quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Dwill104,
I agree that my prioritization of silencers is somewhat unique. I see them as value added, do my best to cater guns to them, and seek to procure certain new guns with them in mind. As a silencer user yourself, do you typically use one on your "go-to" rifle?
I am a fan of the gate-latch and collar fastener mechanisms, for use with NATO-spec devices. My friends without silencers remove their crush washers, and it's good-to-go. Of course I check alignment.

I normally only use my suppressors on SBRs where the added length and weight aren’t as much of an issue, not so much on 16” barrels and up. Other than for my Rugged Oculus 22 can, I don’t use direct thread, and even with that only on .22LR guns. The one time I tried using it on a centerfire gun (a 5.7x28 CMMG), it started coming unscrewed and I had an endcap strike. I usually prefer Griffin taper mounts for my centerfire cans, and swap out the factory muzzle devices for various Griffin mounts, preferring their flash hider mounts for shooting unsuppressed when I want. The majority of my suppressor use is on SBR PCCs in 9mm using 3 lug mounts. For centerfire rifle, it’s mostly limited to a PWS Mk111 5.56 upper on a SBR lower or a .300 BO SBR.

Anubismp,
You bring up some great points. The .50 and .338LM examples are great additions to the legitimate exemptions, in my opinion. Those weapons' purposes have you either so far from your intended target that your signature is a non-issue, or in such a high-profile engagement (.50BMG anti-material application), that the signature is again a non-issue.

The AUG falls firmly in the length exemption parameters, for your use-case. That gun can very likely be successfully suppressed though. I have found that, so long as spare parts are available, one can tinker with things in an effort to limit gas flow, or encourage gas exhaust, to promote better silencer behavior. That would of course be in a suppressed-all-the-time scenario, as these modifications aren't quick to undo, which eliminates the possibility of a QD can, which doesn't mesh well with your use-case. But I still thought it worth mentioning. The same goes for your 553; all (that I have messed with) Swiss barrels are timed to be swappable. So, you could get a threaded 552/3 barrel to allow silencer use on your 553, while preserving your factory barrel. With the right valve, the 553 is a badass weapon with a can. Of course historic and collectible items are off the table, and they typically aren't falling into the practical application category anyway; as much as I love silencers, I am not trying to modify my MAS36/51 to utilize a can.

Yeah I've been playing with a suppressor gas plug for my aug and have a US thread barrel for it. It functions but is quite loud still with port pop from the gas system. I can cut off the gas but then it doesn't cycle. More experimentation is needed and I need to play with and research the gas system more as I haven't spent a ton of time on it compared to my understanding of other systems. I also have an MDRx which is a very easily suppressible bullpup and it ran well with the can on it so it kind of pulls me up short for how much time and effort I want to put into messing with the AUG.

I need to look more into the 553 barrels as I haven't even really peeked much under the hood on that gun. If it is end user swappable I might.

I also have a B&T APC300 and I've considered picking up a 12" 556 barrel for it and running it in that setup. I run it with my 9 can which is short but then I'm stuck with subs. I could also chop the handguard or get a different one as my rifle can is a prehistoric 2pc reflex mount can. Im also in the process of looking at getting around to maybe getting another rifle can that more updated and flexible. Lots of things to consider.

The AUG is never going to be that quiet, just because of the ejection port and action location, in relation to your ear. I had an AUGA3 with a 9mm conversion kit; even with subsonic 9mm, it was unbearably loud at the shooter's ear.

The 553 barrel is not what most would deem "user swappable". It requires a fixture to hold the receiver properly. It is doable though.

quote:

For centerfire rifle, it’s mostly limited to a PWS Mk111 5.56 upper on a SBR lower or a .300 BO SBR.

Dwill,
Do you consider either of those your "go-to" carbine?

Aside from the obvious additional bulk, I see no reason not to suppress any gun.

The market is flooded with options so compromises can be minimized if you do your homework.

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
"why would someone choose to have their weapon make more noise"?

I would point out that there are a few weapons that might make sense for certain things but do not suppress well. I have a Steyr AUG that fits in my travel bag and that does not suppress well. It can suppress but it just doesn't do well due to its gas system setup. I have ear pro and its for very weird emergencies. My pistol is far more likely my go to. The thing is that my Aug is the size of a 10.5 AR and will be good to go out to carbine ranges yet fits in an innocuous case. To me it fills a niche no other gun touches that I own or want.

My carry gun also is not suppressed as I want people to know I need help and a can would make it double or near triple in size and length. Not really the point.

There are also guns that I do not want to alter ie a SG553 that has a built in FH. Kinda wish it didn't but I dont want to mill it off when I have scores of other guns that do that. I also have lots of historical stuff that I will not alter.

I have two long range guns that I chose a brake over a can for, for three different reasons. 1, The cans would be single purposed as its a 50 and a 338LM. 2,the brakes they have are more effective at recoil reduction than a can and I dont want to be slapped around. 3, The cans are only so effective in those calibers. I'd put a 50 can at the same sound as shooting a muzzleloader for example, and the 50 is already absurd in size.

For me I have loud guns and quiet guns and a few that cross over. I am, however, enjoying the discussion.

Agreed. My experience with my EDC and my AUG is about the same. I really like a can on PRS rifles, rimfires, and on my 20” Colt. Definitely some guns that are quiet guns and some that are loud guns. Discussion is incredibly interesting to me though.

Length is a major concern, for example a carry gun.

Another reason would be historic or sentimental reasons.

Lastly would be just isn’t practical to suppress, like an M1 or AUG.

The OP acknowledges that pistols are not ideal, and eliminates them from the discussion before it starts.

The OP also puts an emphasis on rifles being used in "practical" applications; as in a rifle you're going to turn to in a real time of need.
Historic and sentimental guns aren't the ones you're using in the "go-to" context, and are therefore exempt from the conversation.

The AUG can likely be made to work pretty well with a can, as is being discussed in another thread right now. Also, per previous comments in this discussion, if a rifle can't be made to perform well with a silencer, it is out of the rotation, for practical use, and is therefore out of the conversation.

If you're someone who appreciates silencers, and one of your weapons doesn't perform well with one, are you still going to prioritize that weapon's use , as a practical carbine? It seems to me that the weapon in question would have to have an impressive list of advantages, in order to outweigh the con of no silencer.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
eliminates them from the discussion before it starts

As someone who has been here a long time and usually tries to encourage those replying to actually focus on the questions I post, all I can say is good luck with expecting people to pay attention to the caveats and conditions you include with your questions. I actually laughed out loud when I read in the first post of another of your threads, “Please refrain from ‘I have a Tavor, and I like it for this reason or that’,” and on the same page someone posted “My Tavor [is a great gun for this reason and that reason].”

Oddly, some members here don’t like it when others pose questions for discussion, but I find yours to be worthwhile considering.

I shoot a lot more handgun than rifle, and for the most part, for me a handgun is a carry item. Suppression adds enough bulk that it's usually not an option, or desirable. If I do shoot the handgun under stress, things have already gone south and any further hearing loss (to my already sorry state of hearing) is a cost attached to the emergency.

At home, my first option is a suppressed G21. It doesn't need to be holstered and it has one purpose: respond to a problem at home.

Rifle hosts for me are mostly AR's and it's an option, but not an every-time option.

The lengthy process for bringing any new suppressor onboard is past a year at the moment. I think I have five that are past that point, and waiting for a response. Paid for, in limbo, waiting. Again.

My hearing is critical for my work, and it's right at the edge of being acceptable as-is. It won't take a lot more exposure to be a career-ender. Minimizing exposure is important, without a doubt, and hearing doesn't come back. My ears ring loudly, day and night. I ask people to repeat things a lot, lean-in to hear. I cup my hand by my hear in conversations. But suppression isn't on the table for everything I shoot, and won't be. In a perfect world, perhaps. My world isn't that perfect.

Everything in its season, and suppressors have a place. I couldn't put everything in the safes with suppressors, so reaching for a suppressed firearm limits me to what isn't in the safe, what I'm not carrying, what doesn't need to fit into a bag, etc. Low noise, low blast, low flash, all good things, but with the cost associated with the length and bulk and time and expense. Not in the cards in all cases, so yes, there are many cases when I'll be shooting unsuppressed.

Have to travel armed? Probably unsuppressed. NFA across state lines, especially if the lines intersect places that aren't receptive, is a complication I don't need.

Sometimes, I think folks inflate potential "cons" of silencer use, due to the annoying purchase process. I think it's important to disassociate the legal process, in order to have an honest conversation about the true pros and cons of the device itself, as it relates to the firearm and it's uses in a self defense or tactical environment.

sns3guppy, you make a strong case for silencer use, considering the importance of your hearing in your job. Don't let trivial things like the the dimensions of a bag or safe prevent you from using something that makes so much sense. The length exception is really only valid when meaningful parameters of someone's use-case or "mission" require the shortest thing possible. Are you referring to some kind of vehicle safe, perhaps? IME, most safes are plenty large enough to accommodate a suppressed 16" AR-type firearm.

With the emphasis on "for practical purposes" I have no practical purpose for a suppressor on a rifle.

I live in a residential area of single family homes within a city, lot sizes are relatively small. For home defense my choice is a pistol, not a rifle. I do have a couple of AR's but they would not be my go to unless in the very unlikely scenario my home is attacked by a large mob. I say unlikely since my city is on a coastal island in Florida with basically only four ways in, and the police would close off those chokepoints if it came to that, as has been done in the past, for example after a hurricane. I have no SBR's, don't work with small tactical units, don't anticipate defending outdoors from concealment.

I do have a .22 bolt rifle (and pistol) with a threaded barrel and a .22 suppressor but that is not what you are asking about. Its really more a novelty just because I wanted it than any practical reason.

If sound suppressors were legally the totally innocuous objects that they are in reality, much of this discussion would be far different. Shooters who are willing to put up with the legal nonsense have benefited by the explosion of new offerings over the past several years, but imagine what it would be like if they were no more difficult to buy and possess everywhere than an oil filter. They would be much less expensive and innovative designs would abound. I would probably have a box full that I hardly ever used just as I have a box full of holsters that I never use. But when even leaders on the right don’t support changing the laws, I’ll always be the beggar who walks rather than rides.

kho, if your circumstances had you utilizing a rifle more than anything else, would you want a silencer on it? Even in your current circumstances, if you had to utilize your rifle, would you not want the benefits of a silencer? The question was never "do you feel like you need a silencer on your rifle?". Your situation may see you using a rifle so little that you don't care to go through the process of acquiring a center-fire rifle can, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be value-added.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
If sound suppressors were legally the totally innocuous objects that they are in reality, much of this discussion would be far different.

Yes. I think kho's response is a perfect example. His use-case of a center-fire carbine has him using it perhaps very little, and therefore he doesn't prioritize a silencer for it, no doubt in large part due to the purchase process and price. If those elements are removed, the rationalizations of unsuppressed carbines almost disappear.

I would have one on everything except my pocket carry if they were legal in all my states

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
If sound suppressors were legally the totally innocuous objects that they are in reality, much of this discussion would be far different.

Yes. I think kho's response is a perfect example. His use-case of a center-fire carbine has him using it perhaps very little, and therefore he doesn't prioritize a silencer for it, no doubt in large part due to the purchase process and price. If those elements are removed, the rationalizations of unsuppressed carbines almost disappear.

I would say you are partly right but mostly wrong about why I do not prioritize a silencer for my rifles. Its not really cost or process. I can easily afford one or several, and I actually have two, the .22 I mentioned above and another for a 9mm pistol that I didn't mention because you specified pistols were outside the scope of your question. I went through the Trust and paperwork and waiting period for both and could easily do it again. It should be clear that I am not ant-suppressor.

I would say its more a matter of value, I just don't see the value in spending the money or submitting the paperwork because its not something I perceive I need or particularly just want. I mean, if they were handing them out on a street corner then, sure, why not. To that extent then your comments on my thinking are correct. But that's not happening in the real world.

And the reason I do not perceive I need or want suppressors on all my rifles is that we do live in the real world and in my world there is little or no real benefit - read "value" - to me in my circumstances that justifies the cost and effort. But its not the cost and effort in and of itself.

To address your earlier question to me, I suppose if my circumstances were different I might well want suppressed rifles. But, again, given my actual circumstances I don't. In my case I think making a great deal of noise would have the advantage.

Interesting conversation though, all this is not something I consciencely thought about before and as always I reading and thinking about the different views expressed by you and others.

So you're saying that, if a silencer didn't require a wait and an additional $200 over the sticker price, you wouldn't see the value in a center-fire rifle silencer for, say, $500?

yup.

ETA - i shot that response off too quickly. I might buy one or two just to have in your scenario, just because. Or not. I really don't know since that's not how it works.