PDA

View Full Version : Is a suppressor legal



UPSguy
07-02-2008, 06:13 PM
I know you cannot use a muzzle brake in F class, what about suppressors, are they legal?

Asa Yam
07-06-2008, 01:57 PM
As of 2008, NO.

ChipEckardt
07-06-2008, 04:05 PM
What would a supressor gain you in F-Class? Most folks are sending the bullet at speeds that break the sound barrier. It seems to me that, if anything, it would make the rifle LESS accurate.

-Chip-

UPSguy
07-06-2008, 05:11 PM
It does eliminate some recoil, most of the blast (which is good for the people shooting next to you) and most have found they don't harm and may improve accuracy.

The best reason is I like using the toys I have.

Taildrag15X
07-06-2008, 08:24 PM
Just don't think those toys would help in this game, what is the range of a sub sonic .308 168gr. any way?

UPSguy
07-06-2008, 09:33 PM
I'm thinking you don't have a suppressor with that response. I do not shoot subsonic ammo through any of my suppressors except for the .22 one. Even with full pressure supersonic ammo it still removes most of the blast that comes out the end of the weapon. It would seem like people would embrace it as it would make it much more pleasant for whoever is shooting next to you.

Mirage would be an issue because lots of heat is coming off the can.

rstreich
07-06-2008, 11:11 PM
...It would seem like people would embrace it as it would make it much more pleasant for whoever is shooting next to you....

Except not everyone can buy one. I happen to live in one of those unfortunate states.

milanuk
07-07-2008, 12:58 AM
As do I.

Actually, with our obscene mockery of 'laws' in this state, I *can* fill out all the paperwork, pay the taxes, and legally purchase a silencer. I can own it - I just can't use it.

If I get caught using it in WA state, it's a gross misdemeanor, as in 'no mo guns'.

It's surprising how many people I know around here *have* suppressors... and go to Oregon or Idaho to use them :rolleyes:

Anywho... the biggest strike against using suppressors is not whether people can purchase them in various states (though I get the impression that counts against them a good bit) so much as the simple fact that most people who want to use them are trying to game the system by skirting the 'no muzzle brake' rule. No, the rule doesn't currently cite 'silencers' or 'suppressors' by name (yet, though some folks are pushing buttons that might get that wording inserted), but the NRA HP rules have a nice little clause that gives the match directors a fair amount of latitude in stepping on people trying to play 'end around' with the rules - the bit about anything not in the spirit of the rules as stated, etc.

The NRA HP director has voiced his opinion against the use of suppressors, and most (but not all) match directors bide by that. The few that don't... put a clause in their match bulletins specifically allowing variances and if the NRA admin types approve the match bulletins... well, that's a separate can of worms.

sdr
07-14-2008, 10:59 PM
Suppressors unlike muzzle breaks would actually be nicer to the guys next to you on the firing line. it does help in accuracy, it does help in muzzle jump. All in all I think it is a good thing. On the other hand a muzzle break really sucks if the guy next to you is shooting some big magnum like in the bench rest scene.

sdr
07-14-2008, 11:48 PM
My 2 cents worth on suppressors and my own opinions.
Another thing about suppressors that make them more accurate.
it will reduce recoil and muzzle jump thereby making a more stable platform under the shot cycle, it also controls the gas turbulance (sp) behind the bullet that aids in accuracy. as far as mirage, put a heat shield over it.
If there was somekind of vote I would vote in favor of the suppressor.

milanuk
07-15-2008, 12:31 AM
So... you would vote in favor of allowing people to circumvent an existing rule and gain a potentially unfair advantage over people who are not legally allowed to own them?

Interesting.

sdr
07-15-2008, 03:36 AM
That's just it, in some country's it is considered rude to compete without one.
We have some bureaucrat in washington dc that see's a suppressor as an illegal item worse than a fully automatic assault rifle, so they put laws into effect making it difficult to get one.
We need to get those kind of mindsets out of our lawmakers.
Suppressors are used in other countries on hunting rifles.

If we could change the laws making it legal to own in all 50 states then why not make it legal to use in competitions.

That would be my vote.

rstreich
07-15-2008, 07:54 AM
...We have some bureaucrat in washington dc that see's a suppressor as an illegal item....

It's state laws, not the Feds, that keep some people from owning (or using) suppressors. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if those laws didn't go back many decades.

Louis Boyd
07-15-2008, 09:56 AM
My attitude is that suppressors should be acceptable in comptition for those who have them. It is possible for a suppressor to give an accuracy advantage by acting like a brake or compensator giving less muzzle jump, but the added weghit would still have to be included in class weight restrictions.

How is it any more "unfair" than for one guy to spend $5000 on a rifle to compete against others who cant affort $2000 rifles. Mayby you should impose an expenditure limit too to make competition "fair". A suppressor is unlikely to give a significant advantage. What it would do however is to allow shooters to experiment with the use of suppressors at long range and improve the art of making accurate rifles, suppressed or not.

I don't like any ban on useful devices which harm no one. When shooting clubs applly arbitrary bans on themselllves how can their members complain when state or local or even the Federal governments(s) do the same thing? In my opiinion the more suppressed firarms (as will as full auto, SBRs, 50 BMG's and larger claiber DDs are seen in use legally in sporting and non harmfull events the less likely it is that they'll be subject to even more restrictive legislation.

milanuk
07-15-2008, 10:04 AM
sdr, Louis,

All good points, and on the surface, I don't disagree with you. I'd love it if more NFA devices were used in competition. But until they (NRA) change the rule stating that muzzle brakes & compensators are not allowed... I can't in good conscience support the use of a device that accomplishes exactly the same effect. When they do... we'll see.

Monte

Puebloshooter
07-26-2008, 02:39 PM
The absolute worst part of the ruling (its not a rule yet) is that the NRA is effectively now saying that NFA items have no sporting use within the realm of NRA Competitive Shooting Matches. What a huge step backwards for the 2nd Amendment, straight from the NRAs mouth. The head of the NRA HP Rules Committee should be ashamed at the door he opened.

You cant buy a new CMP Legal AR-15 in California and some other states, yet the rules committee still allows them in HP matches. But we dont want to talk about that...

F-Class shooters wonder why the average age is 40+ and they dont get many young shooters.

UPSguy
07-26-2008, 02:55 PM
The absolute worst part of the ruling (its not a rule yet) is that the NRA is effectively now saying that NFA items have no sporting use within the realm of NRA Competitive Shooting Matches. What a huge step backwards for the 2nd Amendment, straight from the NRAs mouth. The head of the NRA HP Rules Committee should be ashamed at the door he opened.

You cant buy a new CMP Legal AR-15 in California and some other states, yet the rules committee still allows them in HP matches. But we dont want to talk about that...

F-Class shooters wonder why the average age is 40+ and they dont get many young shooters.


Why in the world would the NRA do that? NFA weapons owners have to be some of the most vigilent gun owners there are. It is a scary position the NRA has taken.

To those who say it is unfair if I use my suppressor because they can't have one, that is pure BS, almost like penis envy. There are many items the big dogs that have been in this sport for years have that I might not be able to afford (or design). Doesn't mean I can't have fun shooting against them and it also won't be the reason I lose. I would lose because they are better than I am, pure and simple.

Larry Willis
07-26-2008, 07:44 PM
Suppressors add a great deal more enjoyment to shooting. It's too bad so many people (even fellow shooters) have developed a negative attitude against them. They must be watching too much TV.

http://www.larrywillis.com/custom%20rifle.jpg


This is a 300 Whisper of mine that shoots subsonic 220 gr Sierra MKHP bullets. It has MOA accuracy almost out to 300 yards, and it makes less noise than a BB gun. Shooters in Europe appreciate it when you use a suppressor at their range. It's also easier to get new shooters interested in shooting when there's no muzzle blast.

- Innovative