Assuming that Congress does the right thing and Suppressors are removed from the NFA, they will just be GCA, normal Title 1 firearms. While there are a number of states that restrict the possession of silencers, most don’t. If people can buy silencers the way that they currently buy rifles or shotguns do you think there will be more integrally suppressed firearms for sale? I know I would love to see some more integrally suppressed rifles. One of the downsides of adding a suppressor is that it adds length to a rifle. Chop down an M4 to a 10.5” barrel and it’s extra handy, but then you stick a suppressor on the end and it’s longer than it was with a 14.5” barrel. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an M4 with a handy 13-14” barrel that had built in suppression to make it hearing safe without having to deal with 2 stamps? How about a nice 16” barreled suppressed rifle? If the shot act can get implemented it could really take off even further. I don’t think there has been as much demand for these type firearms because of the extra burden of NFA paperwork, but if that obstacle is taken away, I’d imagine that there would be much more demand for these type firearms, assuming they can be produced reliably. What does everyone else think?
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Posts: 5791 | Location: Upstate NY | Registered: February 28, 2002
I don't see the demand dropping for any type of suppression if they come off the NFA, so why not? I think the entire market will expand dramatically.
I still see the demand for regular cans far exceeding that of such items, however. They over significantly more flexibility.
________________________________________
-- Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. --
Posts: 18107 | Location: New Mexico | Registered: October 14, 2005
Rom 13:4 If you do evil, be afraid. For he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Posts: 747 | Location: Wyoming | Registered: September 30, 2012
Yes, if both the HPA and Short act get through as originally worded, I expect to see a veritable explosion in the market for SBR's and yes, also integrals.
Something else I'm not really seeing talked about is that now there will be an actual market for used suppressors. Before, it was such a hassle that most people didn't want to bother with it. Imagine a parking lot deal with cash for a suppressor you don't like or want anymore without it being a felony. If this goes through, it's going to take production a while to ramp up to meet demand, so if any of you guys have cans you could see yourself parting with, this would be the time to dump them.
______________________________________________ Endeavoring to master the subtle art of the grapefruit spoon.
If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !! Trump 47....Make America Great Again! "May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20 Live Free or Die!
Posts: 9970 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011
Most likely the market will be driven to create the best suppressors that can be produced, because the incentive to do so will be motivated by the desire of many people to want the "best" that is available.
The rule of "Demand and Supply".
"the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא שוב!
Posts: 45344 | Location: Box 1663 Santa Fe, New Mexico | Registered: December 20, 2008
I would kill to have the Silencerco’s Maxim 9 TDP sold to a mainstream manufacturer for updating, refinement, and repair. Silencerco isn’t big enough for the task, but if a company like S&W, Ruger, Glock, etc picked it up, I think that would be the start of something big.
Posts: 2171 | Location: TX | Registered: October 28, 2010
Michigan law prohibits suppressors unless you you have the federal license so if this law passed they won't be legal in Michigan. Be interesting how they treat existing ones already here in the state.
The odds of Whitmire signing a new law to allow them is not very good.
Integrity is doing the right thing, even when nobody is looking.
Posts: 4419 | Location: Metamora MI | Registered: October 31, 2003
It would be interesting to see if ammo manufacturers get more creative in making more ‘silencer specific’ loads. One of the biggest pains with SD-type integrally suppressed platforms is how quickly they get dirty. If manufacturers could get the lab rats to come up with cleaner powders that don’t make it a necessity to clean guns and cans after each range session, that would be a huge for further blowing up demand!
Been casually following these [with updates here], would definitely get me to dip a toe into the rabbit hole. Not necessarily for an integral, but in general.
Originally posted by gjgalligan: Michigan law prohibits suppressors unless you you have the federal license so if this law passed they won't be legal in Michigan. Be interesting how they treat existing ones already here in the state.
Should the HPA become federal law, Tom Grieve discusses possible scenarios re: the legality of suppressor ownership in 16 states based upon the verbiage of their current state laws.
Posts: 3656 | Location: Western PA | Registered: July 20, 2010
If reclassified as a firearm accessory or even as a 4473 item to purchase, I agree with others that the market for suppressors will explode, even more so than red dots for handguns. And with demand will come more innovation, and other big boy companies entering the picture, maybe Glock, Sig, etc, with integrated systems being manufactured and sold. And of course, more competition means lower pricing.
"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
Posts: 18143 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 13, 2003
Be interesting how they treat existing ones already here in the state.
I watched the video, but I think it goes a bit off on this. If you have an existing suppressor, it has a form1 and would be 'licensed' or 'registered' or whatever your State statue requires. There is no expiration date of a Form1, it existes in perpetuity. So I don't see that as an issue for those kind of states and statues, how you get a new one might very well be problematic. Maybe it opens up the used market for previously registered (like grandfathered guns) supressors since the transfer costs are essentially nil. EDITED TO ADD. I actually looked at the bill and all it does it cut the transfer cost to 0. the way I read the text the form1 would still have to exist and be approved.
“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
Originally posted by oddball: I agree with others that the market for suppressors will explode, even more so than red dots for handguns
Which raises another thought - depending on the configuration of the silencers that become available, we may see another boost in red dot sights since not all suppressors are iron sight friendly. We might also see more prism sights with more sophisticated reticles for the same reason.
quote:
Originally posted by hrcjon: ..the way I read the text the form1 would still have to exist and be approved
There's been a lot of debate - and, I would suppose, a lot of confusion - as to what will actually be required to buy a suppressor. It's early enough in the legislative process that it may make sense to see what actually gets through the Senate before trying to assess what the process for buying a suppressor will be once the bill is (hopefully) signed into law.
Posts: 27342 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008
It's early enough in the legislative process that it may make sense to see what actually gets through the Senate
I fully agree with that. but what's in the bill right now is what I quoted above. For your own fun and amusement you can go read the thing if you need some help sleeping or throwing up.
“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
