The Surprising Truth About Gun Silencers

They typically have nothing to do with crime.


Unteroffizier /

In The Godfather, a Mafioso prepping young Michael Corleone to assassinate some rivals gives him a pistol for the job. After firing a bullet into the wall, Michael complains, "Ow! My ears!" His friend says, "Yeah, I left it noisy. That way, it scares any pain-in-the-ass innocent bystanders away."

The Corleones would have had little interest in a bill allowing gun owners to obtain silencers without the federal permits required since 1934. Some people like the deafening boom of a gunshot. Most shooters don't, and the National Rifle Association is pressing for enactment of the Hearing Protection Act, which also has the endorsement of Donald Trump Jr., an avid trophy hunter.

The proposal horrifies gun control advocates, who see it as a favor to homicidal maniacs. The Violence Policy Center in Washington argues that silencers pose a grave danger to public safety because they "enable mass shooters and other murderers to kill a greater number of victims more efficiently."

Some perspective is in order. Right now, getting a federal permit requires a $200 fee, an extensive background check and a wait of several months. Possession of a silencer without a permit is a felony that carries a 10-year prison sentence. Under the proposed change, silencers would be treated like ordinary guns. Criminals would be ineligible, since they can't pass the required federal background check for purchases. Only law-abiding adults would have legal access.

The industry prefers the term "suppressor" because the devices don't eliminate the noise; they merely diminish it. The American Suppressor Association attests, "On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20-35 decibels, roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs." A shot from a 9 mm pistol equipped with a silencer is about as loud as a thunderclap.

Recreational shooters and hunters would like to have silencers because they don't want to damage their hearing but dislike using ear protection. If the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had been around in the 1930s, gun rights lawyer Stephen Halbrook quipped to The Washington Post, it probably would have mandated their use.

Silencers also reduce the recoil and improve the accuracy of guns. For the average gun owner, there is no downside. There are collateral benefits, too. In rural and unincorporated areas where shooting is allowed, they minimize the disturbance to neighbors and wildlife.

It's not hard to imagine how they could be deployed for bad purposes. Yet there are some 900,000 registered silencers in this country, and they are rarely used in crimes.

Chicago has a lot of bloodshed, including 762 homicides and more than 3,500 shootings last year, but silencers figure in little or any of it. Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Chicago Police Department, told me, "We seldom recover silencers. Sometimes you may get a gun with a makeshift silencer, but even that is rare."

A report last year by the VPC cites a handful of shootings in which silencers were used. But the paucity of examples confirms that they are not of great interest to criminals. An earlier study by Paul A. Clark published in the Western Criminology Review found only two federal court cases involving the use of a silencer in a murder between 1995 and 2005.

He also unearthed eight cases in which "a silencer was actively used during commission of a crime but not used to physically injure anyone." That works out to one serious silencer-related crime per year, in a country that in 2005 had 16,740 homicides and 417,000 robberies.

Supporters of the status quo say this merely proves the effectiveness of strict regulation. But improvised versions can be fashioned out of flashlights, oil filters or metal conduit. YouTube has numerous videos providing guidance for the do-it-yourselfer.

If silencers were truly valuable to ordinary criminals, there would undoubtedly be a thriving black market and plenty of crimes committed with them. But the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced only 125 silencers in 2015—not all of which were connected to crimes. As Clark notes, a minimally clever miscreant can get the same noise reduction by wrapping his gun in a towel or pillow.

Any useful technology can be put to villainous ends. But the existing rule on silencers is a major hassle for the law-abiding and an irrelevance to criminals.

© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: A School Administrator Corrected a Student's Spelling on Twitter. She Was Fired.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This comment thread seems…silenced.

    1. Would go as far as to say to commentators are being…


      1. I assume this is Chapman fulfilling his New Year’s resolution to apply common sense at least once this year.

        Beyond that this article is hardly a libertarian cri de coeur. The people require no justification for possessing or using silenced weapons and the state should never have made it a crime in the first place.

        1. should never have, but did anyway… and those in power at the time thought it was a great idea.

          One more infringement foisted upon us by the very government whose few responsibiblities include the protection against just such laws as this one.

          time for a re boot

  2. Kansas stood up to the Feds on silencers. Not.

  3. I’ve got a bullet point for you:
    – 2nd Amendment protects the rights of all in America to keep and bear arms. Permission slips not needed.

    1. Hehe. Bullet point. *offers fist bump*

    2. And even if we accept un-consitutional limits on firearms, a suppressor certainly is still nothing more than an accessory. In fact in most other countries (even those with extremely onerous firearms laws and no constitutional protections) treat these as as a courtesy and a noise-pollution mitigation device, not some kind of lethal assassin’s tool.

      The main problem with this bill is that it ultimately treats something extremely low-tech as a “firearm!!1!” Any average intelligence criminal can make one of these with a minimum of tools, time, and materials regardless of what the law says.

      I guess the upside is that people who can legally manufacture their own guns, will just make these devices in their garage.

  4. Just remember, folks, if it looks scary, it’s a dangerous weapon designed only for mass murder. :^)

    1. If it looks dangerous to a liberal – – – –

  5. I’m surprised there’s no mention of how common suppressors are in Europe, and I believe even mandatory in some places.

    1. Yeah, funny how that happens …

      The opportunity of course is to reverse that ‘sell’ you executed on firearms companies in mid-November and buy – not silencer companies – but barrel manufacturers.

      If the Hearing Protection Act passes into law, there will be a couple of very immediate problems. On-hand supply of threaded barrels for common handguns is miniscule, and you can’t just slap a suppressor on a standard barrel. And then there’s the subsequent disappointment. If you go to the range with your not-so-bright-shiny can and your selected gun with its suppressor, you still have to wear hearing protection unless EVERY OTHER BUGGER ON THE FIRING LINE IS ALSO SUPPRESSED.

      Of course, such situations breed opportunity. If you have the means and the tolerance for relatively small risk, you could buy up a supply of barrels. I wouldn’t do it because if the legislation fails to pass, while you will be able to sell the barrels at virtually no loss, the opportunity costs of tying up the capital ain’t zero.

      Then there’s subsonic ammo. You don’t HAVE to fire subsonic ammo thru’ a can, but that’s how you gain the real benefits. Subsonic ammo will command premium prices for quite some time, so expect the supply situation to be like 2013.

      1. Barrels are easy to thread. Hell, shotgun barrels are the thinnest barrels, and I got mine threaded on the inside for chokes. Not a problem.

        1. It would be on the Beretta in the picture above, and most other semi automatics currently owned in the US, because the crown of the barrel rarely protrudes 5/8 of an inch from the end of the slide.

          1. Good point – you need a longer barrel on automatics.

      2. Suppressors are not for range use, they are for hunting and in-home defense.

        It’s the difference between permanent and temporary hearing damage when using your gun in an enclosed space, like your home in an emergency. Not just for you, but for your family and pets as well.

        1. There are also many shooters who target shoot without having to deal with many other shooters at a firing line. For instance, there are private gun clubs, private berm/bay rentals at public ranges, all the way to people who can target shoot on their own property.

      3. Couple of thoughts …

        1) I wouldn’t suppress my pistols because … meh. No upside for me, and I’m not going to go through the trouble you mention.
        2) I would probably buy several for my various rifles. Lot of upside for hunting or plinking if you shoot outside & public lands.
        3) I reload, so subsonic ammo would be the least of my problem and I assume more loads will become popular at that point.

        What will be fun is to see what happens to prices with demand outstripping supply.

    2. wait doesn’t the left always turn to Europe whenever they want to change things in the US?

      1. When it’s things they like.

        They’re probably not even aware that many countries in Europe have no minimum wage, all of them have a lower corporate tax rate than us, and that a few of their beloved Scandinavian countries are ranked as being MORE economically free than the US by the IMF and World Bank.

        1. Yeah but that’s just because Europeans tend to be more enlightened than us. A European would never exploit a worker, for example, so they don’t need minimum wage. And Europeans like to pay as many taxes as they can, so they don’t need to push their tax rates up higher.

        2. They’re also not aware that many European countries have stricter abortion and immigration laws* then the US.

          *SLD that this is not an endorsement of these laws.

      2. Except for corporate tax rates, and VAT (since it isn’t directed at the rich), and abortion.

    3. Or of how sound suppression systems for the abatement of noise pollution are actually mandated for things like stationary diesel engine equipment. Such as industrial wood-chippers.

  6. A non-retarded article from Chapman?

    I cant figure out how he squares his endorsement for civil liberties with his hatred for a guy who is probably the most civil liberty friendly occupant of the whitehouse in a generation, or with his various defenses of the most civil liberty hostile candidate since…the last sitting president, whom he also defended.

    Cognitive dissonance much, Steve?

    1. “a guy who is probably the most civil liberty friendly occupant of the whitehouse in a generation”

      And who would this be? Trump? BWAHAHAHAH

      I mean, I get it, you think Chapman is too deferential towards Obama for a libertarian. But c’mon, at least offer some criticism that passes the laugh test.

      I think the best we can say at this point about Obama vs. Trump when it comes to civil liberties is that each was/will be bad in their own ways.

      What is Trump’s take about drone-striking civilians abroad? Domestic surveillance? How about 4th amendment protections? From his belligerent tone and his complete lack of nuance on most issues, I don’t think it is much of a stretch that he isn’t going to be particularly sensitive to whether some ISIS scumbag’s rights are being violated even if he does happen to be a citizen, or whether some police force is prevented from participating in some pre-dawn no-knock raid to catch some “bad guys” based on some flimsy evidence.

      1. You’re right on Suthenboy’s point, but Chapman is still an utterly hypocritical scumbag when it comes to defending Clinton. This is a guy who suddenly started publishing articles about the dangers of Trump intervening in foreign affairs…after defending the warmonger who wanted to pick a fight with a nuclear power as the correct choice.

      2. I didn’t say Trump was a civil liberties champion. We already have one of those in the constitutional scholar in chief and in Rep. John Lewis.

        Cut regs, cut taxes. Those two things alone will give govt less reason to fuck with people and let people keep more of their own money. Get us out of places we needn’t be. Less excuses for droning. Drug war? Ehhhh I am not hopeful on that front. The only thing he has said that should give people the jitters is his ‘make it easier to sue for slander’ remark and even that isnt much.

        Those things alone make him the most civil liberty friendly president in a generation. Granted, it’s a low bar, but there it is. I don’t have time to go into this in detail right now. We will talk about it later.

        Take what you can get Jeff. You are looking for a candidate that has never been born.

        1. “Cut regs, cut taxes.”

          I am only tepidly optimistic about this. I just don’t see Congress repealing large swaths of regulations. We might get relatively tiny things like repeal of the Clean Power stuff (no more “war on coal”!) that are unpopular among Trump’s base (which is now the Republicans’ base). But when it comes to ObamaCare? Oh they will repeal it in name only, but they will keep a lot of it in secret and add some free-market mumbo-jumbo on top of it like a fresh coat of paint. And if Trump ends up “repealing” regulations via pen-and-phone, we will all be worse off in the long run.

          “Get us out of places we needn’t be. Less excuses for droning.”

          Except he also said “bomb the sh*t out of ISIS”. So…. maybe?

          “The only thing he has said that should give people the jitters is his ‘make it easier to sue for slander’ remark and even that isnt much.”

          That one gives me jitters too, but the one that really gives me jitters is when he shouted, at the RNC convention, that he will be the “LAW AND ORDER PRESIDENT”. What this generally means, from a Republican, is that police will be given more discretion and more latitude to go after the “bad guys” in the name of public safety. The reason why I believe this is because the last time the Republicans made a conscious effort to be the “law and order” party, back in the late 80’s/early 90’s, that is what they did.

          But yeah I am pessimistic.

  7. Dorky even by Reason commenter standards: This guy makes sweaters of places and then takes pictures of himself wearing the sweaters at those places.

    TW: Gilmore would have a heart attack.
    TW: Crusty was enchanted.

    1. Where the fuck are Moe and Curly?

    2. So I guess Larry Fine got laid.

    3. Of course he wears a fanny pack.

    4. What a fucking Knit-Wit!

    5. I like this guy. Respect.

  8. The Surprising Truth About Gun Silencers
    They typically have nothing to do with crime.

    And they are not “silencers”. They do not “silence” anything. They are “supressors” because they suppress *some* of the noise of a firearm discharge.

    1. We’re talking to the general public, here.

      If we want to persuade the general public to make it so we can buy “suppressors” without groveling to the BATFE, most of them wouldn’t even know what we were talking about.

      “Suppressors”? I don’t know what that is, but it sounds dangerous. Can they be used on “assault weapons”?

      1. I suppose.

        assault weapons

        This is another term I hate. The only honest way to define it (an item used to attack and/or inflict damage on something) is not how it is used.

        1. I know, but to average people, I think “suppressor” sounds like “assault weapon”.

          “Shotgun”, for some reason, isn’t so scary, but if I had to be shot by something, I think I’d rather be shot by an assault weapon (whatever that is) than a shotgun.

        2. “Military-style” is even worse. What the fuck does that mean?

          They would say that an AR-15 is military-style because it is used by the military (even though it’s not; they’re thinking of the select-fire version, the M4 Carbine). But what happens when the military adopts a newer, better gun? Will the AR-15 suddenly become OK because it’s no longer in use by the military?

          What about weapons made for the civilian market that were later adopted by the military, like the Remington 700?

          How do they account for their applying the military-style label to guns that were never used by any military anywhere in the world, such as the Tec-9?

          A Colt 1851 Navy was once used by the military, but I don’t hear anyone calling that a military-style weapon. What’s the statute of limitations on that?

          1. I own two Winchester Model 1897s 12 gauges, both fully functional, one in damn near new condition. One’s standard length, one’s brush length. During WWI, the Germans protested the use of the M97 as against the “law of war” as it caused “unnecessary suffering”. An unusual feature of the M97 is that it lacks a trigger disconnector, so if you were to hold the trigger in the firing position you could fire a shell with each rack, making it effectively a “slam-fire” shotgun, which was kind of the point during the war.

            Put another way, I can fire five 12-gauge shells in about three seconds. Five rounds of 12-gauge buck, with a modicum of aiming, will actually cut someone in half. But it’s not an assault weapon.

            Meanwhile, I’m building an AR-15. It’s an assault weapon, apparently, because it’s a carbine, it’s black, and it has the shoulder thing that goes up.

            For the record, if anyone here is planning on shooting me, has those two guns, and is looking for input, I’d prefer the .556 please.

            1. I once had the opportunity to handle and fire one of the Norinco 1897 ripoffs. For anyone who is looking for an 1897, I can only offer this advice: Find an original. The Norinco isn’t worth the gunpowder it would take to blow it to hell.

              I was really tempted to stick it in an old tire and pull the trigger from a safe distance with some baling twine, which is how we used to “test” old guns.

          2. Remington 700 = “sniper rifle”

      2. “Suppressors”? I don’t know what that is, but it sounds dangerous.

        I believe it’s what the Russians used to steal the coronation from Hilary.

        1. no, no, no, suppressors are what you shove up your ass when you can’t shit…

        2. And now if I may be a PEDANT to all:

          Check the original patent application of Hiram Maxim, who was the first to invent and patent a sound-suppression system for firearms.

          IF he was the first – the inventor – what did HE call it?

          Hint: he didn’t call it a SUPPRESSOR, all you navy seal wannabees…..

          1. Blah, I invoke the common usage rule, which says that language mutates over time and dictionaries are descriptive rather than proscriptive. And as that guy, I’d also say that if it doesn’t silence the gun it isn’t a silencer, but I’m happy to use his other term: muffler. It’s just weird to say, “Hey, man, I just picked up this muffler for my Glock and now it’s super quiet.”

          2. Just like the guy who created the GIF format, you don’t get to dictate what it’s called (or how it’s pronounced) just because you invented it. And it’s pronounced like “gift”, you pretentious fuck. :p

        3. It sounds like “suppressive fire”.

          Isn’t that what they do with machine guns?

          No, the gun nuts don’t need a suppressor.

          1. Who the fuck are you to tell us what we need?

      3. Firearm-based Noise Pollution Mitigation Devices. Or Explosion-Dampening Hearing Safety Equipment.

  9. This story really hits home. Many years ago my entire family – with the exception of myself (I was volunteering down at the sick puppy and kitten clinic) – was on a routine, cross-country flight when a tragedy occurred. A man using a ceramic Glock 7 (ceramic weapons are impervious to metal detectors) with an attached silencer shot everyone on the plane, one-by-one, and because of the weapon’s silence no one was able to defend themselves or call for help. The pilot had no idea what was happening, which is why he was killed soon after he landed.

    Silenced weapons are something that only a mass murderer – like the murderer who killed my family would ever use.

    Why haven’t you heard about this deplorable tragedy? Well, the man was a rouge government agent, so the feds just swept it all under the rug. I haven’t forgotten, though, and neither should you.

    1. Do you have a gofundme page?

      1. I would never profit off the misery of others, like a gun manufacturer.

        1. IF only he had been beige instead of rouge…..

          1. What you did there … I sienna it.

    2. Do you have an agent? I can get you a book deal and placement with Oprah’s book club.

      1. … or a pamphlet at the very least

        1. a leaflet even?

    3. Well, the man was a rouge government agent, so the feds just swept it all under the rug.

      Did he work for Maybellinea or Revlonistan?

    4. Do you have a newsletter? I would like to subscribe to it.

      1. a big red D, that’s his newz letter…

    5. If only they had outlawed victim silencers prior to your tragedy. I can understand why they passed that law at least – there really is nothing more annoying than a screaming passenger.

    6. You do realize you could troll the hell out of DU with this. Not that I would suggest anything as deplorable as that.

    7. “Why haven’t you heard about this deplorable tragedy?”

      Of course we’ve never heard about this. He used a silencer that was so efficient it not only silenced the firearm’s report it even silenced any report about the incident!

  10. Silencers also reduce the recoil and improve the accuracy of guns.

    I can understand a silencer reducing the recoil, since it dissipates some of the kinetic energy of the bullet. But, improve the accuracy? Is that correct?

    Surprisingly decent article for Chapman.

    1. Yeah, could potentially improve the accuracy *of the shooter* – not the gun itself, because the shooter’s ‘follow thru’ will be less disturbed.

      That assumes the owner adjusts the sights on the gun, because a suppressor will affect the trajectory of the bullet when fired. A good suppressor won’t affect the size of your groups, so if you shoot for shit now, chances are you’ll still shoot for shit

      1. but more quietly…

    2. It might be different for different guns.

      Heavier handguns are easier to shoot well, and adding some weight to muzzle with a suppressor surely helps with recoil and follow up shots.

      But putting a suppressor on an AR-15 doesn’t increase its accuracy at 300 yards.

    3. That’s incorrect. Silencers are either neutral or deleterious to accuracy, depending on the design.

      1. No, I take it back. I found some articles where silencers improve accuracy. But it’s a very small difference under very specific conditions. Not really germane to criminal activity.…..-accuracy/

        1. ” Not really germane to criminal activity. ”
          Just how criminal are the Germans these days?

    4. Just had this discussion yesterday. “Accuracy” is likely not improved; “precision”, on the other hand, may be dramatically improved.

      1. Accuracy is bias, precision is variance.

        1. Precisely.

      2. It’s great to hang out in a venue where at least three of the commentariat understand there’s a difference between the two.

        1. Make that four.

    5. If they reduce recoil and muzzle rise, they should increase the shooter’s accuracy. I don’t know if it’s strictly accurate to say it would improve the gun’s inherent accuracy.

    6. Generally speaking people don’t mean recoil, they mean perceived recoil, muzzle weight helps decrease the amount of recoil you feel, for example I find my Glock17, already larger hand gun (brick sized) has almost no muzzle flip when I put a light on it (bed side gun) even when running hotter ammo through it.

      1. This. Great experiment for any new shooter. After firing for a bit, take the gun and make it look like you are reloading the magazine. But don’t put any rounds in it. Have them work the slide and then attempt to fire. You know damn well that their wrist goes up. Recoil anticipation.

  11. The most effective silencer? The AM Linx silencer. You’ll get less bang for your buck.

    1. … furiously googles for manufacturer’s site ….

    2. less bang for your buck.

      If I was selling suppressors, that would be my branding tagline.

    3. If you order them online, delivery generally takes just a little longer than expected. Just enough to be inconvenient.

  12. You could list 50 reasons why silencers are beneficial and they will pass right through the proggy head. The post on facebook will be OMG THE FAR RIGHT NRA AND TRUMP WANTS TO KILL CHILDREN!

    1. Not the far-right. According to what I’ve been reading lately of the proggy hivemind, only the NRA wants to keep guns legal. It’s the NRA against the gun-shy huddled masses of the US and the NRA is superduper powerful despite, apparently, no right thinking person in the world giving them support. The ultimate case of lobbyists versus the people.

      1. Yeah didn’t you see Hillary’s Venn diagram!

  13. The last time I did some shooting was with a little .22cal (if I remember correctly) rifle that one of my co-workers had. I fired a few rounds off before helping my wife shoot a rifle (insert sex joke here) for the first time.

    We weren’t wearing any hearing protection since this was just a little “for fun” backyard shooting. Even the little crack of a small-caliber rifle was enough to make my ears ring.

    Also: the wut wut sound that silencers make on TV or the movies is fictional.

    1. Even if you’re shooting 22 outdoors, you still need some hearing protection – *especially* if you’re a spectator, because the sound emitted isn’t omnidirectional. One of the nastiest rounds is actually the 22 magnum, which is still (understandably) a small round. The decibel level emitted by firing those is up with a 357 magnum.

      You *can* achieve something close to the movie silencer sound *if* you go with specialized ammo (for example Aguila SSS) *and* the right gun, because the suppressor only suppresses one of the three sources of sound when you fire a gun, but really, the objective of the Act is to get sound down to the 80-dB level.

      1. It is not the size of the round that determines the noise, it is the size of the load.

        1. It’s a number of factors. There are a few key frequencies within the harmonics of the discharge which can cause a lot of discomfort, although IIRC, hearing damage is effected across the whole range of frequencies.

        2. Oh, and of course – whether the round exits the barrel (or can) at above the speed of sound.

          1. Yeah that .22 rifle had one nasty higher-pitched crack. I normally pistol shoot inside a range, using hearing protection.

            1. I know they can be but I have a old bolt action .22 target rifle with a 26″ barrel and with subsonic ammo it sounds like a air rifle. And with regular ammo its not too bad either. I think it’s because it is an unusually long barrel length cuts down on noise or the muzzle is just farther away from my face.

    2. note: most of what I know about shooting comes from Donald Hamilton, one of the few authors I’ve read who wrote realistically about guns in his books. One book: On Guns and Hunting, has short stories about his Moose hunt in Sweden, ducks in Maryland, hunting dogs, etc.

      His fictional spy character, Matt Helm, will discuss ammunition types, the difficulty of long-range shooting (he prefers bolt action rifles), complain about the Smith and Wesson light body, and have side comments on the different feel of the weapons he uses.

    3. The only movie i can think of in recent memory that got the supressor sounds right was the original bourne identity at the end when the boss gets shot on the street, the “snap” that echos is pretty well spot on. I’m sure there were other movies too but that one stuck out

  14. Fifty-year-old farmer becomes a YouTube sensation after revealing the VERY unusual secret to her rock hard abs (and it’s helping her rake in $100,000 a year)

    A fifty-year-old fitness fanatic has revealed the secret to her youthful physique and rock hard abs.

    Jennifer King, from North Carolina, tones up with incredible strength stunts such as tyre flipping and sledge hammer swings.

    I have no idea what a “tyre” is.

    TW: fit lady wearing heels with bathing suits (it’s a nice, comfortable look ladies).

    1. She looks like a fun gal. And a tyre is an automobile tire used by a Limey.

    2. She was just a “wouldn’t” until this

      so many possibilities

      1. Why is she a wouldn’t? In the over 45 class, she punches way above her weight.

          1. Yes she does.

      2. I mean, per the pic, I’m in, and I’m assuming I’d be in pre-pic. I’m 38, she’s in the “hot older peer” range for me.

    3. Is she really a “farmer”? LIke she’s really out on the back 40 fixing fenceposts?


    4. Tyre is an ancient Phoenician city. Dido was from there.

      1. I LOVE her stuff!

        Although I didn’t think much of “Life for Rent”.

  15. The topic of guns and noise should never be discussed without mentioning how terrifying firing an AR 15 actually is…..-1.2673201

    The author’s name is Gersh Kuntsman. He has to have the most appropriate name of any person on earth.

    1. It felt to me like a bazooka ? and sounded like a cannon.

      First sentence in the article containing two facts he’s wrong about.

      1. This guy rebutted Kuntsman by having his nose absorb the recoil of an AR-15.

        1. Maybe Kuntsman had an improbably large and/or sensitive shoulder!


          1. all the better fro pajama boys to cry on…

    2. What a pussy.

    3. “The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions ? loud like a bomb ? gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.”

      That’s ridiculous.

      1. So, poorly instructed, his trainer didn’t show him or describe what to expect from ejected brass, chemistry is yucky, no sense of proportion, self-diagnosing hypochondriac and neurotic.

        Perfect employee for the media.

        1. “For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.”

          And for at least the next 40 years, I’ll be a gigantic gaping PUSSY….

      2. He thinks he’s saying something about guns. But he’s just revealing what a giant pussy he is.

        1. PTSD!

          Firing a gun–just a few times–gave him PTSD.

          This is what happens to people who were never bullied in school–you end up getting PTSD from firing a gun.

          Atomic wedgies really do prepare people to be functional adults. It’s sort of like getting the chicken pox as a kid–so you don’t have to deal with it later in life.

          1. This is what happens to people who were never bullied in school–you end up getting PTSD from firing a gun.

            Eh, I was hardly ever bullied in school (I was bigger than the bullies) and I’m not a whimpering ninny. The key is being forced to handle adversity, no matter the source, without mommy and daddy stepping in and “fixing” it for you. That builds confidence (in contrast to self-esteem) and ensures more level-headed analysis when the next adversity comes up.

            1. Still, if this guy had gotten a wedgie or two in grade school, I bet he wouldn’t get PTSD from firing a gun a few times.

              1. Come on dude, it’s just victimhood signalling.

                If he hadn’t suffered some kind of significant harm from the episode, how could he sip his double-IPA in the Williamsburg Organic Brewhaus and impress his audience about how he has some empathy for those other victims like Chris Kyle. Might even get himself laid by some guy who’s into ‘rough trade’.

              2. I am guessing you’d really like to give him a wedgie today…. ?

      3. This is why Kuntsman outsources his violence. You think the Nazi top brass were out there hauling bodies?


        1. He can use a roll of toilet paper for his suppressor, just in case. Extra quilted works best.

      5. I’d only ever shot my SKS until I went down to my FIL’s in Texas. He’d just gotten a Colt AR-15 for Christmas, so we were absolutely forced to sight in his new optics–I mean, somebody’s gotta take the Ranger out to the catfish pond and shoot guns in the woods, right?–and I remember at the first shot thinking, “Jesus, this is a loud round!” I didn’t have PTSD, though.

        People are different, and some people are…less…not worthless than others, but I don’t know anyone who has ever had a conniption from shooting a gun unless they were faking it for effect, and that’s including people who don’t like guns. If you’ve been near fireworks, you can handle guns. Or not, in which case you’ve probably got other problems and should maybe see someone.

    4. I remember that one. What a dink. I imagine if he had fired an actually powerful rifle or a magnum revolver he would have literally shit himself.

      1. A couple months ago at the range I got the pleasure of shooting a snub .357 and a couple 30-06 rifles.

        Everything else has been tame and boring since then.

        1. Time to move up to an Alaskan in Casull and something like a Lapua 338.

          1. I will try whatever the guys at the range will let me try.

            1. S&W .500 Magnum COMIN’ UP!!!

              1. Shot one of those suckers about a month ago.

                Hard to imagine using it on anything other than paper, steel or a bear.

                Hard to imagine how much it costs to keep one fed regularly enough to get good with it.

    5. Lulz at being rattled and having temporary “PTSD” after firing the AR-15. He should try firing .300 Ultra Mag or .338 Lapua.

      1. Well, if he’d stood BESIDE someone firing a proper rifle, with a muzzle brake, maybe he’d have a case.

    6. “If illegally modified to fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel. All it takes is the will to do it. Forty nine people can be gone in 60 seconds.”

      Sure, if your skill with a full-auto is good enough to individually aim every single round.

      1. Idk. I have a bunch of 30rd. mags and have seen 40 rounders. A 49er must be some sort of custom job.

        Also in all likelihood, a mass murderer shooting into a crowd with a full auto would kill less than a semi auto. Full auto is not really terribly controllable. It’s designed for laying down suppressive fire, not hitting individual targets.

    7. He’s no Kocksman.

  16. I may or may not have an attachment which may or may not happen to have the same threading as a common oil filter.

    1. It’s just a paperweight, no worries.

    2. Time to outlaw lathes, taps and dies.

      Mild steel bar too.

  17. I think there are other concerns about noise, as well.

    If you’ve got horses or farm animals around, you don’t want to spook your animals.

    The other thing is in a defensive combat situation. I’ve heard 9mm and .45s fired at the range without ear protection, and it was loud as hell, but those firing ranges were large spaces. In a defensive situation against an intruder in an enclosed space like a home hallway, a bedroom, etc., firing a typical gun might have an effect on the shooter that’s something like a stun grenade, and you don’t want to disorient yourself when you’re shooting.

    1. If you ever have to use a handgun for self defense in your home, you are likely going to suffer permanent hearing loss as a result. Even a 9mm makes a horrendous sound when fired in a confined space.

      1. A suppressor is the solution to that.

        Also, if you’re in a home with kids sleeping, you want to be careful in your shot selection, and disorienting yourself after your first shot isn’t a good idea.

        There are certainly good reasons for average people to have suppressors.

      2. It’s for JUST that reason that I don’t have a 357 magnum as a house gun.

        1. but they make such large lovely holes in the drywall…

      3. Interesting you say ‘even’. I find the supersonic crack of a round to be more painful than the exploding gas. 45’s have more boom, but 9mm has that nasty whip crack.

      4. I live in a 1000 sq ft bungalow in a decent-ish neighborhood. If you come in my front door, you can see every room in my house on the first floor, and I mean to the back windows. My staircase is open, which means that you’ll see my happy ass coming down clear as day, feet first. It’s not what you’d call optimal from a security standpoint. That’s where the big-ass dogs come in. In my home defense scenario, the guns are for when I’ve got notice, and even then, I know that the first shot is gonna blow my eardrums out. A suppressed pistol would be huge. Right now the home defense gun of record is an Express 870, although realistically it’s a pit bull and a Bowie knife.

    2. I spent 16 hours over the weekend at the range, experiencing this and a lot of other related experiences. An instructor went down to the backstop and discharged 3 rounds of 9mm into sand (with hearing on) while half a dozen of us stood back at the 50ft line with minimal protection, so we could appreciate just what we could expect.

      While the backstop is hard, there’s a fair amount of acoustic baffling at my range, so his point was that it probably modelled quite well the effect of a small room or hallway with sheetrock walls. Clocked in at a peak of 110dB at about 35 feet away, and 135dB right next to him.

      110dB is probably higher than anyone should be subject to.

      1. I spent about ten minutes at the range on Saturday. Picked up a used Ruger P95 for $275 cash and wanted to test it out. Went through a box of ammo in short order. Like it very much.

        1. Y’know, I like those P95’s despite the fact they kinda look like they were looted off a Red Army major’s frozen cadaver. I’d actually buy one *if* I ever got one of those Ruger PC9 carbines that took the same mags.

          Where are you based, sarc?

          1. I’m in Maine. Got it out of Uncle Henry’s.

            I like the pistol. It’s ugly as sin, that’s for sure. But it’s fun to shoot. I like the whole DA/SA thing anyway. Wish I could find an inexpensive, compact DA/SA carry piece in 9mm. My Bersa Thunder 380 will have to do for now.

            1. Define ‘inexpensive’.

              Oh, and don’t knock the 9 kurz. For just about any ‘defensive distance’ its just as effective as 9 para. There’s good reasons to move on from the Bersa though.

              1. Define ‘inexpensive’.

                I like to keep it under $300.

              2. There’s good reasons to move on from the Bersa though.

                I had a gunsmith friend of mine go over it. He did a ramp job and tweaked the extractor. It runs like a champ now.

            2. I have several combloc PA 63’s in 9 mm makerov. I got them for 100 bucks a piece about 9 years ago. they are nice SA/DA pistols that you can still get on the cheap.

              1. You can pick up PA63’s in .380 for about $200

                1. But then they lose that true communist feel to them, and who would want to do that to a firearm.

              2. I have several combloc PA 63’s in 9 mm makerov.

                I’m looking for 9 mm Luger because it’s cheap to shoot.

                1. FEG did make PA63’s chambered in 9mm Luger, but they tend to command higher prices when sold.

                  With a budget of 300, you’re getting near to Ruger LC9 territory. I’m not a huge fan, because the ergonomics don’t work for me, because of my BIG HANDS – even with the mag extension , but I know people who think they’re great

                  1. you’re getting near to Ruger LC9 territory.

                    I don’t like those at all. I really don’t like striker fired guns. Like I said, I’m a DA/SA guy. I like the DA to be my safety, and the SA for accuracy.

                    1. I hear you.

                      I’m a DA/SA preferrer myself. Combined with a general dislike of plastic, it means that just about anything that interests me is going to be above $450. For the right gun/purpose I’d consider DAO. A good DAO+lots of training deals with a lot of the accuracy concerns with DA.

                      And speaking of training, I have to go do 20 minutes of dry firing while point shooting.

                      Yeah, my life sucks.

                    2. “I don’t like those at all. I really don’t like striker fired guns.”

                      I don’t believe the LC9 is striker fired.

                      I think the “s” in LC9s stands for “striker”.

                    3. I stand corrected. The LC9 is DAO, and I still don’t like it.

                    4. Striker fired guns want you to love them, sarcasmic.

                      But you have to open your heart.

                    5. Special offer today at Palmetto State, if you live in a state that permits ownership of a CZ Scorpion EVO

    3. Remember, many people today watch movies and TV and think you can fire a weapon in a home and immediately ask someone “Are you alright?” without them looking at you like you are from Mars while holding their hands to their ears with tears in their eyes.

      I REALLY love the shows depicting someone firing multiple rounds inside a steel ship or sub. Just too funny. It’s loud enough at a moderately sized indoor range with proper ear protection and quite a lot of relatively sound absorbent materials present.

      And the best part of Hollywood depiction of firearms use is the constant racking of the slide just before they are about to use their weapons, giving their intended target a little “fair warning”….. Yeah, best we don’t listen to anyone in the entertainment industry about anything. They cannot even get the basics right.

  18. Meet the ‘crane guys’ who protected downtown Reno’s bridges

    While the floodwaters raged down the Truckee River Sunday and Monday, construction crews set up heavy machinery to pluck dangerous debris out of the water. Videos of these faceless workers snatching up logs midstream spread on social media. The nameless workers were called #CraneGuy, Bridge Ninjas and heroes of downtown Reno.

    Without this first line of defense, logs can quickly pile up, causing the water to rise and putting extra strain on the aging bridges.

    The three-man teams set up an excavator (not a crane), loader (like a bulldozer) and dump truck on multiple bridges, including Arlington Avenue, Sierra Street and Glendale Avenue. Fuzz, who got the nickname for sporting peach fuzz on his first day 13 years ago, said he had to grab debris before it hit the bridge. His partner Olson would then load the debris into a dump truck and the truck would take it away

    1. Craig Madole, CEO of the Nevada Associated General Contractors, dispatched 70 companies, their employees and equipment to the areas most in need of help. He said it’s easier for the agencies to ask for assistance from private companies rather than manage tons of expensive government equipment and people.

      “(Contractors) were doing all this for the community while their own businesses were at risk for flood as well,” Madole said.

      I bet they were all Trump voters too, not some prissy, millennial faggots, with their tight jeans and beards and stupid ways! AMERICA!

    2. Trying to calculate how many ordinances they violated.

      1. After watching a few Twitter videos, I am going to guess: all of them. Those guys on the bridge are not even wearing hard hats.

      2. more than a few, but not likely all of them…

      3. California would have made sure they were arrested and charged!

    3. But without the government, how would debris from storm runoff be cleared??? But, But, But…….


  19. Waiting for Diane Feinstein to tell me that silencers turn regular guns into machine guns that shoot exploding armor piercing bullets.

    1. They do? Dang.

      *Places order for 8 silencers*

    2. I for one am waiting with bated breath for this Act to pass, so that it can open up additional (although already substantial!) legal child murdering opportunities.

      1. I’m just cheap and don’t want to pay the tax stamp for one for my HK 45 USP Tactical. $200 let’s me buy a lot of other things I like better than gubment.

  20. Anybody have a 3D printer file for a suppressor?

    1. For academic purposes only of course.

      1. Tom Riddle asked the same thing about horcruxes, and we know how that ended up.

    2. Umm, there are CNC designs out there, but the legal situation is different because suppressors are federally regulated under the 1935 act, and a homemade handgun isn’t.

      If you look hard enough, you can find out that if you need to suppress about 1 mag’s worth of ammo, there are much easier ways to do it than making a can.

        1. That’s Scutt Farkas !

          1. The Jean Shepherd character (who probably was a real person w that real name)? I don’t get it.

    3. Don’t waste money on a 3-D printer for that.

      They sell suppressors at your local auto parts store.

    4. Why do you need a 3d printer for a suppressor? Go buy a fram oil filter.

      Or a 2 liter coke bottle full of cotton wadding– and some duct tape.

      1. It’s strange, isn’t it, how thought criminals really don’t care about LEGALLY ENACTED LAWS!

        1. We ought to draft legislation requiring them to care!

  21. F.B.I. Arrests Wife of Killer in Orlando Mass Shooting

    The wife of the man who carried out a deadly terrorist attack in Orlando, Fla., has been arrested in connection with the mass shooting, a law enforcement official said Monday.

    The woman, Noor Salman, was taken into custody by F.B.I. agents at her home outside of San Francisco. Prosecutors had been weighing charges against her in the aftermath of the attack that killed 49 people and wounded dozens. A person familiar with details of the arrest said Ms. Salman was charged with obstruction.

      1. There’s a story there we aren’t being told. And I bet it involves not arresting her before the election, among other tidbits.

      2. She was hanging out in FarCry 4

    1. Trump’s war on women continues apace.

  22. Some perspective is in order. Steve Chapman is happy to oblige.

    I’ve seen non sequiturs before, but holy shit.

    1. isn’t that more of an oxymoron?

  23. OT: N. Koreans trying American barbecue

    I’ve only had the chance to hear a few former N. Koreans talk about their experiences in the PRK, and it breaks my heart every time I hear them speak. This video is a good mix of watching people try BBQ for the first time and getting a feel for what living in PRK is like.

    1. She should show N. Koreans trying Korean Barbecue. Or just trying food.

    2. Imagine a spectrum with “North Korea” at one end, and “United States of America” at the other. Then try to figure out what goes on in the heads of those who want to push the “USA” end towards the “NK” part of that spectrum.

      1. There is another video with two of the people talking more about their experiences in North Korea:

      2. They generally think they are improving things, and not pushing things toward the NK end of the range.

        1. They generally think

          Except the problem is they don’t. They generally feel instead. Reality seems to disagree with those who think that limiting freedom will somehow magically improve things.

          Check out the other video. I especially find how the freed NorK slaves view capitalism enlightening.

          1. What they generally think is that they will be the one’s in charge. Kim looks well fed.

  24. OMFG.

    I am agreeing with Chapman.

    Are there Four Horseman somewhere on the horizon?

  25. Ok friends, if you really want a silencer, here is a tried and true method to get one. Join your local gun club. After you’ve been there a while ask around about silencers. Most likely, there will be one or more gunsmiths in your club that can help. They will do all the milling necessary leaving just the assembly to you. They will also provide you with whatever instructional material you require. Problem solved.

    1. There are actually devices that allow you to screw an oil filter (with a hole bored in the other end) to the end of your gun. It may not work as well as some whizbang top-of-the-line suppressor, and it may be physically awkward and ugly as hell, but it will reduce the sound of the gunshot.

      1. The point I was trying to make was that a decent gunsmith will sell you a pile of parts that are VERY easily assembled into a fine suppressor. No laws will be violated (by the gunsmith) and you will have a quality piece without having to get the government’s blessing.

  26. Silencers are not only legal in many European countries but are often required, or at least encouraged, for hunters in order to minimize disturbing people and wildllfe.

  27. My best friend’s wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Read more on this site

  28. Some people like the deafening boom of a gunshot.


  29. Suppressors do not sound like they do in the movies. As another person points out, they only reduce the sound by about the same amount as hearing protection. In addition, you must purchase a threaded barrel to use one. Many states do not ban suppressors but you must have a Class III FFL to purchase them under federal law. I am sure Democrats will lose their minds if this legislation moves forward. I cannot wait to hear all the erroneous crap they will be claiming in regard to suppressors.

    1. “TxJack 112” Not true. You have to pay the tax stamp and such but NO, you do NOT have to have an FFL to buy / use one.

  30. Decent Informative Blog having pleasant sharing.. Combat Handgun Training

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.