-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Legislative Alert - Sound Suppressor Bill Hearing July 14
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
DarthRevan
NES Member
I was talking to who ever was working the GOAL Facebooger page and they said there is no set time and that its just all the bills being covered in addition to this one.
Lip
Army Veteran
Killy features are fun.
Utterly, completely, totally false.
Even using standard M855 at full speed It reduces the sound pressure immensely and allows you to shoot 223/556 with less hearing damage and less hearing protection.
Your statement is like saying there's no point in putting mufflers on a 500HP engine. Of course it will still be loud, but it will be less loud.
A can on an 18 inch barrel is actually rather quiet. I wouldn't shoot it without plugs in, but unsuppressed, I usually double-bag (plugs and muffs) and it is still unpleasant and leaves my ears ringing the next day. Suppressed, an 18 inch barrel does not even with just simple ear plugs.
The can works just fine, even when super-sonic ammo.
You are even more wrong when you apply your logic to 308 out of a 20+ bolt gun. At the position of the shooter it is quiet enough to shoot without hearing protection. There will still be a sonic crack, but it will be down range.
This sort of nonsense and fuddery is why it has taken so long to restore our rights.
Impossible to predict and in the last few times, they really packed them in, so if there is good turnout, it can be all afternoon. Show up anyway and show your support, even if you have to leave. Give them written testimony and/or call.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 9,597
- Likes
- 9,201
If this were to pass I'd really have mud on my face. All my rifles are AWB exempt, and you could pin one on any pistol. (Unless the weight issue came into play)
With in the next few weeks I'll be receiving 2 tax stamps...One is for an m203 40mm.. I bought it because my ffl buddies have cans and I can't.
Leave it to MA to ban something that would have prevented most of my hearing loss, but allows me to own a grenade launcher.
Also the anti's would complain less from preventing noise polution, they can live in there imaginary gun free utopia. ..at least in there minds.
With in the next few weeks I'll be receiving 2 tax stamps...One is for an m203 40mm.. I bought it because my ffl buddies have cans and I can't.
Leave it to MA to ban something that would have prevented most of my hearing loss, but allows me to own a grenade launcher.
Also the anti's would complain less from preventing noise polution, they can live in there imaginary gun free utopia. ..at least in there minds.
Buddy, it's neither nonsense not fuddery. You are artificially distinguishing between the loudness of the gun and the loudness of what the shooter hears.
I can achieve similar effects with a simple linear comp if all I want to do is direct sound downrange. I don't know anyone who double bags it outside so you are the exception there. If I still have to wear hearing protection using a suppressor then what is the point?
I quoted a damn suppressor mfg so don't tell me I'm lying and insult me with the fudd bs. Your own statements simply prove out what I wrote: "There will still be a sonic crack, but it will be down range". The selling point to MA legislators is the noise complaint issue so your arguments are moot and superfluous.
Cherry picking old posts and tiny portions of my argument is just plain silly. The bulk of the total sound comes from the sonic crack and that will still be louder than the suppressed gun shot. True or false? Advanced Armament states just that on their own web page.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,272
- Likes
- 185
The sound is still reduced on a supersonic rifle round. Just because a round isn't subsonic doesn't mean it can be muffled. If it wasnt, why would people even buy them? It will still be quieter for people near the shooter (I speak from experience) and for the neighbors.
First of all, I wasn't talking about bolt guns: Read the post I was talking about .223 AR's. Second of all, I never said the sound was not diminished.
My post:
"Not for nothing but putting a suppressor on a .223 AR is one of the silliest things you could do. In order for the suppressor to be effective that bullet needs to stay subsonic. That means your big bad evil black rifle now shoots a .223 caliber projectile slower than a .22 cal handgun. Not only that but you will never get consistent cycling of the bolt bc there just isn't enough gas to work it. "
My next post:
"For it to be truly effective you need to get rid of the sonic boom/crack. Otherwise it's just slightly muffled & you can hide the flash a bit better."
You guys can argue about .308 all you want, I don't have experience with .308's but at least read the posts.
Last edited:
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
I really hope this passes . Can we bribe the D's
DarthRevan
NES Member
Start offering reach arounds?
vickers
NES Member
Your dad (Rep Mirra) responded to me today on this and says he will support the bill! He mentioned that I had chatted with you on it. Thanks!
We are intentionally avoiding this approach - and any of you that are planning to speak at the hearing should think this through carefully.
You can easily see them make the argument, "If suppressors make guns safer, then they're not safe without them! We need to quickly re-ban junior shooting programs!"
Is this the reason why one can't distinguish where suppressed shots are originating from in the field when using 5.56?
Mike S
NES Member
Have you shot an AR with a can? It drastically reduces the report at the muzzle. Why is that "silly" to you? When an AR (or any rifle firing supersonic ammo) has a suppressor it is much more comfortable to shoot and has reduced recoil, like I said, I don't see why you think it's "silly".
Last edited:
I have always had very sensitive hearing and I value my hearing so I take extra precaution, but I also expose myself to a lot of noise whether it be music or guns. Even with a lifetime of precaution, I have tinnitus. So, whatever I am doing it isn't enough.
The reality of sound pressure is that it doesn't just go into your ear canal. It goes into your mouth, nose and transduces through your skull and skeleton.
I am speaking as someone who shoots with these things pretty much every weekend, not just reading things off the internet and you are quite mistaken that you can accomplish the same thing with a linear comp. You cannot.
The suppressor will significantly reduce the decibel level of the sound at the barrel of the gun because it slows the gasses leaving the barrel and provides surface area for the sound to be absorbed prior to leaving the gun, just as a car muffler does.
IT DOES THIS REGARDLESS OF THE SPEED OF THE PROJECTILE. So, whatever the sound pressure would have been, it is now less.
Bringing the sound pressure of 556 down to by 32dB is a good thing no matter where it starts and ends. 160db is devastating to your ears, 130 is still bad, but less bad and requires less ear protection to bring it down to something "hearing safe".
What a lot of shooters and certainly non-shooters don't seem to understand is that they are damaging their hearing even with hearing protection and even outdoors. Search for tinnitus on this forum and you will see the end result. Sound pressure does cumulative damage to your ears. You can take one loud noise for a short period, but even a lesser noise over time will do damage:
Notice the axis of time and intensity here:
http://www.noisehelp.com/noise-dose.html
I know people use less hearing protection than they should. They assume if they are outdoors they don't need it or need less, but they are wrong. The real problem is as you do damage over time, your perception of the amplitude is reduced (BY PERMANENT DAMAGE TO YOUR EARS) so you are tolerating more and more amplitude over time and doing more and more damage.
ANY REDUCTION IS A GOOD REDUCTION. That is the point. I want to hear in my old age.
3dB represents approximately a 50% reduction in power and 556 can be reduced by 32-34dB. Well worth it and very obvious if you actual shoot them rather than read the internets.
Last edited:
Cekim, I agree with what you have written with respect to the effect for the shooter. A good linear comp can accomplish a lot but (yes again) you are correct that it won't help significantly with the concussive blast you reference that affects more than our ears. Linear comps have come a long ways in the past 1-2 years.
My point of view was the "neighborhood noise complaint" perspective bc we deal with that a lot during the winter at my club. Adding a suppressor to a rifle is only going to moderately impact the sound a neighborhood hears.
I'm sure that between lead exposure, concussive effects, and hearing damage that we are all damaging our bodies far more than we like to admit.
My point of view was the "neighborhood noise complaint" perspective bc we deal with that a lot during the winter at my club. Adding a suppressor to a rifle is only going to moderately impact the sound a neighborhood hears.
I'm sure that between lead exposure, concussive effects, and hearing damage that we are all damaging our bodies far more than we like to admit.
Menufacturers are going to error on the side of caution in setting expectations - both from a sales point of view and liability. They don't want you pissed that your gun still goes blam when you expected pew, so they warn you that to get anything close to pew, you need slower ammo.
This is absolutely true, but there is still a profound benefit to suppressing even super-sonic. Even more so ammo that is right on the edge. 147gr 9mm out of the box will often produce a pistol that you can shoot without hearing protection (with the right can) even with my dog ears. There will be a sonic crack, but it is far enough away from the shooter not to seem loud.
bigblue, I think you are conflating the sonic crack and the sound of the gas overpressure. They are two very distinct noise sources.
This is absolutely true, but there is still a profound benefit to suppressing even super-sonic. Even more so ammo that is right on the edge. 147gr 9mm out of the box will often produce a pistol that you can shoot without hearing protection (with the right can) even with my dog ears. There will be a sonic crack, but it is far enough away from the shooter not to seem loud.
bigblue, I think you are conflating the sonic crack and the sound of the gas overpressure. They are two very distinct noise sources.
The absolute sound pressure that leaves the gun is drastically reduced - whether at the shooter or down range.
The super-sonic crack is the super-sonic crack. That is a high frequency noise though that don't tend to have a lot of range. If you stand well outside your gun range, you are going to be hearing "BOOM" a lot more than "crack". Particularly if you are in a house adjacent that range (as the house itself will filter high frequency much better than low (as does air, wood, water vapor, etc..).
It isn't a subtle difference either. As I said, 3dB is 50% less power and we are talking about 30+ dB of reduction.
I shoot 147 gr 9mm from my AR9mm and there is no sonic boom: The velocity is around 850-900 fps.
I think you are missing my original point: With a .233 AR it is not enough to JUST slap a can on it bc there will still be quite a bit of noise downrange. I even wrote that a suppressor would muffle the sound and direct it downrange.
Yes it is better and yes it is significant. I never argued that.
I think you are missing my original point: With a .233 AR it is not enough to JUST slap a can on it bc there will still be quite a bit of noise downrange. I even wrote that a suppressor would muffle the sound and direct it downrange.
Yes it is better and yes it is significant. I never argued that.
and big blue, I was tired and grumpy when I posted the first one, I did not mean to be quite so insulting, my apologies, but it is frustrating to hear gun owners resist this (and they have).
I know it will be a long process and will likely break other broken laws, but even if we got this one part of the law changed and needed to change another it is a good thing for everyone.
We need to move this process away from emotional debates and back to the realities and removing the prohibition on suppressors does that. Other laws need to change as well, I won't argue, but that is part of what these committees do - they "rationalize" the bill to try to make sure it doesn't create impossible problems and if additional verbiage is needed to fix another law, they can add that too.
I know it will be a long process and will likely break other broken laws, but even if we got this one part of the law changed and needed to change another it is a good thing for everyone.
We need to move this process away from emotional debates and back to the realities and removing the prohibition on suppressors does that. Other laws need to change as well, I won't argue, but that is part of what these committees do - they "rationalize" the bill to try to make sure it doesn't create impossible problems and if additional verbiage is needed to fix another law, they can add that too.
re: 9mm It depends on the load - some are, some aren't - hence, "right on the edge".
re: 223/556, "just not enough"? You don't want 30dB of reduction? You don't want to take a noise where even a micro second of exposure is seriously damaging and bring it down to a level you can tolerate for a second or so without hearing protection (I would still suggest you wear something)?
That just doesn't make sense to me and also consider that your hearing protection may vary in efficacy from time to time. muffs not seated on your ears, plugs not all the way in, plugs not actually manufactured to spec.
Your argument is akin to saying there is no point in wearing gloves if I can survive 10F for "long enough" without them. Wearing gloves in cold weather is far more comfortable and well worth it.
Again, my argument was coming from the "neighborhood noise complaint" in that a can alone is not enough.
I absolutely 100% am in favor of this even though (or because) it will cost me a lot of money and additional stamp paperwork.
Whether it's worth $800 for a 30 db noise reduction, idk. I guess you are right my hearing is worth that. lol stop pushing me to spend more money damnit!
I absolutely 100% am in favor of this even though (or because) it will cost me a lot of money and additional stamp paperwork.
Whether it's worth $800 for a 30 db noise reduction, idk. I guess you are right my hearing is worth that. lol stop pushing me to spend more money damnit!
I think people need to be realistic about that (noise complaints). One thing they will realize is that noise is relative... This will make it a LOT better for everyone though. It won't create a silent utopia, much as jet engine baffles don't make airports silent, but they sure as heck do make it better than it would be.
Again, see my comment about the frequency of the noise that would be leaving the range, the sonic crack now dominates, but it is a higher frequency noise that dissipates much faster with distance. The same is true of the lower frequency components, as they start out with a tiny fraction of the power, they will dissipate in a much shorter distance.
Courtesy rather than safety, along with a healthy dose of "the Feds already have them heavily regulated and all the cool states are already allowing them".
My personal opinion (I'm not speaking for GOAL here) is to not bring up safety or courtesy. Any words other than "they're cool and we want them" can be quickly turned around and used against us.
How would you like it if an anti-gun legislature made them a requirement? Doing so would add $500-ish to the price of the gun, and create a months-long waiting period (while the Feds process the paper). Fortunately, I don't think our opponents think clearly and logically enough to try to do this.
