What is the *real* appeal of supressors?

[cbhausen]

I think in all likelihood, decibel noise won't be that big an issue given how "amped up" you be. What's your preference in a HD situation, confront the threat, or have them leave without harming anyone? That would dictate your actions. If I was intent on killing the intruder, sure suppress your firearm, and keep the lights off. BUT if I'm in a home where loved ones are present, I want to be as loud as I can (with the firearm), and as visible (turning on lights), to encourage the intruders to reconsider pressing forwards and to alert neighbors or passerby.

If someone's in my house all bets are off. I don't owe them anything. I want every advantage I can get. I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt at that point. They are in my house, my castle.

Kut, I don't want to derail this thread again but your line of thought baffles me. Please elaborate. PM, New thread, whatever... I can't wrap my mind around what you're conveying here.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If someone's in my house all bets are off. I don't owe them anything. I want every advantage I can get. I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt at that point. They are in my house, my castle.

Kut, I don't want to derail this thread again but your line of thought baffles me. Please elaborate. PM, New thread, whatever... I can't wrap my mind around what you're conveying here.

The point I'm trying to make, is that actively seeking to confronting the threat may not be the best for the safety of your loved ones. Most bad guys do what's easiest for them with the least resistance. Having worked burglaries, I can tell you that the vast majority of criminals cut and run as soon as they hear a voice or a light comes on. Hence why I say be as loud and visible (not speaking of your person, but turning on lights) as possible. They need to know someone is there. I may be wrong, but you make it seem as if you want to confront the intruder as quietly as possible. Sure that may be a good option if you have no other options, but once you confront the intruder(s), there's no going back, it on. I think the benefit of not having a suppressor is greater than having one, in a HD situation, but that's my opinion.

 

[cbhausen]

The point I'm trying to make, is that actively seeking to confronting the threat may not be the best for the safety of your loved ones. Most bad guys do what's easiest for them with the least resistance. Having worked burglaries, I can tell you that the vast majority of criminals cut and run as soon as they hear a voice or a light comes on. Hence why I say be as loud and visible (not speaking of your person, but turning on lights) as possible. They need to know someone is there. I may be wrong, but you make it seem as if you want to confront the intruder as quietly as possible. Sure that may be a good option if you have no other options, but once you confront the intruder(s), there's no going back, it on. I think the benefit of not having a suppressor is greater than having one, in a HD situation, but that's my opinion.

Hell no, I won't confront unnecessarily. But to me a suppressor is like a weapon mounted light (or a condom, for that matter). You put it on before you need it. My stated advantages for suppressors are far more practical than tactical.

Speaking of practical vs. tactical, can you (or anyone else) cite an example where a prosecutor or DA successfully linked use of a suppressor to premeditated ntent to kill unlawfully in a true defensive situation (as some have ridiculously attempted with respect to firearm modifications like trigger jobs)?

 

[Rookie]

That would depend, are we talking a handgun or a rifle? I'd forego the suppressor on a rifle (in combined spaces) because of clearing doors and corners, pistols not so much. The main appeal for suppressors outside of protecting your hearing (not needing muffs), would be if used in an offensive fashion.

That's the advantage of sbr combined with suppressor.

 

[cbhausen]

Ya know, a suppressor only only gets in the way until one discharges his or her weapon... So, in a true defensive situation, to paraphrase HRC, what difference at that point does it make? If one pulls the trigger suppressed when one would not have unsuppressed, a big difference (at least in a defensive situation). All the other mouth (or keyboard) boogie is just mental masturbation.

 

[rbhargan]

Wow! That thread sure did take off. A lot of interesting points were made - despite some tangential excursions.

One point that hasn't been discussed is, would demand increase if suppressors were dropped from the NFA list? If demand picked up, I would expect that prices would also increase (supply and demand). However, I wonder how many manufacturers would enter the market, increase supply and competition, dropping prices. Is there really a pent up demand? I think a lot of it would be driven by price point.

I would like to pick up a hybrid suppressor to experiment with, but am put off by the tax stamp - not the cost of the stamp, but the incredibly long wait time for approval. The cost of the suppressor is also a limiting factor.

If suppressors were available in the $100-$200 range, I could see them becoming popular. I have a hard time seeing how the current price points can be justified in an era of automated manufacturing.

 

[Rookie]

Yes, demand would increase and prices might go up for a short time, but prices would end up going down. Why? I believe there's a few reasons. Disclaimer - this is my opinion and my opinion isn't based on any research...

First, imagine you're selling suppressors. Would you rather sell 10 and for $500 and make $200 profit on each or would you rather sell 100 for $400 and make $100 profit on each? Removing them from NFA would increase demand and manufacturers would be competing for buyers. The best way to attract buyers is price point.

Second, in order to manufacturer a suppressor, you have to have a class 2 license. I'm sure it's not cheap, but I'm also sure that the cost of the license gets added into the overall cost of a suppressor. If they're removed from NFA, that cost would also end up being removed from suppressors.

The second opinion could be wrong - I'm not sure if there's a difference in licenses for NFA and non NFA items. Could someone clarify for me?

 

[Rookie]

Another thing you touched on, wait times. I think that's also a limiting factor right now. Personally, I'd be happy to pay a $400 stamp if I could take it home immediately. Initially, that's what stopped me from buying my first, I didn't want to wait. Simply removing the ridiculous wait time would increase sales even more than removing the stamp.

 

[avboiler11]

No $200 tax and the ability to 'cash and carry' at point of sale?

I'll be buying a half dozen the next day - not exaggerating.

There are homes within 500 or so yards of where I shoot on my land, and I try to be cognizant of my noise footprint when shooting (time of day, schedule of fire, etc) in an effort to be a good neighbor. Cans negate much of that concern, as the report is reduced AND the tone is changed to something generally less jarring.

 

[eldirector]

Short term spike in demand = short term price increase.

Right now, suppressors are available off the shelf in Europe (look at Norway). $71 for a cheap .22 can.

 

[KLB]

That would depend, are we talking a handgun or a rifle? I'd forego the suppressor on a rifle (in combined spaces) because of clearing doors and corners, pistols not so much. The main appeal for suppressors outside of protecting your hearing (not needing muffs), would be if used in an offensive fashion.

I have one on my Tavor 9MM. It adds two inches to the length. I don't have it so I can sneak up and shoot someone. I have it so that I won't deafen myself if I have to use it.

Wow! That thread sure did take off. A lot of interesting points were made - despite some tangential excursions.

One point that hasn't been discussed is, would demand increase if suppressors were dropped from the NFA list? If demand picked up, I would expect that prices would also increase (supply and demand). However, I wonder how many manufacturers would enter the market, increase supply and competition, dropping prices. Is there really a pent up demand? I think a lot of it would be driven by price point.

I would like to pick up a hybrid suppressor to experiment with, but am put off by the tax stamp - not the cost of the stamp, but the incredibly long wait time for approval. The cost of the suppressor is also a limiting factor.

If suppressors were available in the $100-$200 range, I could see them becoming popular. I have a hard time seeing how the current price points can be justified in an era of automated manufacturing.

I would be buying more at a faster rate. I imagine that price will fall as demand goes up. That is generally how things work.

To your original post I will add: I bring people from Chicago out to my place to shoot. They all love it, but most love the suppressed guns most of all. It never fails to bring a big grin to the shooters face. Even mine after having had them for a while.

 

[Gluemanz28]

To your original post I will add: I bring people from Chicago out to my place to shoot. They all love it, but most love the suppressed guns most of all. It never fails to bring a big grin to the shooters face. Even mine after having had them for a while.

I agree KLB
Sometimes all the reason needed is "They are fun to enjoy"

 

[Lees]

Maybe if you're shooting on your own land, they hold more appeal. If you shoot at a range you have to have hearing protection on anyway because of everyone else around you. I couldn't be less interested in a suppressor, seems like a hassle to me.

 

[Gluemanz28]

Maybe if you're shooting on your own land, they hold more appeal. If you shoot at a range you have to have hearing protection on anyway because of everyone else around you. I couldn't be less interested in a suppressor, seems like a hassle to me.

It's kind of like the jeep thing "If I have to explain it you wouldn't understand"
I don't mean that in a snarky way at all, it's just something you have to do to " Get it"

Suppressors aren't for everyone, but for those that dig them it's a game changer.

 

[ATM]

I'd even put a muffler on my car exhaust if the government removed the ridiculous $200 surcharge to purchase one.

Wait...

 

[KLB]

I'd even put a muffler on my car exhaust if the government removed the ridiculous $200 surcharge to purchase one.

Wait...

 

[KLB]

Maybe if you're shooting on your own land, they hold more appeal. If you shoot at a range you have to have hearing protection on anyway because of everyone else around you. I couldn't be less interested in a suppressor, seems like a hassle to me.

The times I have taken mine to a range, I find that people tend to come and want to try it.

 

[DanVoils]

The times I have taken mine to a range, I find that people tend to come and want to try it.

This! I've been to Parabellum many times working with someone and the people in the stall next to me inevitably want to shoot them. I don't know if it's the Hollywood film thing or the fact they are just fun to shoot. Either way it breaks down barriers.
Dan

 

[dave29]

This! I've been to Parabellum many times working with someone and the people in the stall next to me inevitably want to shoot them. I don't know if it's the Hollywood film thing or the fact they are just fun to shoot. Either way it breaks down barriers.
Dan

Yep, I've drawn some crowds while shooting my 300 BLK SBR with subs and an Omega. People can't believe how quiet it is.

 

[cbhausen]

I'd even put a muffler on my car exhaust if the government removed the ridiculous $200 surcharge to purchase one.

Wait...

ATM you were reading my mind! I was going to draw that analogy when caught up reading this thread but you beat me to it.