Page 3 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Jan 2017, 9:22 am

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Gun suppressors aren't like the "silencers" you see in the movies. They muffle the sound of a gun being fired, but they don't take a loud "BANG BANG" and turn it into a quiet "pew pew". Instead, they just take the volume down a notch. If someone shoots a suppressed firearm where they're not supposed to, people are still going to hear it.

Down more than a notch, actually. Even more so with something subsonic like a .45 ACP. Suppressed centerfire rifles (.308 comes to mind) are still pretty noisy but nothing like un-suppressed. Suppressors not only cut the noise level but also alters the sound so that it doesnt sound like gunfire to the causal listener. Even if they hear it they won't immediately think GUN.

If they deregulated them to the point where I could buy one with no more legal difficultly than a handgun I might get one for one of my .45's just for shits-n-giggles. Personally, I like the sound of un-suppressed gunfire but sometimes it would be cool to shoot something suppressed that actually belongs to me. :D

So if they're still audible, but sound nothing like an unsuppressed firearm, do you think there would be any public safety ramifications to deregulating them? I mean, mass shootings already happen without them, so it's not like their lack of availability is deterring people from shooting places up... or is it somewhat?

For the gun grabbers it's never about safety or crime but about control of people and sticking it to non-progressives.

How do you define "gun-grabbers", and why do you say those are their motives? I just want some clarification.

It's been defined countless times here in all the gunz-r-bad threads we've had over the years...


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Jan 2017, 11:55 am

BTDT wrote:
This could be a business opportunity for an Aspie to invent a much more effective silencer.


I don't know about any involved Aspies, but the silencer business has been booming (so to speak) for the last few years, it's the hottest segment of the firearms market. It's pretty simple technology, a threaded tube with some internal structure to swirl hot gasses around and release them slowly, but CNC machining and computer aided design have allowed some pretty interesting configurations to come out that are more efficient and lightweight than in the past.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

19 Jan 2017, 1:04 pm

Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Gun suppressors aren't like the "silencers" you see in the movies. They muffle the sound of a gun being fired, but they don't take a loud "BANG BANG" and turn it into a quiet "pew pew". Instead, they just take the volume down a notch. If someone shoots a suppressed firearm where they're not supposed to, people are still going to hear it.

Down more than a notch, actually. Even more so with something subsonic like a .45 ACP. Suppressed centerfire rifles (.308 comes to mind) are still pretty noisy but nothing like un-suppressed. Suppressors not only cut the noise level but also alters the sound so that it doesnt sound like gunfire to the causal listener. Even if they hear it they won't immediately think GUN.

If they deregulated them to the point where I could buy one with no more legal difficultly than a handgun I might get one for one of my .45's just for shits-n-giggles. Personally, I like the sound of un-suppressed gunfire but sometimes it would be cool to shoot something suppressed that actually belongs to me. :D

So if they're still audible, but sound nothing like an unsuppressed firearm, do you think there would be any public safety ramifications to deregulating them? I mean, mass shootings already happen without them, so it's not like their lack of availability is deterring people from shooting places up... or is it somewhat?

For the gun grabbers it's never about safety or crime but about control of people and sticking it to non-progressives.

How do you define "gun-grabbers", and why do you say those are their motives? I just want some clarification.

It's been defined countless times here in all the gunz-r-bad threads we've had over the years...

I'm too lazy to look, and I don't feel like guessing either. :P


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


SocOfAutism
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,909

19 Jan 2017, 4:40 pm

Poaching is actually a thing where I live. A few years ago a hungry poacher was trying to shoot some supper and ended up shooting a college student (gathering mushrooms or something like that) in the chest and killed her. The college students around here obviously aren't always local, so they think they can just run around in the woods wearing regular clothes. All of us who grew up here know to wear blaze orange and avoid white (so you don't look like a deer's tail). You just assume that the woods will have drunk and high hunters out there, regardless of what season it is.

I used to target shoot, starting with a BB gun at 10 and then eventually using a Glock 27 or whatever my father in law happened to have. I live in the city now and don't do it anymore.



mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

19 Jan 2017, 8:35 pm

SocOfAutism wrote:
All of us who grew up here know to wear blaze orange and avoid white (so you don't look like a deer's tail). You just assume that the woods will have drunk and high hunters out there, regardless of what season it is.

Is it bad that I find this kind of funny? :P


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

19 Jan 2017, 9:25 pm

I don't know if it's bad to laugh, but I learned the same rules in Vermont.

It was definitely a risk during the fall, but you never know when the drunk and high will ignore the rules and take a bead on a hiker, horse or cow.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

20 Jan 2017, 2:46 am

Adamantium wrote:
I don't know if it's bad to laugh, but I learned the same rules in Vermont.

It was definitely a risk during the fall, but you never know when the drunk and high will ignore the rules and take a bead on a hiker, horse or cow.


Or a John Deere :D


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


SocOfAutism
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,909

20 Jan 2017, 9:06 am

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
SocOfAutism wrote:
All of us who grew up here know to wear blaze orange and avoid white (so you don't look like a deer's tail). You just assume that the woods will have drunk and high hunters out there, regardless of what season it is.

Is it bad that I find this kind of funny? :P


I guess it IS funny. I hadn't thought about it that way. :lol:



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

21 Jan 2017, 3:18 am

Adamantium wrote:
It was definitely a risk during the fall, but you never know when the drunk and high will ignore the rules and take a bead on a hiker, horse or cow.


A friend of mine who lived in Northern California told me that he once had a novice hunter in his town mistakenly shoot one of those longhorn highland cattle, thinking it was an elk. The really funny part is that the guy was really proud of himself, thought he'd shot a record breaking elk and brought it down to the local sporting good store to show it off to the locals; apparently, he only realized his mistake when one of said locals asked him if the "elk" had mooed when he shot it. According to my friend, that ended up being a very expensive mistake for the guy, between the restitution to the farmer and the Fish and Game fines.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

25 Jan 2017, 6:23 pm

Dox47 wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
You can only really silence subsonic projectiles, like the silent carbine or welrod.


The real trick with those two wasn't so much that they were subsonic, though that helps, but a truly huge suppressor in the case of the Delisle silent carbine, and the use of leather and rubber "wipes" in the Welrod, which expanded behind the bullet to seal in the expanding gasses, but quickly wore out and had to be replaced. I've always been rather fond of those two designs as examples of wartime ingenuity, the Delisle was MacGuyvered together from pieces of an SMLE, a Thompson sub-machine gun, a 1911 pistol, and the custom built suppressor, while the Welrod was basically SOE's idea of a silenced zip gun. I always wanted to build my own versions of each, if the law passes, I just might.

I think the integration of the suppressor is also key as well as the unique design of the suppressor in the case of the De Lisle.

De Lisle originally created a version for small game, and then recognised it could be used for other things sentry removal. His informal pitch was firing it into the river Thames in london from this tall building to see if anyone would notice it firing. They didn't.

Image



Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

25 Jan 2017, 8:18 pm

Raptor wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
All the arguments I have heard raised against suppressors are about their being used for murder, as if not having a suppressor was an effective deterrent in places where there are many shootings.


You'll see that quite often when you argue guns with people, a lot of arguments about possibilities that are actually quite unlikely when examined. Another one you see from time to time is bans on .50 caliber rifles, which at 5 feet long and 35lbs, to say nothing of the $2500-8500 price tag, are hardly the first choice of the average criminal, who rarely needs to assassinate other criminals at long ranges through barriers.


I used to work with Chicken Little type that discovered that a .50 BMG rifle could be bought like any other rifle and what thier capabilities were. His concern (near panic) was that some right winger (he was a liberal) could just go buy one and engage Obama from 1+ mile away with it as if it were easy to hit anything at that distance.

I had to explain to him and others present that shooting a rifle, especially at those distances, was much more complex than just a mouse click. I explained the rifle's capability doesn't mean much without a skilled operator behind it. I went on to explain the effects of trajectory, gyroscopic drift, wind drift, ambient air density, Coriolis effect, etc. Add to that that the wind drift may vary between the shooter and intended target due to structures and land features that disrupt and channel air flow. Add to that the target could very likely move just enough from the time the shot breaks to when the projectile arrives to cause a clean miss. Basically, the factors that have to be taken into account in making a shot at those distances. Of course, none of this had ever occurred to him. He just assumed that you point the rifle in the general direction and the demons or whatever would take over and fly the bullet to its target.

Chicken Little seemed a little calmed by all that and it's just as well, otherwise he might have actually called the secret service and given them the names of all the right wing gun owners he knew, including me.


Another thing, is that the Muzzle Velocity of a Barrett is 2,800 fps, which if it remained constant, would take almost two seconds to arrive at a target a mile away. I don't know what the velocity drop for a Barrett is, but it would definately take over two seconds to arrive at the target from the time the trigger is pulled. -- a lot can happen in two seconds.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!