Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Silencers for Hunting? Debate Moves Into Wyoming

Dec. 4, 2012 7:58am Liz Klimas

In some states, it might have been audibly obvious that hunting season was in full swing, as gun shots could be heard ringing through the woods. In others though, hunting could be a much quieter affair as some rifles are outfitted with silencers. It’s a gadget that more states are trying to legalize but it’s not without its debate.

Wyoming Legislators to Vote on Silencers Use for Hunting Rifles

This gun has a silencer attacked to the end of the barrel. (Image: Wikimedia)

According to the Associated Press, 39 states allow silencers (more technically known as suppressors) on hunting rifles, with Texas and Arizona hunters only receiving approval to use such a device this season.

Those in favor of silencers would say they see no reason to ban the muffling device as they prevent hearing damage for hunters and noise pollution for those in heavy hunting areas. On the flip side, opponents would say the silencers take away some of the sport, because it doesn’t give the animal the advantage of using its senses to run away. Some have safety concerns as well.

The American Silencer Association is lobbying to lift bans on silencers in Wyoming and Montana this coming year. Wyoming legislature is expected to vote on it as early as January. An interim legislative committee in the state has already endorsed the bill, according to AP.

Sale of civilian silencers is regulated by the federal government.

Zak Smith, a co-owner of Thunder Beast Arms, said that the argument that silencers are unsporting is unfounded given that bullets travel so fast the animal won’t hear the shot unless the hunter misses it.

Here’s more specifically what an opponent had to say, according to the AP:

Kim Floyd, spokesman for the Wyoming Federal of Union Sportsmen, said his group also opposes the prospect of allowing silencers for hunting, calling it “a poacher’s dream.” He said any hunters truly concerned about the effect on their hearing from shooting at game can carry ear plugs.

Floyd questioned why Wyoming would want to allow silencer use. “I want to know who’s in that drainage with me,” he said. “If they’re shooting a gun, I want to hear that gun. I want to know where these other hunters are. It just absolutely makes no sense to us. Why we would open that can of worms? I don’t care how many other states have this law in effect, it’s just a really, really bad law for Wyoming.”

Hunter and member of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation Richard Oblak told the Los Angeles Times he would worry about people who don’t take safety with guns as seriously as he and his sons do.

“If you go out into the woods on the first day of hunting season, it’s crazy,” he said, according to the Times. “With me and my boys, if there’s the slightest question, we don’t pull the trigger, but not everyone feels that way. In a lot of areas, it would be downright scary if you couldn’t hear the shooting. There’s something about hearing where those shots are coming from, because not everyone is safe-smart.”

Watch this demonstration that shows the difference of a shot with and without a silencer:

Let us know what you think of the use of gun silencers for hunting by taking our poll.

Featured image via Shutterstock.com. This story has been updated.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (99)

BasketFullOfPuppies
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:52pm
I really wish that people would stop getting all of their gun knowledge from anti-gun groups, television and movies, and the MSM. None of these groups know the first thing about them. Silencers are less noisy. They are not noise-free, by any means. They are only controlled because people associate them with assassins, much the same reason that switchblades are illegal in many places. It’s fear factor… nothing more.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 3:35pm
  Quite so. It’s also rather embarrassing that Floyd goes on about “wanting to know the guy is shooting over there”. I mean, really? This is Wyoming? There are less people per square mile there than antelope. I can drive for well over an hour without seeing another human being on the road while out on the grasslands highways. The way ol’ Floyd goes on, you’d think that this was about hunting just outside of New York City or something. There are entire *towns* there with less population in them than I have in my immediate family.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:26pm
  “…Kim Floyd, spokesman for the Wyoming Federal of Union Sportsmen, said his group also opposes the prospect of allowing silencers for hunting,…”
  The ‘federal of union sportsmen’… Obviously an SoterObambi left wing liberal anti-firearms communist democrat organization. More than likely, the Federal Union of Dimwit Sportsmen… FUDS for short…
  
  Report this comment
- Silvertruth
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 6:52pm
  It’s not about the density, it’s about the weapons. The issue I have hear is the assumption that the .22LR rifle video represents what a silenced High Power rifle sounds like and that is NOT true at all. A .22LR silenced is really quiet, mostly the sound of the action at that point. A high power rifle (.223 and larger) is LOUD when unsilenced, I mean loud enough to deafen anyone near it without hearing protection on. Silenced, it’s still ‘loud’ but not deafening.
  
  Silencers only reduce decible levels about 30-40%. So if a gun is around 130db, it drops it down to 80-90db. It’s loud enough to be heard if you’re near the weapon and even louder if you are in the ‘cone of fire’ area. So the ‘anti’ sentiments above demonstrate the ignorance of the hunters giving those opinions. Silencers increase safety, they also decrease range of accuracy.
  
  Suppressors remove some of the velocity of the round as well as have the ability to affect the flight. So they are actually more ‘sporting’ as they are harder to be accurate with and you have to get in closer to the game to get the same accuracy and power. A poorly made suppressor can halve the range of a high powered rifle. A well made one will still drop the range and power, it varies by round and rifle type though.
  
  If I were a hunter, I wouldn’t care about the guy 2 miles up the valley that I could barely hear. I’d care about the guy a mile up the valley that I COULD hear and let them know I’m there!
  
  Report this comment
- NukeHaze
  Posted on December 5, 2012 at 4:50am
  Mr Floyd, for being from Wyoming, seems to be pretty undereducated about the poaching problem. If your job was to find speeding drivers all day long, then all you will ever ticket is speeding drivers. If you are a game warden and your job is to stop poaching all day long, you will only find people violating some rule about the hunt which is considered poaching at the end of the day. Would he also insist that compound bows use blasting caps in the “drainage” (what an idiot) with him so he could hear them shoot? If you are a kid who wants a sports car, all you see when you watch cars go by is everyone else having a sports car. This guy has an immature and one track mind and is fixated on hunters all being criminals unless they are him. Put him on that moonshine program and I bet he thinks if he drives around in the woods in the south, too, all he will find is distilling equipment.
  
  Report this comment
Mr. Smarty
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:43pm
As someone who knows well the sound of a bullet zinging by my head I know that the sound of the shot is past the time to duck. If I make it by the first zing then I will duck. In certain Scandinavian and European countries suppressors are legal and encouraged for hunting. The hunters still have paperwork involved in gun purchases but not suppressor purchases other than the usual sales and V.A.T. taxes that are on everything. In those countries they are also inexpensive. In some places you can buy a .22 suppressor for the equivalent of 25.00.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
garylee123
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:36pm
It’s not the bullet that you hear that get’s you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Wolf
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:28pm
  Right… it’s this… from the caption…”…This gun has a silencer attacked to the end of the barrel. (Image: Wikimedia…”
  
  Report this comment
eaterofdead
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:14pm
here you go
i own several
1st off the bullets has to be subsonic. 1000 fps or less.
that leaves out rifles and mag pistols. you can get sub or load your own. you have a hard time figuring out where a bullets comes from with single shot.
army spent millions and years building a system that could.
if you hear bullet you are ok. it missed nut up and eat earth.
love the fact that my ears dont hurt. muffs just dont work when you are hunting..
my wife wont shot gun with out one. semi and revs will make noises. though at a lower level.
head space and action opening still lets out gas. bolt and pump do not
for all its worth
imho
james d

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
godflesh
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:07pm
Silencers, cans, baffles, suppressors, whatever you want to call them are NFA items. If you want one you better have a super squeaky clean history and be willing to stand by for a year long background check and the paperwork to go along with it. Buy the tax stamp, pay a gunsmith to thread the barrel of your favorite gun, buy the suppressor. I just spent $2000 in one paragraph.
And putting a suppressor on a large bore center fire rifle is like putting a muffler on a Peterbilt. It makes it a bit quieter but you can still easily tell when it is fired.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 338_LM
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 2:46pm
  Currently about 5 months. I’ve waited as long as 9 months, and as little as 6 weeks.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 3:28pm
  Local shop saying 6-8 months as many peeps have them on list of to do soon items. Btafe seems to cash checks quick, but turn around is quite longer. Imagine that.
  
  Report this comment
gz22ll
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:02pm
Having been busy working and not paying attention I did not realize suppressors were legal since the states I use to live they were illegal. I assumed it was a federal and not state legality issue. I found out about 6 months ago they are legal federally if they are legal in the state you reside. I now live in a state that they are legal and currently in the process to buy more than just a few paying my $200 tax stamp for each one. Process takes about 5-6 months of foot dragging by the Feds but I hope to have my first few in a couple of months. They are going to make teaching and shooting with family members on the range so much quieter and easier.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
flyere45
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:01pm
There is an “American silencer association”? Who knew?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Uechi
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 11:49am
Unlike the movies there is no such thing as a silencer. The devices reduce the report/decibels from a rifle or handgun but do not eliminate all sound. I don’t understand the objection to using them in hunting. If it is an unfair edge then what is scope, a range fimder or a laser?How about Crossbows or bows in general? They have a limited range, but sure don’t make alot of noise.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- goahead.makemyday
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:44pm
  I was going to say something about bow hunting but I’m too late. With new bows there isn’t even a *twang* most really expensive bows and some crossbows are completely silent. A four blade broad head or especially a mechanical broad head arrow head is more likely to be lethal than a long range .22 round since you also have to extract the arrow and the hole is much larger than a .22 bullet hole. I hate gut shots with an arrow, any one who accidentally hit the stomach can second me.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:32pm
  ROFL, GoAhead… talk about misinformation and ignorance…
  
  Report this comment
schroeder123
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 11:42am
A sound suppressor is a good idea. Should be required by OSHA.
You can ruin your hearing. Why not just control the noise from the source. ? If you want.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- stumpy68
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 2:23pm
  Your right ive reduced hearing in both ears due to years
  of shooting supressors would have been a great help.
  
  Report this comment
schroeder123
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 11:38am
What ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ijava44
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:22pm
  I nominate your reply – “Best reply of the year”.
  
  Report this comment
Tigress1
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 10:01am
Since hunters in my area hunt in residential areas, I don’t want them to use silencers. I like to know if bullets are flying around my house.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- waresite
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 10:24am
  “silencers” dont get rid of he sound of a gunshot is simply makes it less loud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mm8M66nitU Hardy “silenced” when applied to a high powered rifle.
  
  Report this comment
- MGrilla
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 10:35am
  WARSITE is right i think its any thing below 44 decibels is qualified as suppress’d,most are far from silent, more like a nail gun you might here on a construction site .
  
  Report this comment
- Mako Dragoon
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:23pm
  -Unlike in movies, there is still a loud sound, including the sound of a supersonic projectile. You will still know if someone is shooting in your direction.
  
  -How would you possibly be safer if the person DIDN’T have a silencer?
  
  -Wouldn’t you want the shooter to be able to hear you yelling, if there was an accident? (With a suppressor ear protection is less important because you can still hear after a shot is fired)
  
  -39 States already allow suppressors… hunting accidents just aren’t a problem because of silencers. This is like people being scared of a new state that passes a CCW law saying there will be blood in the street, just doesn’t happen.
  
  -If you are safe enough to hunt, you are safe enough to hunt with a suppressor.
  
  -Several European countries already hunt with silencers, it’s actually preferred! http://weaponsman.com/?p=4174
  
  -Silencers are already legal in Montana and Wyoming, so was this article about clearing them for hunting?
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:39pm
  Tigress, it’s obvious you wouldn’t know if bullets were flying around your house even without ‘silencers’. Unless fired from beyond 1000 yards, the bullet has passed you by the time you hear the sound. 1K yards being the distance at which the majority of bullets- not all- go ‘sub-sonic’ (that means ‘below 1100 fps’)- so when you hear the report, you can pretty much figure yourself safe.
  
  Report this comment
- JethroUSMC
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:20pm
  Suppressors only mask the laws of physics not break them. Bullets from hunting rifles are supersonic, meaning faster than the speed of sound. To achieve that velocity, (breaking the sound barrier) there is a sonic crack – suppressors do not reduce that sound, only the boom caused by the expanding gasses from the powder burning forcing the projectile (bullet) down the bore of the firearm.
  
  If bullets were “flying around near your house” you will definitely know it.
  
  Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:02am
Imagine being high in the Unitah mountains. It is the opening day of rifle deer hunt season. You get up in the dark to get to the stalk site you selected the day before. You are sitting quietly in the dark drinking some coffee. The sun has not crested the hill. Suddenly, you hear rifle shots from across the small valley. You hear the rounds hitting near you. You move to cover until the asshat who was shooting at you stops.

This happened to me in 1989. Silencers for hunting is BS. At least I had the warning of the shot echo.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MGrilla
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 10:01am
  What comes first, the shot, or the echo? late warnings aren’t very useful in my book .
  
  Report this comment
- ashestoashes
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 10:23am
  @DISMAYED VETERAN..So glad that you made it out alive..just think..if we were the ones being hunted with no way to defend ourselves..I heard a teaching recently that conveyed that the first anti Christ of the Old Testament was Antioch.Epifanes..and he killed with violence throughout the land..the anti Christ which is to come or is here. the one leading up to tribulations will kill while the people are at leisure.. If I owned a gun..I would not be wasting bullets on hunting.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:21pm
  Ashes
  Wow. Sort of sucks to be you huh? Had some elk steaks over the weekend, venison bout every night since. Free range, no fat, grilled and done up in a shepards pie too. Mmmmm. If you had a gun? That just hurts to read. There is a caliber or gauge for every recipe under the sun, sorry to hear you are without.
  
  Report this comment
- danthman114
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:38pm
  if youre going to lie make sure you do some research before hand. it is impossible to hear the shot before the bullet gets to the intended target.
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 2:30pm
  @Dan
  
  I didn’t lie. Yes the bullet arrives first. Yes, if the bullet hits trees and brush near you, you can hear the hit. The sound follows. On the opening of deer hunt, everyone hears a lot of shots.
  
  Report this comment
- ashestoashes
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 3:09pm
  @DANTHMAN..The echo warns you that someone is shooting close by and in your direction..Dismayed Veteran was not lying..
  @FABARED..Elk tastes just like beefalo..no difference..yes it is good..but I don’t touch it…Venison and antelope taste terrible..I don’t eat flesh of any animal. except for fish and shrimp..There won’t be violence in the millenial kingdom or in heaven..so I am getting used to it..God made plenty of wonderful food for us all..I appreciate it..enjoy your elk..and venison..
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 3:32pm
  Ashes
  Not to get all religious, but why did He make them so tasty? Wonders never cease, whatever floats your ark of choice.
  
  Report this comment
- SgtB
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 4:03pm
  I find it pretty funny that all of you are quibbling about being out on the first day of hunting season without even hitting the real point… Which is why we only have a few weeks a year that you are legally allowed to hunt wild game to feed your family with. You see, trophy hunters have screwed up our nation and lobbied for strict regulations on hunting so that they can get a nice set of antlers and maybe a couple backstraps. I am an advocate of subsistence hunting rights. Basically, that means that if you are hunting to feed yourself of your family, I don’t see anything wrong with you hunting when and where you want so long as you are safe about it and don’t hurt anyone. BTW, more deer are hit and killed by cars every year in than the entire population of deer in 1900. And before any of you say that is because of hunting regulations, I would like to cut you off and say that the abmismal state of turn of the century wildlife was thanks to gov’t programs aimed at starving out Indians by killing the buffalo and farmers/ranchers paying hunters to kill all sorts of animals due to perceived crop damage. It was not because of people killing a few couple deer a year to feed their family.
  
  Report this comment
- 22hornet
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 7:16pm
  Dismayed Veteran .. I shot twice that year up there and left with two deer on the roof of my friends jeep.
  
  Report this comment
Xiccarph
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:00am
Silencers are one of the most useful accessories for the shooter ever invented. Like everything else covered by the NFA of 1932, they were regulated by knee-jerk legislation by knee-jerk politicians who like their current brethren, decide they can stop crime by controlling a thing rather than going after the perps. Our protective gov’t via the thugs in the ATF can give you more jail time for having an unregistered NFA item than for murdering someone. Individual States further control NFA items. The US is the only place with such idiot laws. Oh, and NFA uses a TAX to control these things as they could never have gotten them outright banned because of the 2nd A. Now its an elitist, rich persons “right”, because prices for NFA weapons are in far orbit. This is how the gov’t will defeat the 2nd, by using indirect, backdoor regulations/taxes and laws to place any firearm beyond the reach on anyone but the elite and wealthy. My guess they will go after ammo first…ammo hard to get/afford, and firearms are just clubs. No other country on earth makes you choose between an “NFA” weapon over a “semi-auto” look-alike. If you get a permit, license or bribe the local authorities (hehe) for a permit, you get the “real thing” or nothing. You won’t even find a semi-auto-only AK or UZI in these places. Try going into a pistol shooting range in most of Europe WITHOUT a silencer and see how fast your **** is thrown out for a safety violation! Its stupid, but its the “free”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Warthog Fixer
  Posted on December 5, 2012 at 8:31am
  Well said, sir!
  
  Report this comment
M40-A1
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:53am
We shouldn’t have Porsche on the road, they’re faster than a Volt and the animals in the road won’t be able to get out of the way. We can go down this road all day folks, just leave any cognitive logic in your a$$. BTW Mr. Floyd the US government has plenty of suppressors and they aren’t regulated when they have them. Suppressors are a blessing to any of us who shoot. If you’re a hunter and you’re worried about other hunters than I suggest hunting on your own land. Even with a suppressor I will know if we have trespass activities, in fact I enjoy the ability to let those who trespass know that I can reach out and speak to them at far distances in a very quiet manner.

One question Mr. Floyd- You ever hear of a recurve bow? The use of a bow sort of deflates your arguments about fairness to animals and letting you know who can see and hear you in the woods. Penalizing law abiding citizens because of the activity of criminals is what Progressives do Mr. Floyd. Exactly who’s side are you on?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:08am
  M40-A1
  
  Not all of us have our own land. We have to hunt on state or federal land. I have been shot at with the shot echo being the only warning I had.
  
  Report this comment
- goahead.makemyday
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:48pm
  Subsonic rounds will obviously be slower than the report, hence “subsonic” it’s the same argument as the bright orange vests and hats. Being able to be seen by other hunters and also being seen by the animals.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnnyRaiden
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 6:39pm
  M40-A1…Little out dated yeah? lol, M40 is the standard of excellence. Supps make hunting safer by lessening the damage to your hearing. Dismayed Vet’s story is anecdotal, Unless your using subsonic rounds then you will have that echo to know someone is shooting close by you
  
  Report this comment
- Warthog Fixer
  Posted on December 5, 2012 at 8:45am
  @ Dismayed Veteran
  I get it, your terrified that every huntard in the world will equip one of these things for the average price of $1,000 (including the stamp) and you and other hunters such as yourself will be in the crosshairs and unable to flee a projectile moving approximately 1500-3000 Feet Per Second (FPS). Going after a thing is not going to fix the stupidity and/or ignorance of some mouth breather that’s making a bad decision by pulling the trigger of their bullet launcher while pointed in your general direction!
  
  You are a veteran, then you should know full well that when it’s your time… it’s your time. To quote the a liberal money making machine (sorry ahead about this all…) “Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.” Oh shoot there I go manning up again… At the end of the day, if you don’t buy the farm, all you can do is hide or return fire. Because you can’t fix stupid!!
  
  Report this comment
Landon410
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:53am
they are very expensive, so i think the cost is going to keep most people from using it.
However I know lots of people down south use them when hunting hogs, because a lot of that is done at night in areas close to where people live.

I would use one if I could afford it and had a rifle with a threaded barrell, however i can’t afford one and I don’t have a rifle with a threaded barrel

and to those who don’t know anything about guns but still have an opinion, they don’t make the gun make NO sound, they just lower the decibel limit to a safe range for the human ears. You better believe if you’re shooting at a deer at 50 yards and you miss they’re still going to hear it.

However if you use a silencer and subsonic rounds they might not hear anything but the firing pin, which still makes a sound, but you lose so much velocity doing that it takes away from your range.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- waresite
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:59am
  $800-1000; far les than a high quality rifle or optic.
  
  Report this comment
- Landon410
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:07am
  true but most hunters have a 500-800 rifle, and a 150-500 optic, now you’re throwing another 1000 on top of that
  that is cost prohibitive
  
  Report this comment
- Warthog Fixer
  Posted on December 5, 2012 at 8:47am
  ONLY in America would someone buy a $1000+ rifle and put a $80 optic on it…
  
  Report this comment
waresite
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:50am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mm8M66nitU Hardy “silenced” when applied to a high powered rifle.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
waresite
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:45am
First of all the term “silencer” is a misnomer. Technically they are called a suppressor and they do not silence a firearm but lower the decibel level of the shot. The video in the article illustrates a .22 caliber rifle which even unsupressed is quiet and sounds like they are using subsonic ammo. Try this link for a variety of weapons including pistols with suppressors. http://www.silencerco.com/?section=Media&page=Videos&video=45Osprey-Hot-Test

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ThePostman
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:42am
Silencers on higher caliber weapons are not really all that quiet, so no one is going to be able to poach with a silencer and get away with it any easier than without a silencer. Sure, they work well on 22′s, but not on deer rifles. It is still a large bang that echoes off the hillsides. I know, I’ve used them. With any supersonic round (most game ammo), the bullet exceeding the speed of sound creates a very large “crack” as it travels. You can’t mistake the sound, even from a mile away. The deer would still hear it, if you miss. There is no competitive argument. The folks who are against this have watched too many movies. Cars don’t detonate/explode, either, lol. They just burn up slowly.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- goahead.makemyday
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:50pm
  The tires do and so does any ammunition or aerosol cans and oxygen tanks.(Learned the hard way)
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:46pm
  GoAhead… you’ve cornered the market on ignorance and misinformation, for sure.
  When you’re talking about ammunition exploding, it only does so in the chamber: bullets thrown into a fire don’t explode and react the same as when shot.
  
  Report this comment
THXll38
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:38am
I thought you needed a class3 license to obtain any kind of suppressor.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ThePostman
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:43am
  You do, and that law is not waived or exempted by state laws allowing silencers to be used while hunting.
  
  Report this comment
- MGrilla
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 10:29am
  @ the postman , Show me the law again where you have to have a class 3. Common misconception. All you need is a barrel that will accept one, $200 tax stamp, and pass a back-ground check. Also Federal might supersede state law but it doesn’t trump the constitution ,or at least it’s not supposed to, the point is, this has nothing to do with “fair” hunting. What argument did our founding fathers make for our right to hunt? That’s right they didn’t. Their position was to the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
  
  Report this comment
- JethroUSMC
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:28pm
  Quit posting comments regarding topics you obviously have zero clue about. Class3 licensing is only required to be a dealer of NFA restricted items. Type 07 FFL/07 SOT to be exact.
  
  Report this comment
joeyps
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:37am
People, silencers(Suppressors) DO NOT silence a weapon! They lower the decibel level below the threshold of hearing damage/pain, gunshots can still easily be heard and are still loud. The one real exception is that of a subsonic .22 which is already very quiet before a suppressor is added.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DeavonReye
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:50am
  Thank you, Joey. I wish writers for theBlaze would get their terminology corrected before posting a story. “Silencers” are for movies. What a person can get is a sound suppressor. I have been in the presence of an AR-15 with a suppressor on it, and though it DID cut some of the sound, it was by NO means “silenced”. I could only take a couple of shots without plugging my ears. Now, he was using normal velocity rounds.
  
  I have seen youtube videos with suppressor equiped .22lr rounds. Those do a good job, especially if you are using rounds that stay under the sound barrier.
  
  I’m not interested in having one. I don’t care about them enough to go through an extensive background check [though I would pass it], nor pay the $200 tax stamp to obtain it . . . . and the price of the can itself. My buddy [gunsmith and Dept. Sheriff] wants me to, but I am just not interested at this point. I would rather just use some of the “.22lr Quiet” from CCI and run them through my 10/22, knowing that I will have to cycle each casing out and new round in.
  
  My 2 cents….
  
  Report this comment
- 338_LM
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 2:43pm
  Hey Deav… I’m a long-time NFA weapons owner, since back in 1993 when a Fleming auto-sear was $800. (Now they’re $15,000, for just a piece of stamped steel weighing less than a nickel – IF you can find one!)
  
  If you needed ear-plugs after a few suppressed rounds, the shooter next to you had an inadequate device. I can shoot all day long with a 11″ AR15 with no protection, using a YHM Phantom screwed onto the end. (It is, however, still loud. Nobody is going to mistake it as a gunshot, nor do my ears ring, and CRT whine still drives me nuts…)
  
  I have a couple MP5s, and let me tell you, with a decent suppressor and sub-sonic 9mm, the empty brass hitting the concrete is louder than the action, which is louder than the barrel discharge.
  
  As soon as they (hopefully) pass this, I can carry my shorty AR with suppressor in my Subaru and go coyote hunting.
  
  Report this comment
JerkyMiester
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:36am
Not a valid test. .22 rounds are sub-sonic. They wont make that “crack” sound while travelling down range. Also .22 rounds already have the lowest sound signature of any round when it’s fired. A true test would be firing a 30-06 round through the silencer. The muzzle blast might be muted but that round is super sonic and it will crack downrange. Silencers will have little effect on a hi speed large round.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RightThinking1
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 10:29am
  Many .22 Long Rifle cartridges are trans-sonic to ranges as great as 100yds.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:53pm
  Sorry, Jerky- only a few .22LR rounds are sub-sonic, and to my knowledge, none of the .22 magnum class are. Some of the hyper-velocity .22 rounds are traveling above 1500fps for well over a hundred yards. The major reason for their low noise is the small case size: ergo, less powder to go BOOM!
  
  Report this comment
Mapache
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:35am
Who would use a .22 for hunting unless you are hunting squirrels?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- historyguy48
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 11:05am
  The Mafia, it was their favorite caliber for executions.
  
  Report this comment
dinkydau
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:24am
I thought silencers were banned by federal law and are punishable by prison time

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mapache
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:34am
  Not banned but you need to get special authorizations and pay extra for the privilege. I won’t buy them simply because I do not want the federal government to know what I have.
  
  Report this comment
- waresite
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:47am
  http://www.silencersarelegal.com/
  
  Report this comment
ashestoashes
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:20am
If you are in Africa and trying to save an elephant by taking out a pride of lions..or even here in the states..if you are trying to save an animal or human from being killed by mountain lions or bears..sure..but not to hunt deer..moose of elk..When hunting season is on..the people out there deserve to know where shots are being fired..it is definitely a safety issue..as for an unfair advantage to the deer..moose or elk..it is already an unfair advantage..even without silencers..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Shamrock241
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:57am
  I am very Pro Gun but i do see this as a safety issue, if other hunters do not know you are in the area they could walk inline of your fire 200 yards past your entended target and out of view and just like that your DEAD. I have a 300 Win Mag and if i do not wear ear plugs my ears ring for 5 minutes after each shot, they work so if you are concerned about hear loss use them.
  
  Report this comment
- Landon410
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:06am
  so on the private land i own, that is posted that no one can enter onto, should i not have the right?
  
  Report this comment
- Shamrock241
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:33am
  I stand corrected if it make’s enough sound for other hunters in the area to hear but not so loud it damages your hearing i am all for it.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 12:24pm
  On private land it should be kosher. Keep the pink rifles on fed and state land loud for the weekenders that know no better. Simple. Private, have at it.
  
  Report this comment
- goahead.makemyday
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 1:55pm
  I agree with FUBARD but the point is moot for me I prefer bow hunting.
  
  Report this comment
- Warthog Fixer
  Posted on December 5, 2012 at 8:55am
  So… you can dodge bullets? Banning the thing will not fix the idiot sending projectiles your way. He’ll keep shooting at you, oh and you’ll know it becasue Silencers/Suppressors only muffle the explosive blast of the propellant not the supersonic shockwave of the bullet itself.
  
  Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:04am
.
You never hear the one that kills you anyway……………..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RightThinking1
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:49am
  Not that it matters, but just to be nerdy, that isn’t strictly true. Anything under 1100 fps, or so, and you would hear the shot first. Not much consolation…..
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 8:58am
  Article reads, “Some have safety concerns as well.”
  Only to the intended target…
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.