silencers [Archive] - Glock Talk

Stan_TheGunNut

03-11-2007, 16:22

Lots of folks shoot silenced pistols and rifles. I have an AAC Evo-9 that I attach to my G17. It's pretty quiet, but it's not "Hollywood" quiet. You can shoot it without hearing protection, and the loudest sounds are the cycling of the action and the impact of the round downrange. You can also hear the wizz of the bullet at times.

This of course assumes you're shooting a subsonic round. Shooting a supersonic bullet thru a silencer will pretty much eliminate the muzzle blast, but you'll still get the supersonic crack. Do a yahoo/google search and you can find various manufacturers. NFA items are legal in most states, and if you can buy a gun, you can get a NFA item. Just be prepared to pay for it. A 9mm silencer, threaded barrel, & tax stamp will run you about $1000, give or take a few bucks.

As for having one on their carry gun, I'd say no. It adds about 7 inches in length, and if I ever had to use my carry gun, well, I'm sure it would be taken into evidence at least until the DA decided the shoot was good and that he wasn't going to file charges. I'd hate to lose my silencer that long along with it. To me, silencers are nothing more than 'toys' that I can take to the range and play with, help me prevent any more hearing loss, and collect.

81jasonG23

03-11-2007, 21:18

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rocco123
[B]Even if they're legal in your state, you're still looking at a several hundred dollar tax stamp per item. A supressor on a carry gun? That's a joke, right?

That would be why I said I thought it strange. I am not interested in one myself...just curious if anyone with a glock has tried it. It would defeat the purpose of the G26 to add that much length for CCW.

jonathon

03-11-2007, 21:24

Sub sonic ammo on a SIG p226.. sounded beautiful. More of a thump sound than anything.

I talked to a friend who had heard silenced M16's, he said they sounded more like dropping a hard cover book on a concrete floor, just a little louder.

Oneiros

03-12-2007, 00:37

Originally posted by mserr
a guy made a thread looking for a shoulder holster for his silenced glock just yesterday. You should be able to find it easily. I also asked myself why you would need a silenced carry weapon.

This was me, and my silencer is in paperwork limbo right now, so I haven't shot it. I'm pretty sure concealed carrying a gun with a silencer is illegal, if not stupid and cumbersome.

If you ever use a gun with a silencer on it, you'll lose all your guns and go away for a long, long time if only because of public perception of silencers and guns right now.

Originally posted by voodoomanx
Sounds like he would be wearing a trenchcoat. In that case give me a shotgun, or an mp5, and screw being quiet about it.:banana:

Sorry for hijacking the thread I just couldn't resist.

Why not an integrally silenced mp5?

http://nas3.atlanta.gbhinc.com:80/gb/067703000/67703199/pix1312488546.jpg

http://www.gunauctions.org/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=67703199

MarcDW

03-12-2007, 02:00

Machine guns are not legal in SC, suppressors are.
Find a FFL/SOT who has some demo suppressors and go and shoot them.
I don't know the local state laws, the federal requirements are, that you get finger printed, complete a Form 4 (the FFL will fill that for you out and you have to get it signed) and pay a $200 tax to the NFA.

DGallandro

03-12-2007, 07:57

Ironically, here in FL, it's illegal to carry a machine gun under a concealed carry license "Class W", but a suppressor, SBS, SBR, or AOW is technically legal (at least, last I checked.)

I could see, theoretically, running a G26 with grip/mag extension and suppressor, making it handle kinda like a G17L, and then carrying it in a long vertical shoulder rig like a Bianchi X15.

But then I'd have to run 147's in it, which I don't particularly like, I'd have to set the gun up so it would cycle reliably with those rounds AND the suppressor on it, and then I'd have to deal with the short sight radius of the G26 when the length of my pistol should be giving me the longer, more precise sight radius.

Upside: If, for any reason, I had to draw said firearm in self defense, there just might be a slim chance that whoever is about to start intercepting high velocity lead might have a change of heart to see something like that drawn out from concealment, mistakenly assuming I'm some kind of professional.

Other than that, the only other advantage I can see to a suppressor for defensive carry is to prevent hearing loss.

Generally, I've been at the other end of the spectrum, running hot +p .45 loads which were supersonic coming out of my Colt, because if I'm carrying LEGALLY and am defending myself LEGALLY, I want everyone to know I'm in a GUNFIGHT, and that there is a better chance of the law being called while I'm busy.

But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

{edit}

Why not an integrally silenced mp5?

Because the going rate for a fully transferable integrally suppressed MP5 is about 19,500 dollars IF you can find one (unlike the linked auction, which is for a Post-86 Dealer Sample and is not considered "fully transferable").

And heck, if I had 19,500 dollars just laying around doing nothing that I could just spend on a whim, I'd go out, buy a transferable M16, put a 7-inch barrel on it, then get a suppressor with the same texture as the handguard so it'd look coolio, and end up with an M4-length suppressed submachine gun and still have about 3000 bucks left over to buy ammo and magazines.

But hey, that's just me.
{edit ends}

DG

MarcDW

03-12-2007, 08:14

Beside that the DA will grill you, even if it is a "Good shooting"; a suppressor makes a pistol in most cases twice as long and therefore not tactically better.
Drawing such a gun would be a lot more difficult.

TimP

03-12-2007, 10:11

Originally posted by MarcDW
Machine guns are not legal in SC, suppressors are.
Find a FFL/SOT who has some demo suppressors and go and shoot them.
I don't know the local state laws, the federal requirements are, that you get finger printed, complete a Form 4 (the FFL will fill that for you out and you have to get it signed) and pay a $200 tax to the NFA.

or set up a trust, fore-go the finger prints, background checks, and CLEO signoff, and get whatever toys you can afford.

81jasonG23

03-12-2007, 10:48

sounds like a lot more people have learned about this little device than me. Yeah here in SC we can't buy a machine gun, or adapt any gun to make it a full auto. (at least that is what I believe to be true) but at the latest Gun/knife show in town there was a fella selling silencers for around $800 ($600 plus tax) He said it would take several weeks to get it once ordered. I had actually never even seen one outside of a movie or TV show and always doubted that they made the gun that silent (like the ole' james bond) I have never understood the point of having one myself. I always figured that if you are going to take the time to buy a nice gun with fine ammo, you want people to see and hear it when it goes boom. I live outside the city limits here so I shoot in the back yard...my house has never been messed with while many in my neighborhood have.

aecasasus

03-12-2007, 11:48

I have a couple of silencers and I enjoy shooting my glocks with them. They are VERY fun to shoot with!!!
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1163/glocksupp0go.th.jpg

Oneiros

03-12-2007, 15:36

Originally posted by DGallandro
Because the going rate for a fully transferable integrally suppressed MP5 is about 19,500 dollars IF you can find one (unlike the linked auction, which is for a Post-86 Dealer Sample and is not considered "fully transferable").

And heck, if I had 19,500 dollars just laying around doing nothing that I could just spend on a whim, I'd go out, buy a transferable M16, put a 7-inch barrel on it, then get a suppressor with the same texture as the handguard so it'd look coolio, and end up with an M4-length suppressed submachine gun and still have about 3000 bucks left over to buy ammo and magazines.

But hey, that's just me.
{edit ends}

DG

Or you could just get a class 3 liscense for 2k, and buy the thing for less than 2k, around 4k total, and it's yours legally for life.

Buying class 3 machine guns available to civilians isn't economic in the least.

MarcDW

03-12-2007, 15:53

Originally posted by 81jasonG23
...silencers for around $800 ($600 plus tax) He said it would take several weeks to get it once ordered...
The tax is $200 per item, not $600.
Otherwise, it's a long process!

Stan_TheGunNut

03-12-2007, 16:43

Machine guns are not legal in SC, suppressors are.

Not true...my NFA dealer wanted to sell me a MG (ie, full auto select fire) this past January, I just don't have that kind of dough. The initial purchase was bad enough, then I'd have to try and feed it. He's got a few that he owns personally, plus some that he has because he's got a license. Must be nice.

JadeRaven

03-12-2007, 19:31

Originally posted by Oneiros
Or you could just get a class 3 liscense for 2k, and buy the thing for less than 2k, around 4k total, and it's yours legally for life.

Buying class 3 machine guns available to civilians isn't economic in the least.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's that easy.

In order to have a class 3 license, you need to actually be in business and serve class three clients (IE - local police with a class 3 need) on a regular basis.

pesticidal

03-12-2007, 19:57

Originally posted by MarcDW
The tax is $200 per item, not $600.
Otherwise, it's a long process!

I think he meant $600.00 for the product, $200.00 for the tax...

MarcDW

03-12-2007, 23:35

Originally posted by JadeRaven
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's that easy...

Class III or better called SOT (Special Occupation Tax) is a tax a FFL pays and then you are a Class III dealer. No test, no minimum sales.
However, the ATF will do the first years "Compliance Checks" where they check every invoice, 4473, all records and inventory!
Now here is the catch: In order to buy a post dealer sample, you need provide a "demo letter".
This letter has to be signed by a PD Chief, not just a PD officer or LT and it has to request to see this post dealer sample (PDS) gun.
So these letters are not easy to get, since most PD Chiefs don't just give someone they don't know such a letter!
SBR or suppressors however you can just order and all you have to do is waiting for the NFA to approve the transfer.
Once you received the PDS you can keep it until you decide to give up the SOT and do not pay it anymore or his FFL altogether.
Then you have to sell or destroy everything what falls under the Class III/SOT.

Oneiros

03-12-2007, 23:43

Originally posted by MarcDW
Class III or better called SOT (Special Occupation Tax) is a tax a FFL pays and then you are a Class III dealer. No test, no minimum sales.
However, the ATF will do the first years "Compliance Checks" where they check every invoice, 4473, all records and inventory!
Now here is the catch: In order to buy a post dealer sample, you need provide a "demo letter".
This letter has to be signed by a PD Chief, not just a PD officer or LT and it has to request to see this post dealer sample (PDS) gun.
So these letters are not easy to get, since most PD Chiefs don't just give someone they don't know such a letter!
SBR or suppressors however you can just order and all you have to do is waiting for the NFA to approve the transfer.
Once you received the PDS you can keep it until you decide to give up the SOT and do not pay it anymore or his FFL altogether.
Then you have to sell or destroy everything what falls under the Class III/SOT.

You don't have to sell or destroy it all once your SOT/class 3 runs out. It's yours for life, you just can't buy anymore. You can even will the class 3 weapons you bought (post samples) to your next of kin without miles of paperwork.

MarcDW

03-12-2007, 23:54

Originally posted by Oneiros
You don't have to sell or destroy it all once your SOT/class 3 runs out. It's yours for life, you just can't buy anymore. You can even will the class 3 weapons you bought (post samples) to your next of kin without miles of paperwork.

Wrong. You can not even keep the suppressors or SBR.
You have to register those at $200 each.
Post dealer samples (PDS) can not be transfered to an induvidual.
What you properly mean is Pre dealer sample. Those are keepers. However they are a lot more exspensive then PDS!

chevy

03-13-2007, 18:39

keep the glock in the truck if i was goin to carry a silenced weapon id just carry an mp5 with a retracting stock

just my 0.02

81jasonG23

03-13-2007, 21:04

Originally posted by MarcDW
The tax is $200 per item, not $600.
Otherwise, it's a long process!

echo??? $600 + $200(tax) = $800 . Who said math was hard. I was saying that the silencer was $600 and WITH the tax it came to around $800. just clarifying

JadeRaven

03-14-2007, 16:38

Originally posted by MarcDW
Class III or better called SOT (Special Occupation Tax) is a tax a FFL pays and then you are a Class III dealer. No test, no minimum sales.
However, the ATF will do the first years "Compliance Checks" where they check every invoice, 4473, all records and inventory!
Now here is the catch: In order to buy a post dealer sample, you need provide a "demo letter".
This letter has to be signed by a PD Chief, not just a PD officer or LT and it has to request to see this post dealer sample (PDS) gun.
So these letters are not easy to get, since most PD Chiefs don't just give someone they don't know such a letter!
SBR or suppressors however you can just order and all you have to do is waiting for the NFA to approve the transfer.
Once you received the PDS you can keep it until you decide to give up the SOT and do not pay it anymore or his FFL altogether.
Then you have to sell or destroy everything what falls under the Class III/SOT.

So you're telling me. . . That with a signed letter from a Cheif of a sheriff's office or something along those lines plus a fee you can become a "class III dealer" and own things like fully automatic weapons indefinitely if you keep paying your fee?

Hmmmm. . . wonder if I know anyone :D

Oneiros

03-14-2007, 20:37

Originally posted by JadeRaven
So you're telling me. . . That with a signed letter from a Cheif of a sheriff's office or something along those lines plus a fee you can become a "class III dealer" and own things like fully automatic weapons indefinitely if you keep paying your fee?

Hmmmm. . . wonder if I know anyone :D

I am absolutely positive the weapons do not have to be destroyed after you no longer have the liscense, you can keep them. though I am not going to spend time looking up the law. I know you can also transfer post dealer samples to your next of kin. I found the info somewhere on ar15.com in the class 3 section.

SurveyMan

04-28-2007, 11:59

Originally posted by Oneiros
This was me, and my silencer is in paperwork limbo right now, so I haven't shot it. I'm pretty sure concealed carrying a gun with a silencer is illegal, if not stupid and cumbersome.

If you ever use a gun with a silencer on it, you'll lose all your guns and go away for a long, long time if only because of public perception of silencers and guns right now.

Why not an integrally silenced mp5?

http://nas3.atlanta.gbhinc.com:80/gb/067703000/67703199/pix1312488546.jpg

http://www.gunauctions.org/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=67703199

You are so full of ***** on the "if you ever use a gun with a silencer..." part. Jesus Christ you might as well be deaf, a zombie or a liberal.

rsilvers

04-28-2007, 17:29

http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/

Lots of info here.

MarcDW

04-29-2007, 09:42

Originally posted by Oneiros
I am absolutely positive the weapons do not have to be destroyed after you no longer have the liscense, you can keep them...

There are two kinds of "dealer sample":
1. Pre 86. Those can be kept and therefore are a lot more exspensive.
2. Post 86. Those can't be kept. You lose your license or give it up or don't pay your SOT, you can't have them!

Duncan223

04-30-2007, 14:12

Originally posted by TimP or set up a trust, fore-go the finger prints, background checks, and CLEO signoff, and get whatever toys you can afford.

Yup, that's what I did, I set up a trust.

Oneiros

05-01-2007, 19:38

Originally posted by SurveyMan
You are so full of ***** on the "if you ever use a gun with a silencer..." part. Jesus Christ you might as well be deaf, a zombie or a liberal.

Every time there is a defensive shooting there will be a court case.

Want to guess which side of the bars using a silenced pistol will put you on?

SurveyMan

05-06-2007, 13:37

Originally posted by Oneiros
Every time there is a defensive shooting there will be a court case.

Want to guess which side of the bars using a silenced pistol will put you on?

Yeah I'll bet you. How much?

A legal shoot is a legal shoot. It doesn't matter what with. You could probably shoot someone with an illegal gun and not get charged with murder- just the illegal gun...

There was a story of someone who was once chased through two towns by at least one guy in a truck. This first guy got to his place of business and got out of his truck. He confronted the pursuer with an automatic weapon. He fired and killed the pursuer. He would have been fine but he fired a magazine of about 30 rounds into the man. It wasn't the weapon, it was how he used it that got him into trouble.

I'll tell you what- you come into my house. I will shoot you in the balls with the beretta or the Colt 9mm- your choice. It will be suppressed. I will make sure you get quick medical help. Then I'll see you in court. Then I'll laugh at you when I'm acquitted of anything you think you'll win just because I used a suppressor. I'll laugh harder because you'll be missing at least one testicle.

Then I'll sue you for bleeding on my carpet and causing a biohazard.

I'm right on this. Do your research before continuing to argue. You are assuming that all the crying liberals are right.

TimP

05-06-2007, 19:09

My dad whacked a guy in self defense back in 1992. less than 24 hours later the DA came to our house and personally told us no charges or trial will be pursued.

A good shoot is a good shoot.

SurveyMan

05-07-2007, 17:37

Thank you.

I'm glad that worked out well for you in any case.

Oneiros

05-07-2007, 19:05

Funny, I've heard a guy convicted from using a full auto weapon, and I remember that pillar of the community type of guy getting like 30 years because he had a 10mm glock.

SurveyMan

05-07-2007, 21:20

I'm sure you've heard an awful lot. What you hear depends on what and how much you are willing to listen to.

Oneiros

05-07-2007, 22:39

Originally posted by SurveyMan
I'm sure you've heard an awful lot. What you hear depends on what and how much you are willing to listen to.

They're true stories.

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=553249

Let me find the other one..

SurveyMan

05-08-2007, 19:57

I didn't read the entire thread but I read the article.

The dogs should have been shot, not the man. Had he had the time to shoot the man three times without getting torn to pieces by the dogs he didn't need to shoot him and kill him.

I do believe that the man probably used the dogs as deadly weapons or would have but in that case they needed to be taken care of first.

I saw one of those animal gone wild shows where a fat old hillbilly broad wouldn't give her pitbull to the animal officer. she ordered it out of the house to attack. it viciously attacked the officer. a bystander beat the dog with a bat. the dog was later destroyed.

the fat hillbilly even got into a sort of dance with the officer to keep her between the dog and her to give the dog more reason to attack.

in that case the woman used the dog as a deadly weapon and although she was right there, she still wasn't the one that needed a beating by the bystander and it was clear.

if a man steps onto my property with his dogs and comes into my house, he might get two or three quiet rounds into him. he may get loud ones. I won't be afraid either way- my original point.

you are going to use one crazy off the wall story that could have possibly gone another way to justify a whole slough of ridiculous comments about how a suppressor will land you in jail if used during a righteous shoot.

that 10mm shoot was bad. had it been suppressed the outcome might have been worse but most importantly, it was a bad shoot.

Oneiros

05-09-2007, 03:57

Originally posted by SurveyMan
I didn't read the entire thread but I read the article.

The dogs should have been shot, not the man. Had he had the time to shoot the man three times without getting torn to pieces by the dogs he didn't need to shoot him and kill him.

I do believe that the man probably used the dogs as deadly weapons or would have but in that case they needed to be taken care of first.

I saw one of those animal gone wild shows where a fat old hillbilly broad wouldn't give her pitbull to the animal officer. she ordered it out of the house to attack. it viciously attacked the officer. a bystander beat the dog with a bat. the dog was later destroyed.

the fat hillbilly even got into a sort of dance with the officer to keep her between the dog and her to give the dog more reason to attack.

in that case the woman used the dog as a deadly weapon and although she was right there, she still wasn't the one that needed a beating by the bystander and it was clear.

if a man steps onto my property with his dogs and comes into my house, he might get two or three quiet rounds into him. he may get loud ones. I won't be afraid either way- my original point.

you are going to use one crazy off the wall story that could have possibly gone another way to justify a whole slough of ridiculous comments about how a suppressor will land you in jail if used during a righteous shoot.

that 10mm shoot was bad. had it been suppressed the outcome might have been worse but most importantly, it was a bad shoot.

It's good to know armchair quarterbacks can always look back with 20/20 hindsight and know what could've been done right in that situation. I'm sure you know just what it was like to be in that man's shoes and I'm sure you wouldn't have any of the problems that obviously untrained, stupid man had. :upeyes:

SurveyMan

05-09-2007, 17:30

I'm not saying my "armchair quarterback" opinion is right or wrong or especially whether or not it could have been made on the spot.

What I AM saying is that your single case doesn't support anything you've said thus far.

We were talking about silencers. Someone mentioned that you can't shoot someone with one and I said you can.

You backed up your ********* statement with this story. This story is irrelevant and I gave my opinion anyway.

I believe my opinion was correct though- that's why jurors were seen crying during the reading of the finding. They HAD to judge against him even though they knew it totally sucked for him and was VERY unfortunate he was in that position in the first place.

Please keep your non-silencer related rhetoric to yourself.

I'm not going to ask again.

Keep the thread on topic.

SurveyMan

05-09-2007, 17:34

Originally posted by MarcDW
The tax is $200 per item, not $600.
Otherwise, it's a long process!

He was saying the suppressor was 6 and the tax was 8- most C3 dealers will advertise the total price as opposed to saying the suppressor price and then telling you another 2 so you don't feel like you are getting raped.

SurveyMan

05-09-2007, 17:35

Originally posted by Oneiros
Or you could just get a class 3 liscense for 2k, and buy the thing for less than 2k, around 4k total, and it's yours legally for life.

Buying class 3 machine guns available to civilians isn't economic in the least.

No, it's not yours legally for life. The licenses required to be able to purchase post samples or build post samples aren't that much and there is a recurring fee- if you ever decide to stop paying and let the licenses expire, you will need to forfeit the weapons- hopefully sell and transfer them to another dealer.

just_a_car

05-10-2007, 03:00

For those that have used a sound suppressor on their Glock, what kind of barrel and with what thread-count did you use in combination with what brand of suppressor?

Oneiros

05-10-2007, 14:01

Originally posted by just_a_car
For those that have used a sound suppressor on their Glock, what kind of barrel and with what thread-count did you use in combination with what brand of suppressor?

jarvis/gemtech. 0.578x28

I wish I could get regular glock threaded barrels though, I HATE that all aftermarket barrels have the supported chamber which I do NOT want.

SurveyMan

05-10-2007, 16:22

Lone Wolf 1/2x28tpi/SRT Matrix9

just_a_car

05-10-2007, 23:10

Thanks Oneiros and SurveyMan.

I was looking into a Lone Wolf G27 barrel, so I'll likely go with the setup you've got going SurveyMan, but I'm really wanting the Abraxas Titanium in .40S&W ($695). Just wish I could afford it, heh.

ColoradoPacker

05-11-2007, 01:37

Glock 23 with Lone Wolf 9mm conversion barrel, threaded 1/2x28 - functions flawlessly with all 147gr I've tried, loaded with Ranger RA9T

(Also a G19 with Storm Lake 9mm 1/2x28 barrel)

Shooting through an AAC EVO-9 suppressor. Two barrels, one suppressor, one tax stamp = $1,100

http://www.jesusreigns.org/glock_suppressed.jpg

CarbineReloaded

05-27-2007, 11:39

Originally posted by Oneiros
I am absolutely positive the weapons do not have to be destroyed after you no longer have the liscense, you can keep them. though I am not going to spend time looking up the law. I know you can also transfer post dealer samples to your next of kin. I found the info somewhere on ar15.com in the class 3 section.

Oneiros,

No offense, but it's obvious you are NOT a class 2/3 dealer, nor have you personally researched the laws involved.

When a Licensed SOT gives up their SOT Status (whether closing their FFL, or just no longer dealing in SOT items), ANY POST SAMPLE machine guns must be sold off before the license lapses, or must be destroyed.

There is NO way to LEGALLY pass on a Post-Sample Machine-gun to someone that is not law-enforcement, military or a SOT.

Any Pre-81 or Pre-May Machine-Guns however may be retained by the dealer after they give up their SOT provided they still retain their right to own firearms after they no longer have their FFL.

Furthermore, anyone seeking an FFL/SOT must be in the business to make money, not enhance personal collection (Exception being a C&R License). Anyone found of using a FFL/SOT only to increase their personal collection can be found guilty of tax evasion... which isn't fun.

FFL/SOT
Arizona

State Man G35

05-27-2007, 16:20

Originally posted by 81jasonG23
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rocco123
[B]Even if they're legal in your state, you're still looking at a several hundred dollar tax stamp per item. A supressor on a carry gun? That's a joke, right?

That would be why I said I thought it strange. I am not interested in one myself...just curious if anyone with a glock has tried it. It would defeat the purpose of the G26 to add that much length for CCW.

reminds me of the 1989? Batman w/ Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker. The Joker pulls that ridiculously long barreled revolver out of his pants and shoots the batwing? with it. That's what I imagine trying to CCW a suppressed pistol would be like.