Integrally suppressed AR

[Tobra]

The Angstadt Vanquish, very nifty. 9 mm carbine

[Jeff Higgins]

I wonder how it works with black powder.

[id10t]

Buddy has a 9mm upper with integral can for his transferrable M16. Lots of fun to shoot with it, but he'll never get an integral again simply because it ain't much different from a detachable can, but an integral is a "one trick pony". He's also got a Bowers Vers375 can, which he can use on his 308 rifles as well as on his 9mm stuff.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I wonder how it works with black powder.

Suppressing Blk powder don't do u much gud... that big puff of smoke out of the muzzle will give you away evey time.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by tabs

Suppressing Blk powder don't do u much gud... that big puff of smoke out of the muzzle will give you away evey time.

but the big puff of smoke doesn't harm your hearing.

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by tabs

Suppressing Blk powder don't do u much gud... that big puff of smoke out of the muzzle will give you away evey time.

Not at night.

[id10t]

Originally Posted by masraum

but the big puff of smoke doesn't harm your hearing.

An oil filter suppressor though would probably do a good job of containing the poof ....

Anyone got a lathe to turn down and thread an octagonal barrel?

[jyl]

What is the reason to use a suppressor? Can you dispense with hearing protection? Do they reduce the bullet’s energy?

[id10t]

Originally Posted by jyl

What is the reason to use a suppressor? Can you dispense with hearing protection? Do they reduce the bullet’s energy?

When shooting subsonic ammo, they can be VERY quiet. Buddy's Gemtech Mist is an integral 22 for a 10/22 setup. All you hear is the action operating. On a bolt 22, you can hear the firing pin hit and the thwack of the bullet on paper.

Shooting centerfire stuff, something like a 9mm becomes a quiet "chuff" and the clack and rattle of the action. A supersonic 9mm or standard 223, etc. will still have the sonic crack, but the big boom and thunder is controlled to the point of it sounding like a loud 22lr from a rifle. Not exactly hearing safe, but on the lower end of that scale.


So yes, you can mostly dispense with hearing protection, and no, they don't affect bullet velocity OTHER than intentional changes to use subsonic ammo.

As far as getting one, well, I'm saving my pennies to have my 2A violated by having to pay for a SBR tax stamp on a form-1, then I may consider saving up for a good can (about $900 plus tax stamp and transfer for the one I want)

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by jyl

What is the reason to use a suppressor? Can you dispense with hearing protection? Do they reduce the bullet’s energy?

Urban warfare has necessitated the ability to determine the location of a gunshot. This is an audiometric process.

No audio, no location.

[A930Rocket]

Do you need the special license or ? for it? I would think so.

[id10t]

Originally Posted by A930Rocket

Do you need the special license or ? for it? I would think so.

You must pay a $200 tax and receive a stamp before you can take it home. The background check for it is the same check for machine guns, SBRs, etc - fingerprints, photo, normal 4473 questions, hurry up and wait.

A good FFL/SOT will have a range and allow conjugal visits while you wait the 6 to 18 months for hte background check to complete ....

You can also make your own, still need the BG check and tax stamp before starting, and recent BATFE intrerpretations says that planning on using a commercially made part makes that part a unregistered suppressor, so no drilling out oil filter mounts, fuel filters, etc. There was a mass denial and even talk of revoking stamps from people who did this in the past, but now the BATFE has changed their mind (no new law on this....) People who get approved for a make your own have been sending pictures of aluminum cans and a furnace, bar stock, etc.

[matthewb0051]

Our legislature passed a bill last year to exempt suppressors made and kept in Texas from the Fed laws that govern such. Working its way through courts now.

At issue is House Bill (HB) 957, a Texas law recently passed by Representative Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress) exempting firearms silencers or suppressors from federal regulations if they are manufactured, marked, and kept in the State of Texas.

A lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to exempt Texas-made suppressors from federal regulations will move forward, after federal Judge Mark Pittman on Monday ruled against a motion to dismiss the case.

https://thetexan.news/federal-judge-allows-lawsuit-to-exempt-texas-made-suppressors-from-federal-law-to-move-forward/

[id10t]

Originally Posted by matthewb0051

Our legislature passed a bill last year to exempt suppressors made and kept in Texas from the Fed laws that govern such. Working its way through courts now.

At issue is House Bill (HB) 957, a Texas law recently passed by Representative Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress) exempting firearms silencers or suppressors from federal regulations if they are manufactured, marked, and kept in the State of Texas.

A lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to exempt Texas-made suppressors from federal regulations will move forward, after federal Judge Mark Pittman on Monday ruled against a motion to dismiss the case.

https://thetexan.news/federal-judge-allows-lawsuit-to-exempt-texas-made-suppressors-from-federal-law-to-move-forward/

Useless unless there are provisions for Texas LE to fight the Fed LE that will be enforcing the NFA....

[matthewb0051]

Originally Posted by id10t

Useless unless there are provisions for Texas LE to fight the Fed LE that will be enforcing the NFA....

Yeah, I'm not going out to buy one at this point. Too risky

[Jeff Higgins]

I believe Montana passed similar law many years ago. Not regarding suppressors, but regarding firearms manufactured and sold within its borders. Technically, there is no "interstate commerce" involved, so technically the fed has no say in the matter. I'm not sure of its current status. The fed has, in the past, used some very, very far reaching, tenuous strings of justification for regulating "interstate commerce". For example (and this is just an example), if the screws used to assemble the firearm were sourced from out of state, then the fed would try to use that to regulate them under their "interstate commerce" jurisdiction.

It will be interesting to se where this goes.

[Crowbob]

On the one hand, all this infringement talk is mute. There are 300,000,000 guns in private hands in this country. That’s alotta confiscatin’. Can’t possibly happen.

On the other hand, it’s gonna take some brave individuals to fight back. I’m not hopeful. Nobody seems to be taking the southern invasion seriously enough to do anything about it and that is one heckuvalot more blatant than sneaking into somebody’s gun cabinet, for example.

This is why I think the principle behind how successful the leftist’s incrementalism has been is not because most people who resist fear the outcome of a true, widespread, violent revolt. What they fear is the battle. It seems like the battle would make the war Between the States llook like a food fight.

There really is not much of a chance that The People would ultimately lose such a battle. The question is what would they have won?

[Jim Bremner]

I wish California would not have outlawed them