A Tale Of Two Customers

Over the past couple of years, the move to legalize “suppressors” – basically mufflers for guns – for civilians, and to remove them from the National Firearms Act registry (regulating them the same as machine guns and sawed off shotguns) was met an amazing deluge of paranoia; “It’ll let murderers kill silently”, “It’ll negate shot-spotters”.

In the hands of agents of the state?   It‘s a matter of health!

Rifles carried by Spokane police on patrol will soon be equipped with suppressors, a move the department says will protect officers and civilians from hearing damage.

“It’s nothing more than like the muffler you put on your car,” said Lt. Rob Boothe, the range master and lead firearms instructor for the department.

Outfitting the department’s 181 service rifles with suppressors will protect the city from the legal costs of worker’s compensation claims filed by officers, as well as from potential lawsuits filed by bystanders whose ears are exposed to firearm blasts. The sound of a fired shot can be louder than the takeoff of jet engines, the department says.

Watch for suppressors to be the latest accessory in your neighborhood patrol car…

…as gun grabber groups continue to babble about “silencers” as they appear in movies.

(New to the discussion?  Here’s a demo of how they actually work)



8 thoughts on “A Tale Of Two Customers

  1. At the moment, silencers and suppressors are used interchangeably. The answer to the impasse is to create two classes of devices.

    Silencers reduce the noise of firing to 30 decibels at 10 feet. Any device meeting this requirement will continue to be regulated as now.

    Suppressors reduce the noise of firing. Typical devices reduce the noise of firing but do not meet the 30 decibel limit. These will be unregulated.

    Wanna bet that PDT could do this with little more than an executive order.

  2. So the demo on suppressors was Tom Petty’s Refugee video? Were you implying something? 🙂

  3. At the moment, silencers and suppressors are used interchangeably. The answer to the impasse is to create two classes of devices.

    I violently disagree. Noise suppression is much a function of projectile speed as it is of a type of muffler. You really, REALLY do not want to open this Pandora’s box. The nose of the camel is already in the tent, and 9 RINO’s have gathered outside, pushing hard on arse to get the entire camel inside.

    Also, we are talking rifles here. Huh? Normally, PD’s only use rifles in SWAT operations, no? In operations requiring rifles for sniping, where accuracy is desired, now way no how will they use subsonic rounds, so mufflers will be but a marginal improvement. Or does Seattle PD now routinely issue AR’s (or M16s?) to foot soldiers? If so, why are they weaponizing the PD? And again, for AR’s, unless you use subsonic rounds which have fairly limited accuracy range, suppressors will provide only marginal improvement.

    And last but not least, oh the irony! How will orc’s hand wringing, gnashing of teeth and disregarding any arguments about common sense benefits of mufflers reconcile with this?

  4. Seattle is replacing 135 Crown Vics with SUVs. They’re buying 180 silencers. Sounds to me as if they plan to stow a suppressed carbine in every vehicle.

    Not sure that’s wise. When assault rifles are banned in gun stores, every cop car instantly will become a mobile rifle delivery service, complete with weapon, magazines, ammunition, first aid kit, laptop computer and portable radio, ripe for the ambush.

  5. I also question the value of a suppressed rifle in any situation PD may find itself in. An unsuppressed sound of a rifle acts like a much better deterrent than a suppressed one. As a matter of fact, racking a shotgun is an even better deterrent.

    Sure, use mufflers during practice on the range, but on duty? The article implies Spokane police discharge (or expect to) their rifles while on duty frequently enough to be of health concern. Really? What do they know in Spokane that we do not? What are they preparing for that they would need mufflers on duty weapons?

  6. Supressors are quite common on the ranges down here. Ranges close to urban areas encourage them as a proactive move against noise complaints.

    I’ve seen them on everything from .22 rifles (close to silent with sub-sonic rounds), to 7mm Magnum rifles (still need your hearing protection).

  7. Regarding Spokane, it strikes me as perhaps good that they’re getting suppressors. First of all, that makes the weapon heavier and slower to wheel around, which means it’s actually less military. Good thing right there–harder to shoot first and ask questions later, no?

    Then, you’ve got the reality that automatic fire will (I’ve read at least) damage and even melt many suppressors–again, unmitigated plus, reduces odds of officers spraying and praying. Finally, hearing damage is no laughing matter–most of the veterans I know wear hearing aids.

    And given that it doesn’t make guns silent, here’s hoping that we come to our senses and figure out that they don’t need to be heavily regulated.

  8. Supressors are quite common on the ranges down here.

    On the range, absolutely. But on duty? No way, unless you are an assassin in close quarters. Rapport of gunfire goes a long way to disperse and control a situation. Isn’t that what police is there for? To serve and protect? Not kill (unless be killed)?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.