Of Silencers and Suppressors

Clare gunner

As we frequently have a few debatesabout the legality of silencers and suppressors and what their definations are.I came across an exellent article in this months German Gun Journal [DWJ]on this matter,and thought you might be intrested in this

;A "silencer" is defined as any device that uses SUB sonic ammo to difuse the report of a gunshot to a point that it is not recognisable as a gunshot.

A "suppressor"OTOH uses normal supersonic ammo,,but reduces the gunshot report to a point where it is difficult to discern wether it is a gunshot or not.Also,to allow Nite vision equipment to function properly without being blinded out by muzzle flashes and allow personel to communicate easier with each other in a firefight.
IOW A suppressor is more a military device with military/police useage than a silencer,and both have different features of use design and construction.

The article then goes on to list different types of silencer constructions and how the first shot might sound louder than the rest[first round pop].Caused by hot gasses hitting colder air in the silencer chambers,or "first round flash"
caused by unburned gas residue ,oils,powders still in the silencer and those being ignited by the muzzle blast.
Also,watch your subsonic ammo.It could be warm weather ammo. Some ammo's V0 is 310/320m/s in Summer temperatures.In Winter the speed of sound is now around 320m/s,so according to this your ammo is now going close to supersonic ,or at least transonic.[Wether this applies in an Irish Summer is open to debate:rolleyes: ]
Some ways of improving your normal silencer wether it has mesh or baffles.There are so called wet cans which are basically silencers that can take liquid coolant,oil,[water in some cases]or grease in their workings,to trap and cool gases.This does work ,I have tried WD-40 in mine and it does reduce noise somwhat more for the first 2 to3 shots.
How noisey should a silencer be?
Properly mated ,balanced to the specific gun. a.22 can be about as loud as a compound crossbow being fired,if not qioter.
A silenced police tac rifle in 308 should be in around the sound of a champane cork popping.
With normal ammo a silenced up to 8mm cal rifle should have a sound signature like a22mag or 22 hornet
A 50BMG should be in around the 308 sound signature.
Also they reduce recoil immensely,due to the absorption of the gasses and improve accruaccy! A GSR silencer from Brugger& Thomet brought the accruacy of a Steyr SSG Police mod that shot groups of 2cms down a few mm at 100 meters.
Concludes then with a round up of the silencers position in Europe legally.
In GB it is considerd compulsory saftey eq under the H&S act and noise reduction under EU directive EG10/2003 for professional stalkers and others.
Germany,it was decided that being a liscensed hunter is not enough reason,as you must be an employed professional hunter to have good reason to posses one.
Skandanavian countries they are as common as anything and gladly seen to be used by sport and hunters.The Finnish govt orderd research into them on the benifits of public health and noise reduction around ranges and when hunting.Lets see our DOH[how appropriate that abbreviation is, if you like The Simpsons:) ] do somthing useful like that one day.
All in all very intresting and much longer,I have taken the revelant bits out for around here that might be intresting to you silencer fans out there.

bullets

Nice article CG.

Have recently purchased a SAK moderator from Duffys in Galway
for 55 Euro. Although tis for a .22 it fits right onto the .17 just fine.
(CZ452)
I wrote to the local FO who passed my letter onto the Local Super
and after a Long wait and a few letter later they sent me a letter
with permission to use a "silencer" for the year.
As much as I tried to use the word moderator and that it does not silence
the firearm "they" still used the term Silencer.

I have yet to try it out but from what I can remember from when
I borrowed one it reduced the .17HMR noise level to that
of something like a .22LR unmoderated. It also placed all my points of impact
with my shots around 4inches to the right. So hopefully soon I will be
able to Zero my rifle with the mod on.

Its frustrating to thing that people think they Silence the firearm
when depending on they type of ammo they may only reduce the noise
to something that is still considered LOUD!

~B

johngalway

Whatever you want to call them, and not silencers beyong .22lr cal. They should be easier to get approved for, for hearing, stock, quarry and other citizen reasons. It makes sense and would be good practice. If someone with a rifle ain't fit to have a moderator in the cops eyes then why give them a rifle in the first place someone tell me?

CJhaughey

I have been using a Webley silencer on my Anschutz and it has made a world of difference to the noise level, using subsonic winchester HP it is very effective on rabbits allowing a second shot and sometimes a third depending on how wary the rabbits are.
Even with supersonic ammo it reduces the level of report to a very low level,all you really hear is the crack as the bullet goes supersonic
I got my local guard to write on the license:
Permit approved for sound moderator, name, rank, serial number, date.
All hunky dory, I might ask him to write it on headed paper next time so it doesn't expire every year.

bullets

johngalway wrote:

If someone with a rifle ain't fit to have a moderator in the cops eyes then why give them a rifle in the first place someone tell me?

Excellent Point JohnGalway!!!!!

Dunno whats with the boards tonite and for the last few days/weeks
everything seems to be getting slower with lots of 404's and timeouts.

~B

rrpc

The reason they use the word 'silencer' is because that's the wording used in the 1990 act that made it compulsory to get permission to own one.

Hence the use of the phrase 'sound moderator' because it's not used in the act and therefore doesn't require permission.

Clare gunner

Also there is no defination as to what a silencer actually is under Irish law apart from being a gun part.It is amazing as to actually how vauge or non definative Irish law is on many items.
BTW ,agree the boards are getting slower and slower.

johngalway

Clare gunner wrote:

Also there is no defination as to what a silencer actually is under Irish law apart from being a gun part.It is amazing as to actually how vauge or non definative Irish law is on many items.
BTW ,agree the boards are getting slower and slower.

Department of Transport must be running boards now

peter-pantslez

rrpc wrote:

Hence the use of the phrase 'sound moderator' because it's not used in the act and therefore doesn't require permission.

so does this mean you can plead ignornace and use one with out a permit and insist on it being a moderator and not a silencer if caught???

Clare gunner

Hasnt been tried yet in a ICOL here yet.But from what legal opinion I have asked on,they say it is a debatable point which could go either way.
You would have to prove to a judge that there is a substantial difference between a silencer, sound moderator, and suppressor. So you would want to have one damn good firearms/silencer expert to testify.Certainly Parker Hale sells their units with "sound moderator" on the box.And Viame has theirs down as suppressors. There are three ways around this,liscense it,dont get caught with one on the gun,or get an intergral barrel suppressor built in your gun barrel,where it becomes part of the gun and does not need a further liscense.

Ruger.220swift

....... Garda Station
......
Co Louth.


Re: Sound moderator permit application.

To whom it may concern

I ......, Co Louth DOB ...... would like to apply to ...... Garda station for a permit for a sound moderator/suppressor (Type T8) for my Rifle by Ruger of .220 inches bearing the identification number ....... licensed under Rifle Certificate No : ......... PULSE ID: .........

I have been a Full member of ...... Gun Club for nine years and a junior member for a number of years previous, and I am currently the chairman of ..... Gun Club Co ..... for the past three consecutive years. I am also a member of ...... Gun Club Co ..... for the past nine years also.

I wish to apply for this permit for two reasons.

1. As the .220 is a centre fire rifle the Peak Action Level of noise from the rifle exceeds 140 dB when fired, which under the European Communities (Exposure to Noise)Regulations,1990 states that Hearing protection must be worn to avoid any hearing damage. This is not always practical when shooting vermin in the field as when wearing hearing protection I can not listen as well as feel for wind changes, and movements in the surrounding environment such as livestock, people etc, however I do accept that hearing protection is practical when target shooting in a controlled environment. This could also affect the hearing of accompanying shooters/land owners when a shot is fired.

2. I currently shoot a lot of vermin (foxes) for farmers in Louth, Meath, and Wicklow areas. As the rifle is so loud some farmers have had concerns that it might scare the livestock causing them to run off, in particular in lambing season which may result in loss of lambs. Also horses in adjoining fields may be frightened by the sound of a shot from some distance.
In practice, depending on the amount of bullet flight noise reflected back to the shooter by trees or fences etc., a centre fire hunting rifle with a T8 suppressor sounds about the same as a high velocity 22 LR rim-fire rifle which is well below the threshold of 140 dB. I would ask you to consider the above points when deciding on this application. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or alternatively I can be contacted on .........

Yours sincerely
_______________________
...............


I submitted this letter to my local station and i got word back verbally yesterday when i went into pay my gun licences that it was refused. The SGT went on to say that the Super only has granted one previous to this and that the put a restriction on it only to be used at certain times of the day... he said that he would not grant it for health and safety reasons alone and suggested that i get a gun that was less noisy...!!! I was ripping when coming out the station. Is there anything i can do about this?

rrpc

Yes you can appeal it to the district court.

bullets

Ruger.220swift wrote:

.
I submitted this letter to my local station and i got word back verbally yesterday when i went into pay my gun licences that it was refused. The SGT went on to say that the Super only has granted one previous to this and that the put a restriction on it only to be used at certain times of the day... he said that he would not grant it for health and safety reasons alone and suggested that i get a gun that was less noisy...!!! I was ripping when coming out the station. Is there anything i can do about this?

I applied for permission for a Moderator. For health and safety reasons.
In my letter to my FO which got passed onto the super
I specifically specified that it did not silence the firearm,
but it reduced the noise level to an acceptable level to maybe that
of a .22. When on the phone to the station they kept calling it
a silencer and I (maybe foolishly) told whoever I was talking to
that Because they don't silence the firearm they are sold
as moderators and they did not need to be licensed.

I really was expecting to be turned down first time round
but I got a letter back a few weeks later (after some calls/messages)
asking for more details on the type of moderator I wanted.
I did not know what details they wanted but I just copied the
spec of the Mod from a website.


I got a letter of permission from my local Super (Who I never met yet)
a few weeks later. I must say that apart from the wait it was
a painless enough experience I was expecting the worst.

The letter stated that the authorization was on condition that
the "silencer" was stored in a secure firearms cabinet when not
in use. and authorization was granted under the terms of Section 7 of
the firearms and offensive weapons act, 1990.

Also is granted for a year and there are specific dates when
I need to re-new permission.


While we are On-Topic I used mine for the first time yesterday.
Got home and realised I was not sure how to care for it.
I just wiped the outside which was dirty around the threads
and openings. and sprayed some gun oil into it.

Its a SAK. I did not attempt to open it or dis-assemble it
yet so dunno if I will need to do this in the future for
cleaning.

~B

Clare gunner

I submitted this letter to my local station and i got word back verbally yesterday when i went into pay my gun licences that it was refused. The SGT went on to say that the Super only has granted one previous to this and that the put a restriction on it only to be used at certain times of the day... he said that he would not grant it for health and safety reasons alone and suggested that i get a gun that was less noisy...!!! I was ripping when coming out the station. Is there anything i can do about this?[/QUOTE]

More Garda BS!!:mad: A less noiser gun is the most stupidest cop out I've ever heard.If you put a silencer on it it would make it quiter.There is no ground in law of the supers decision to put it's useage at a certain time of day either.Obviously anything to do with H&S is beyond them as well.:rolleyes:
AS RRPC said,head to the solicitor and DC,stopping by NARGC if you are a member for another addition to the list of Keystone Cop nonsense that Des is compiling.

Bullets,
If it is a SAK ,I dont think it dissambles. Dunk in powder solvent and blast out with an airline at the most the non dissamble mods need.

.243

the sak can be dissembled,pm me bullets for a chat and ill show you

Ruger.220swift

Another thing that really pissed me off i changed my rifle last year and the chamber size on the licence was always down as a .220 and somehow changed to a .22 on the new licence and the SGT had the nerve to ask if there was a difference after telling me that my permit was refused:rolleyes: . what a genius...:mad: Do you think it is worth going to the NARGC about the matter or is there any point as the T8 is clearly not a "silencer" and therefore could be argued that it doesnt require a licence??

the hunter

hi lads
i got a similar answer when i asked a gard about a moderator (i avoided using silencer). and was told i wouldnt get permission as silencers(he called it) were illegal . the when i said there was a difference between silencer moderator and supressor i was told to ask at the
gun shops about how to apply for one or what the procedure was ?????????????

bullets

.243 wrote:

the sak can be dissembled,pm me bullets for a chat and ill show you

As long as the baffles just dont fall apart when I open the tube I should
be OK. will give you a shout if I run into bother. Have not had a chance
to look at it yet. Must get a spanner with some padding
to open it without marking the finish at the weekend.

The Hunter wrote:

. the when i said there was a difference between silencer moderator and supressor i was told to ask at the
gun shops about how to apply for one or what the procedure was ????????????

Well I talked to two gun dealers who both told me that they would sell
me a Moderator over the counter. And the 3rd dealer I talked to sold
me my one without a bother. As they market them as Moderator.

Officially to cover your bases all you actually need is a Letter or Permission
from the Super.

I don't know of any court cases where someone was brought to court
where the wording was challenged though. I would like to see them
prove the offending item actually silenced the firearm when it cant.
Its probably something they will amend in the future just to make
things more hairy.


~B

Our man in Havana

Have there been any cases of people up in court for using one of these devices?

Clare gunner

Dont think so.There were a bunch of people caught with silencers on their rifles by wildlife rangers appx 4 years ago on Xmas eve.
They were charged with poaching and lost the rifles,etc.But I dont think there were charges for silencer possesion.

johngalway

An interesting question would be how many have had their rifles and I would guess unauthorised supressors taken off them for good and no further licences granted?

Gerri

Ruger.220swift wrote:

Another thing that really pissed me off i changed my rifle last year and the chamber size on the licence was always down as a .220 and somehow changed to a .22 on the new licence and the SGT had the nerve to ask if there was a difference after telling me that my permit was refused:rolleyes: . what a genius...:mad: Do you think it is worth going to the NARGC about the matter or is there any point as the T8 is clearly not a "silencer" and therefore could be argued that it doesnt require a licence??

Possession, sale, etc., of silencers. 7.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or sells or transfers to another person a silencer unless the possession, sale or transfer is authorised in writing by the superintendent of the district in which the first-mentioned person resides.

(2) A superintendent shall not grant an authorisation under this section unless he is satisfied that the person who is to have possession of the silencer or to whom it is to be sold or transferred is the holder of a firearm certificate for a firearm to which the silencer can be fitted and that—

( a ) having regard to all the circumstances, the possession, sale or transfer concerned will not endanger the public safety or the peace, and

( b ) the person has a special need that is, in the opinion of the superintendent, sufficient to justify the granting of the authorisation for the silencer.

(3) The superintendent of the district where the holder of an authorisation under this section resides may, at any time, attach to the authorisation such conditions as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing danger to the public or to the peace or of ensuring that the silencer is used only to satisfy the special need for which the authorisation was granted.

(4) An authorisation under this section may be granted for such period not exceeding one year as is specified in the authorisation and may be revoked by the superintendent of the district where its holder resides.

(5) A person who contravenes a condition attached to an authorisation under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

( a ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both, or

( b ) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

(7) This section does not apply in relation to a person specified in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (3) of section 2 of the Firearms Act, 1925 , or paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4) (inserted by the Firearms Act, 1964 ) of that section.

(8) In this section—

"silencer" means a silencer specified in section 4 (1) (g);

"superintendent means a superintendent of the Garda Síochána.

Extension of Firearms Acts to crossbows and stun guns. 4.—(1) In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, "firearm" means—

( a ) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged;

( b ) an air gun (which expression includes an air rifle and an air pistol) or any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which metal or other slugs can be discharged;

( c ) a crossbow;

( d ) any type of stun gun or other weapon for causing any shock or other disablement to a person by means of electricity or any other kind of energy emission;

( e ) a prohibited weapon as defined in section 1 (1) of the Firearms Act, 1925 ;

( f ) any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing paragraphs but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or of causing a shock or other disablement (as the case may be);

( g ) save where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, for the purposes of this definition, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts as aforesaid.

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e), and

(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e).

(2) The following provisions are hereby repealed:

( a ) the definition of "firearm" in section 1 (1) of the Firearms Act, 1925 , and in section 1 of the Firearms (Proofing) Act, 1968 , and

( b ) section 2 of the Firearms Act, 1964 , and section 2 of the Firearms Act, 1971 .

bullets

Gerri wrote:

Possession, sale, etc., of silencers. 7.—(1)

Read that before but somehow reading it again it seems a wee
bit longer.

Still don't see where they actually define what a Silencer actually is.
I don't see an explanation.

Surely if they are going to restrict something the need to define
what they are restricting.

I also find it weird that there is two separate acts
The Firearms act 1925-2006
but also a separate act
firearms and offensive weapons act, 1990.

Also dunno what the problem is with having a scope
with light beam or night vision. You can buy laser pointers
legally and you can buy night vision legally. But stick either
on a gun and your now breaking the law?

~B

tikkamark

Bond-007 wrote:

Have there been any cases of people up in court for using one of these devices?

For what its worth even if you dont have permission if you only have the mod on when out in the field or on your own land no-one will ever know just when your traveling in a car take the mod off and nothing can be said it really is the greatest load of **** that there is so much hassle involved in using a device that saves peoples hearing and avoids terrifying every animal in the country every time you take a shot,just my honest opinion:mad:

rrpc

bullets wrote:

Still don't see where they actually define what a Silencer actually is.
I don't see an explanation.

There isn't one, I think I posted the section earlier on this thread and the definition is just 'a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm'

Surely if they are going to restrict something the need to define
what they are restricting.

Hence the different terms used to get around the act.

I also find it weird that there is two separate acts
The Firearms act 1925-2006
but also a separate act
firearms and offensive weapons act, 1990.

They're all one. The firearms acts 1925-2006 incorporates all acts relating to firearms from 1925 to 2006. The general usage is to refer to the 1925 firearms act, or the 1925 firearms act as amended. You can also specifically refer to any of the subsequent acts, for example the 1964 act which introduced club authorisations and increased the age that you can get a FAC from 15 to 16.

At some stage they're going to have to incorporate all the bits into one act. As far as I can make out there was 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000 and 2006.

Also dunno what the problem is with having a scope
with light beam or night vision. You can buy laser pointers
legally and you can buy night vision legally. But stick either
on a gun and your now breaking the law?

It's the 'you can't have anything remotely military' rule.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

At some stage they're going to have to incorporate all the bits into one act. As far as I can make out there was 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000 and 2006.

The DoJ says that this is already underway.
There is this, but like the disclaimer says, "This document is not a restatement prepared under the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002 and as such is not legislation. It is intended to provide an overview of the Firearms Acts only, and not to serve as a legal document."
It's just something I found handy.

the hunter

Gerri wrote:

Possession, sale, etc., of silencers. 7.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or sells or transfers to another person a silencer unless the possession, sale or transfer is authorised in writing by the superintendent of the district in which the first-mentioned person resides.

i asked a dealer about the legality of selling a "silencer"
and as far as he was concerned he could sell them legally and the person buying/using it was the one who is being illegal....

rrpc

Gerri wrote:

Possession, sale, etc., of silencers. 7.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or sells or transfers to another person a silencer unless the possession, sale or transfer is authorised in writing by the superintendent of the district in which the first-mentioned person resides.

thehunter wrote:

i asked a dealer about the legality of selling a "silencer"
and as far as he was concerned he could sell them legally and the person buying/using it was the one who is being illegal....

That particular section refers to an individual and not a firearms dealer. It has to follow that you wouldn't apply to the dealers district Super for permission to buy a silencer for use in your Supers district.

sidneyreilly

bullets wrote:

Also dunno what the problem is with having a scope
with light beam or night vision. You can buy laser pointers
legally and you can buy night vision legally. But stick either
on a gun and your now breaking the law?

~B

Your not I'm told. It's classed as a component so anyone not in possession of a firearms certificate for an appropriate firearm for such a device is breaking the law. Same as someone in possession of a rifle barrel with no rifle license is in possession of a component part of a firearm. Ordinary scopes are not considered component parts. Component parts being (I think) any part essential to the operation of a firearm. As night vision etc.. is not really essential to the operation they DOJ felt a need to specify it.

Sparks

It's greyer than that Sidney - if you have night vision binoculars or a night vision monocular that's designed for use as a telescope, it's legal (after all, you might just be into nocturnal birdwatching or other nature studies. Stop giggling, I'm serious - how else would you do academic studies of the behaviour of the local fauna?). If you have a laser pointer for use in a lecture hall (by the lecturer, thank you very much), that's legal.

Strap either one to your rifle using copious amounts of duct tape, however, and you're breaking the law.

Also, possess versions of either that have pitacinny rail mounts or other mounts for attaching to a rifle, and you're breaking the law.

At least on paper. I've not seen examples of this being tested in court yet. Mind you, I wouldn't want the trouble and expense of being the first...

sidneyreilly

Sparks wrote:

It's greyer than that Sidney - if you have night vision binoculars or a night vision monocular that's designed for use as a telescope, it's legal (after all, you might just be into nocturnal birdwatching or other nature studies. Stop giggling, I'm serious - how else would you do academic studies of the behaviour of the local fauna?). If you have a laser pointer for use in a lecture hall (by the lecturer, thank you very much), that's legal.

Strap either one to your rifle using copious amounts of duct tape, however, and you're breaking the law.

Also, possess versions of either that have pitacinny rail mounts or other mounts for attaching to a rifle, and you're breaking the law.

At least on paper. I've not seen examples of this being tested in court yet. Mind you, I wouldn't want the trouble and expense of being the first...

I think you are incorrect Sparks. It's treated as a component therefore you may have one if you have a cert for a suitable firearm for it. Tis one that I might get another legal opinion on for pig iron though.

One thing is certain, it's frowned upon.