Here are reasons for use of a sound suppressor/silencer.

clivej

Here are some reasons to use a moderator if your asked when submitting your Firearms form.


• Health and Safety. To prevent hearing damage to me and others nearby.
To be aware of what and who is around me when hunting in the ‘field’ and to be able to hear people giving me instructions and warnings.
Hearing protection is not an option under these conditions.

• Improved accuracy of bullet placement on animals and thereby given a humane kill.
This is one proven enhancement of using a sound suppressor.

• Public Safety and Peace. To reduce the noise pollution to the public if and when they are within hearing of shots being fired.
I have shooting permissions on lands where this can happen.
On occasion the night shooting of vermin is needed and again the use of a sound suppressor will reduce the noise pollution to the public.

• I have permissions to shoot on lands for the control of vermin where horses are kept and at time in foal and also other livestock.
The sounds of shooting will stampede the horses and a sound suppressor is required on these occasions.

Sparks

Not sure if "here are the approved excuses" is the best line to take there clive.

Especially when it depends on the local Super (even with the guidelines, when they're released, the Super still makes the rules).

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

Not sure if "here are the approved excuses" is the best line to take there clive.

Especially when it depends on the local Super (even with the guidelines, when they're released, the Super still makes the rules).

In fairness he isn't saying these are the "approved excuses" he is just gathering together the reasons used by people when seeking permission to use a moderator.

Sparks

See, if he was saying "X% of people have mods granted for Y", I'd be completely of that opinion as well Veg, but the way clive wrote it, it comes across more as "put this down and you'll get a mod from your super".

rrpc

clivej wrote: »

• Improved accuracy of bullet placement on animals and thereby given a humane kill.
This is one proven enhancement of using a sound suppressor.

Are you sure that's correct Clive? I was always of the impression that a moderator affected the flight of the bullet and not in a good way.

Grizzly 45

Nope! RR in fact it will actually improve[according to those who make these ]bullet accruacy!Only way THICS it wouldnt work is if the threading is out of true and/or somthing touches the bullet in it's flight.

Sparks

That's not quite right though Grizzly - every sound suppressor out there takes away from the velocity of the bullet, pulling it further down towards the transsonic speed region and when the bullet hits that region, it destabilises. So the supressor doesn't affect accuracy within a certain range, even if all else remains the same.

(And I still want to see the studies on subsonic .22lr rounds and suppressors btw).

edit: (And improve? Suppressors can't improve accuracy unless they impinge on the bullet in some way, and the only way they can do that involves loud noises and flying shards of ex-suppressor metal.)

Rew

IMHO its the effect of the moderator on the shooter not the bullet that improves accuracy.

BornToKill

By cutting down on recoil it could be argued that a moderator allows you to get back on target faster for a second shot. That is not the same as first-shot accuracy. I can't see how a first shot would be helped by a moderator - you'd be better off getting in some practice.

Sparks

I can see how it'd help someone with a flinch problem allright - but like BTK said, that's something you train to fix, not buy a moderator for.

Vegeta

Just a hypothetical here

When the bullet leaves the barrel, it is at is most susceptible to the wind. Slight deviation at muzzle could be large deviation at target.

Would a moderator be considered enough to "shield" it from the wind for long enough to make a difference? I know its only a small protrusion but wonder what effect it has?

We need some scientific studies on this. Anyone have a wind tunnel and a shooting range combined?

Sparks

But in that case a barrel shroud would do the same as a suppressor. So it's not the suppressor doing the accurising.
And frankly, if there was anything to that idea, you'd never see a "naked" barrel on the firing lines of the Olympics. The fact that the medallists are split fairly evenly between those who do and those who don't have a shroud on the barrel says to me that there's no advantage there.

foxshooter243

Vegeta wrote: »

Just a hypothetical here

When the bullet leaves the barrel, it is at is most susceptible to the wind. Slight deviation at muzzle could be large deviation at target.

Would a moderator be considered enough to "shield" it from the wind for long enough to make a difference? I know its only a small protrusion but wonder what effect it has?

We need some scientific studies on this. Anyone have a wind tunnel and a shooting range combined?

Thats one of the arguments thts used by our brethren on the other side of the pond, the bullet leaves the barrel into "still" air and aids in accuracy. its also reckoned to reduce recoil.

Sparks

Yeah, I call shenanigans on that one fox, those factors are too easily replicated without using a moderator for the mod itself to be the accurising factor; not to mention, that the recoil thing isn't going to make any difference if the shooter knows how to shoot.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

But in that case a barrel shroud would do the same as a suppressor. So it's not the suppressor doing the accurising.
And frankly, if there was anything to that idea, you'd never see a "naked" barrel on the firing lines of the Olympics. The fact that the medallists are split fairly evenly between those who do and those who don't have a shroud on the barrel says to me that there's no advantage there.

Obviously half the medallists think you're wrong though

Anyone know of any students in Mech or Aero Eng who want to do a super cool Final Year Project?

Sparks

Vegeta wrote: »

Obviously half the medallists think you're wrong though

Thing is, the reason they use a shroud isn't for the "still air" idea, it's to get a longer sight line. With the shroud, they can push the foresight that few inches further out without adding on the weight that merely extending the barrel would require.

clivej

I sure started something here.

They are the reasons that I used to get the mod. Every Super will be different.

I read on the Jackson Rifles site that a mod can improve the accuracy of bullet so I'm only quoting that, and it sounds like a good reason to use a mod.

BUT lets hear what excuses/reasons you have used to get a mod from your Super. I know of some people don't even need a reason and just ask for permission.

Sparks

Cheers Clive, that clears that up nicely

BornToKill

clivej wrote: »

Improved accuracy of bullet placement on animals and thereby given a humane kill.
This is one proven enhancement of using a sound suppressor...

I read on the Jackson Rifles site that a mod can improve the accuracy of bullet so I'm only quoting that, and it sounds like a good reason to use a mod.

Was reading the claim on the website the basis for saying 'proven enhancement' or is there other scientific poof?

Grizzly 45

[

quote=Sparks;61816357]That's not quite right though Grizzly - every sound suppressor out there takes away from the velocity of the bullet, pulling it further down towards the transsonic speed region and when the bullet hits that region, it destabilises

Novel concept Sparks,how can it take away from the velocity[IE reduce speed] by passing thru a can??All the can does is catch the[1] fwd air from the barrel [2] the explosive gases,and cool and bleed them out into the athmosphere.Thus reducing the muzzle blast and noise.There is no can out there that will drop a supersoniuc bullet to sub sonic or trans sonic,not a silencers function,never is or was.

So the supressor doesn't affect accuracy within a certain range, even if all else remains the same.

Correct100%,and this is why it isnt a std issue piece of kit to each soilder around the world.

(And I still want to see the studies on subsonic .22lr rounds and suppressors btw).

edit: (And improve? Suppressors can't improve accuracy unless they impinge on the bullet in some way, and the only way they can do that involves loud noises and flying shards of ex-suppressor metal.)

[/QUOTE]
Depending on your outlook,that could be an improvement.:)

Some light reading on all of the above
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/suppress.html
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/summary.html
While geared more towards noise levels.There is some valid points on accruacy etc.

foxshooter243

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I call shenanigans on that one fox, those factors are too easily replicated without using a moderator for the mod itself to be the accurising factor; not to mention, that the recoil thing isn't going to make any difference if the shooter knows how to shoot.

I agree with you there sparks, i didnt need a supressor to vapourise a greycrow at 525 yards with my 243, or hit clays at 1k last saturday, its all in the practise;)

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Novel concept Sparks

Not really!

how can it take away from the velocity

By letting the gases bleed out from behind the round in the moments after it exits the barrel, and by forcing the air in front of the round in the barrel to go through the can, thus giving more resistance in the barrel. It's not much, but all it does is slow the bullet down.

There is no can out there that will drop a supersoniuc bullet to sub sonic

Not at the muzzle, no; but there's not a can out there that won't shorten the distance from the muzzle to the point where the bullet falls back from super- to sub-sonic speeds. Maybe it's only the difference between 1000m and 990m, but depending on your application, that can be all that's needed.

clivej

As this reason is stated as a "Valid Reason for use" in the Garda Commissioner's guidelines then I would suggest that you use it as your first reason for the use of a mod, as well as as many others that you can come up with.


Or what's stated in the Garda Commissioner's guidelines:

Quote:
Silencers are designed to reduce the report of the firearm so as to conceal the position of the shooter, and also to reduce the felt recoil. Silencers have traditionally been used on rimfire rifles of .22 calibres when shooting rabbits. This allows the shooter to kill other animals who are not alarmed by the low report of the rifle. This justification may not apply in the case of the shooting of other less numerous and less sociable animals such as foxes.

endasmail

i got a phone call of the local sargeant asking me about the moderator ,if i had one before and wot i wanted it for

i quoted some of the reasons given by Clive ,and i also backed it up by a letter with the names and phone numbers of farmers that have asked me stop by and help with problem foxes

he seemed happy enough with my answers so will just have to wait and see wot happens

jwshooter

BornToKill wrote: »

By cutting down on recoil it could be argued that a moderator allows you to get back on target faster for a second shot. That is not the same as first-shot accuracy. I can't see how a first shot would be helped by a moderator - you'd be better off getting in some practice.

the use of the mod allows me to see the strike perfectly ,know the animal is down to stay and move quickly on to the next one .

also i always have a dog lying beside me and it does not blow her ears off.

jwshooter

i had a guy out this week ,he was using a tikka t3 in .270 no mod on.

we stalked a stag into a 170 yards he was rutting strong and had good few hinds with him ,also there was other stags trying to steal a hind.

we got a good snug rest and i ranged to ground ,i picked a range that looked right to me and where it would give me the longest view of the animal after the shot.
i loaded the rifle and waited ,i i ran through the dos and don'ts again , don't shoot until i say OK .

i never let them shoot at a animal walking in or walking away ,on the " shot clock "they should be standing at quarter past 3 ideally.

the stag chased a another stag into us ,hear he comes "i pushed down my ear muffs and so did he"

he walked into a 100 yards and never stopped and turned to walk back to the hinds ,i seen my man letting of the safety .

the stag was walking at 5 past 7 on the shot clock, NO not yet . "BOOM" .

the stag went down on the spot.

to say i was a bit thick was a under statement ,i asked him why did you shoot when i said not to .sorry he said, i only could not hear you and decided to fire.

if we were using a mod ,ear plugs would have done .

on reflection it was not his fault more mine ,he was not experienced and the excitement took over .
i do think moderators have a place on stalking rifles and it should be a matter of choice for the user .

the main reason the cops give for not giving a note for one is that other users of the country side cant hear you out.
just goes to show you that they have no interest in learning about what the talking about.

clivej

jwshooter wrote: »

..........................the main reason the cops give for not giving a note for one is that other users of the country side cant hear you out.
just goes to show you that they have no interest in learning about what the talking about.

Again it is the officers that do not know that a mod will only reduce the sound by about 30db, that's from an unmodded 145/150db to somewhere around 115/120db which is still loud but not in the bust your ears loud.

So joe public will still hear the report of a shot when using a modded gun.

And again it's not Hollywood where the gangster can shoot his modded handgun in a crowded room without being heard which is the perception that the Garda seem have.

I was told when speaking to a guy at the FPU that the new license will have a "S" on it to show that a mod, silencer, permission has been given.

Jonty

I was told to apply for a mod after the new license has been issued by FO

jwshooter

Jonty wrote: »

I was told to apply for a mod after the new license has been issued by FO

this is wrong information jonty,

Jonty

jwshooter wrote: »

this is wrong information jonty,

I know. Basically I'll have to pay €80 twice. How do I get around it?

jwshooter

Jonty wrote: »

I know. Basically I'll have to pay €80 twice. How do I get around it?

did you have a note form your super for the mod ? ,if so photo copy it and stick it in with your application .

G17

Jonty wrote: »

I know. Basically I'll have to pay €80 twice. How do I get around it?

Ask your FO if he/she knows where the application was sent, in our area all the applications are going to one poor Garda who's been locked into a rural station with wheel barrows full of FCA1s, I do not envy that woman, well actually I do as I'm a shooting enthusiast, but you know what I mean.

Perhaps the situation is the same where you are, and your application can be fished out and the relevant box ticked for you. The FO was wrong and he/she should really go out on a limb to save you your hard earned money. If you don't ask........


I hope this helps.

Jonty

jwshooter wrote: »

did you have a note form your super for the mod ? ,if so photo copy it and stick it in with your application .

Only applying to get a mod now on new application

G17

Jonty wrote: »

Only applying to get a mod now on new application

Just tick the Silencer box in section 3.2 of FCA1

bang

G17 wrote: »

Just tick the Silencer box in section 3.2 of FCA1

I did that and put in a separate note stating my reasons for the mods.
he seemed to have overlooked them but when he read through it again he seems happy with the reasons it is required but wants another note to the super from me saying I wish to apply for the moderator....
Doing that this week .

Jonty

G17 wrote: »

Just tick the Silencer box in section 3.2 of FCA1

I did that and FO cancelled the tick, removed letter of application for mod from FCA1 form and said to reapply later when I get issued new license

G17

Jonty wrote: »

I did that and FO cancelled the tick, removed letter of application for mod from FCA1 form and said to reapply later when I get issued new license

Your FO is mistaken. It's quite clear in the Commissioner's Guidelines:

When an applicant is applying for a firearm certificate, the application should include whether or not a silencer is being sought for that particular firearm. A subsequent application for a silencer will require the applicant to re apply on a new application form FCA1 and will require the full €80 fee. As already stated, all firearm certificates must now include details of any authorisation for a silencer in respect of that particular firearm.


If I were you, if your FO still isn't clear about it (it's new to everyone) I'd ring the Garda Firearm Policy Unit, they might well phone your FO to explain, I've found them very helpful.

Cass

Jonty wrote: »

I did that and FO cancelled the tick, removed letter of application for mod from FCA1 form and said to reapply later when I get issued new license

Is the Garda not braking the law/doing something illegal, however you want to phrase it. He is intentionally and purposely altering your application (an offical document). Whether it is through ignorance or just being a dick either way he cannot put information in for an applicant or change details of an applicant no more than he can refuse to accept an application, which he is doing by erasing the tick on the moderator box and telling you to re-apply later.

Jonty i would print off the section of the commissoners guidelines that G17 outlined and bring it back to your FO. Tick the box in section 3.2 again and if the FO tries to erase it or make you alter it, ring the Garda firearms policy unit (Garda firearms policy unit 01 6661911.)there and then on your mobile and give the phone to your FO. See if he tells them he ie going to erase your tick again.

We all know we have to keep our FO, Super and Gardai in general happy for an easy life but do not let them bully you into doing this. You are 100% in the right.

Jonty

ezridax wrote: »

Is the Garda not braking the law/doing something illegal, however you want to phrase it. He is intentionally and purposely altering your application (an offical document). Whether it is through ignorance or just being a dick either way he cannot put information in for an applicant or change details of an applicant no more than he can refuse to accept an application, which he is doing by erasing the tick on the moderator box and telling you to re-apply later.

Jonty i would print off the section of the commissoners guidelines that G17 outlined and bring it back to your FO. Tick the box in section 3.2 again and if the FO tries to erase it or make you alter it, ring the Garda firearms policy unit (Garda firearms policy unit 01 6661911.)there and then on your mobile and give the phone to your FO. See if he tells them he ie going to erase your tick again.

We all know we have to keep our FO, Super and Gardai in general happy for an easy life but do not let them bully you into doing this. You are 100% in the right.

In fairness to this FO he's 100%. It seems to be the same in Laois/Offaly area. A mate of mine in Ballylinan was told the same.

Cass

I'm living in Laois and have had no such trouble. Your FO may be 100% but as i said whether its through ignorance or just messing you around he is giving you wrong information. If you do not want to argue the point with him be prepared to pay €80 to re-apply for your licence with the mod on it, or just forget about the mod all together. If you want your mod you may tell him HE IS WRONG.

Don't mean to be a smart a**e but you are the one going to loose out if you let your application go through as your FO has left it.

johngalway

The way I thought the new system works is you tick the silencer box and include reasons why you want it. Then it's up to your Super to say Yea or Nay.

Old way being write him a letter and explain why you need it and he grants you a permit letter.

OK, nothing that I know of has been granted yet, but what is the new way, one of the above two, or both? Seems like double paperwork for all if it's both, one important aspect of the new system supposedly being a reduction of paperwork.

Cass

You're right john, you tick the box and submit your application. The Super reviews your application and can grant the licence for the rifle and mod, the rifle on its own (no mod) or neither. No-one but no one can refuse to allow you to apply that much is a given. Whether you get it or not is up to the Super.

clivej

johngalway wrote: »

The way I thought the new system works is you tick the silencer box and include reasons why you want it. Then it's up to your Super to say Yea or Nay.

Old way being write him a letter and explain why you need it and he grants you a permit letter.

OK, nothing that I know of has been granted yet, but what is the new way, one of the above two, or both? Seems like double paperwork for all if it's both, one important aspect of the new system supposedly being a reduction of paperwork.

What I did John was to complete the license form and on the extra details required note, like for address's and reason for use, added my reasons for a mod.
First up was that I have permission for the mods I have and then all the other reasons from the first post here on this thread.