene and give it to the cops, its tampering.
And, leaving aside any possible criminal penalties, ANY form of tampering, or PERCIEVED tampering negatively affects your credibility.
Physical evidence does not lie, but it can be misleading. If you shoot your credibility in the ass (with any kind of lie about anything) the jury isn't going to believe your claim that the prosecutor is in error.
Logic suggests that a well enough equipped lab could distinguish the difference between the GSR (powder burn pattern) of the suppressed and non suppressed gun. IF such tests are done, and they don't support your version of events 110% it can cause enough doubt to put you on shaky ground. Remember the Prosecution doesn't have to prove you lied, all they need do is convince the jury that you might have lied.
If you use a suppressor for HD, you're on a train that you need to ride, intact, all the way to the last stop.
buck460XVR
New member
If it truly is a act of SD, why take something legal and turn it criminal by perjuring yourself and tampering with evidence? That will certainly have a much more negative influence on a jury, than any suppressor would. As for how a jury would view a suppressor, before it would even go before a jury, there'd have to be something else not right with the shoot for the DA to even take it to trial. DAs are not going to waste their time trying to prosecute a lawful citizen just because they used a legal firearm to defend themselves against the threat of great bodily harm. This ain't Perry Mason. Secondly, I doubt very much that a jury, chosen by both attorneys, would have an unanimous "Assassin's tool view of a legal suppressor, in today's mindset, any more than would the use of Hollow point ammunition.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Time and time again, people fully wide awake and present for shootings often fail to recognize the sound of a gunshot for what it is, always thinking it must be something else like a car backfire or fireworks. The sound does not "register" as a gunshot.
From the garlic festival shooting yesterday...
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/g...s-thought-gunshots-were-fireworks-64779845627
There is another point to consider, about the sound of gunshots, and the general urban public.
Most of them have never heard real gunshots and how they sound outdoors at different distances or inside, at all. Most of what they have been "trained" to recognize as gunshots are movie and TV sound effects.
Virtually every one of us has "heard" hundreds, if not thousands of "gunshots" on TV by the time we grow up. If you don't have real world experience teaching you how different guns sound, and how the sound changes with the distance and terrain characteristics, you won't easily recognize real shots for what they are.
now that I think on it, this is actually a fair counter argument to the claim that a "silencer" is somehow evil/wrong because it changes the sound of the gun shots so people won't "recognize" them as gunshots.
Most of them have never heard real gunshots and how they sound outdoors at different distances or inside, at all. Most of what they have been "trained" to recognize as gunshots are movie and TV sound effects.
Virtually every one of us has "heard" hundreds, if not thousands of "gunshots" on TV by the time we grow up. If you don't have real world experience teaching you how different guns sound, and how the sound changes with the distance and terrain characteristics, you won't easily recognize real shots for what they are.
now that I think on it, this is actually a fair counter argument to the claim that a "silencer" is somehow evil/wrong because it changes the sound of the gun shots so people won't "recognize" them as gunshots.
buck460XVR
New member
I work for the local school district. Every year during our "Active Shooter"/'Violent Intruder" training, we are subjected to the sound of gunshots in the halls. Depending on how far down the hall they are, their sound varies from the gunshots we hear at the range, to what simply sounds like a book falling on the floor or a locker door slamming. Never knew how folks could misidentify a car backfire from a gunshot, but after several years of this type of training, I understand....especially if you are not expecting a gunshot. Especially if there is only one gunshot. By the time you react, you are unsure of what you heard. Multiple gunshots are much more identifiable.
Bentonville
New member
A suppressed handgun is not in the least quiet in my opinion. My Rugged Obsidian reduces a 9mm at approx. 160 decibels to 123 decibels. .45 caliber is even louder. Do the search and see how loud 123 decibels is to the human ear. Rock Concerts are usually 110 decibels and more. That volume without protection causes damage in five minutes or less. 123 decibels =loud.
I always wear plugs rated at NRR33 when firing a suppressed handgun .
I always wear plugs rated at NRR33 when firing a suppressed handgun .
37 decibels is a very effective suppressor. They must be getting better. When I last looked into it, most were producing more in the -25 to -30 db sound suppression range. The low end of that range is about what your hearing protection muffs give you at the range, so I tell people to remember how loud guns sounded with their "ears" on, and that's about what to expect from a suppressor with your ears off. The difference is the muffs take all sounds down, including muzzle blast and gun mechanical operation and any supersonic bullet crack reflection off surfaces out in front of the shooter. The suppressor only acts on the muzzle blast, so those other sounds become relatively more apparent.
I am strongly of the opinion that adding a big tube on the end of any defense makes it useless for anything but a nightstand or range gun. As a CCW it becomes a hopeless burden. Within the parameters of a gun that can be used within a few feet of where you first pick it up, whatever works works. A suppressed handgun is going to have the same limitations as a long gun has, but just not as severe.
Any noise abatement during combat is just irrelevant. Noise level won't affect whether bullets go into bad guys, and any sacrifice of function in order to make a gun quieter is a bad idea.
Any noise abatement during combat is just irrelevant. Noise level won't affect whether bullets go into bad guys, and any sacrifice of function in order to make a gun quieter is a bad idea.
I understand the Finns let their people buy suppressors over the counter like any other gun accessory with no special permit required and they report they are seldom used in crimes, probably for the reasons Briandg mentioned. In the few instances in which criminal do use them, they apparently don't make a difference as to how easily the crime is solved.
As to home defense, it makes sense to me you will not likely have time to don hearing protection when a home invasion commences. From that standpoint, the can may be an advantage. For one, obviously, your ears are less likely to ring and stuff up and prevent you from hearing where your remaining opponents are moving around. For another, more inertia at the muzzle of a gun tends to dampen flinching and tremor (the second reason Olympic free pistols have removable balance weights) and and the extension in line with the "barrel" is likely to make an adrenaline-driven "instinct" shots place less wildly. It also gives you a place to put your weak hand, at least until it warms up. That seems like it might also be a flinch control-plus for the critical first shot. The main downside will be speed of pointability will be at least slightly reduced by even a very light can.
As to home defense, it makes sense to me you will not likely have time to don hearing protection when a home invasion commences. From that standpoint, the can may be an advantage. For one, obviously, your ears are less likely to ring and stuff up and prevent you from hearing where your remaining opponents are moving around. For another, more inertia at the muzzle of a gun tends to dampen flinching and tremor (the second reason Olympic free pistols have removable balance weights) and and the extension in line with the "barrel" is likely to make an adrenaline-driven "instinct" shots place less wildly. It also gives you a place to put your weak hand, at least until it warms up. That seems like it might also be a flinch control-plus for the critical first shot. The main downside will be speed of pointability will be at least slightly reduced by even a very light can.
I'm not even going to pretend that I can make an authoritative statement, but if I understand it correctly, a rimfire rifle is possibly unregulated in england. I don't recall exactly. These rimfires can have a suppressor and it's not regulated either. So, IIRC, a guy who can pass the background check that is required can walk into the place of purchase and carry home a suppressed squirrel gun and they are not afraid to use them on things as big as english hares and foxes, taking shots at head and neck.
If you check some of the videos, you will find that a rimfire the suppressor is borderline unnoticeable. They can be less disruptive than an air rifle. The things fire about three grains of powder and a minuscule bullet down a long coal chute of a barrel, and then that little bitty fart of a powder charge literally expands in the chamber ten or more times and the velocity of the plume is brought down to almost the speed of spray paint. I was astounded to hear a few examples of the 17 HMR being fired. There is a crack. Not much, and that takes up almost all of the sound. I know that some of the ammo I have used in rimfire would literally shrink to a pop. CCI CB shorts in my rifle seriously make only a pop without a can.
Some of these guys can sit in a field and pop rabbits all dog gone night with their night vision equipment and never spook the entire warren. Then they will juice the brains of a fox or two so the foxes won't be in competition for the rabbits. I believe that the english, since they can't just walk into a store and pick up a centerfire rifle have really gotten a lock on how to blow the snot out of a varmint's nose at ultra long range with nothing but a rimfire.
https://youtu.be/W1JH-b6PQxo
This short video shows a guy with a non-suppressed rifle. I don't care for the fact that he's taking body shots. His one forward shot left bits flying. the others left them twitching. If you look at 1.12, you will see a pair of partridge or some other bird literally walk away from a shot hit about a yard or so away.
A suppressor functions based on a few things, but two part of it is whether the metal is heavy enough to dampen the vibrations and how large that blast of hot gas is. It can't affect the supersonic sound, but you can cut the sound of a subsonic round significantly with large and stout steel and a small charge. A large handgun would probably take a few hundred feet of carpet and a plastic fifty pound barrel to dampen that shock.
The guy who owns my range put up a corrugated roof at about three feet over head level. If he had laid any sort of insulation such as even a sheet of used carpet under that steel, the vibrations would have been minimized. The sound would not have been reflected right back onto the top of your head.
jackstrawIII
New member
If I lived in a free state, I would ABSOLUTELY run a suppressor on all my hunting and defense guns. In fact, if I ever move out of NY, that will be one of the first items on my to do list. It’s a no brainer. I can think of zero reasons no to.
Except doesn't it mean a new holster(s)??