Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Hunters Can Now Use Silencers On Their Firearm
the33tv.com ^ | 28 April, 2012 | Daniel Novick

Posted on 04/29/2012 6:13:24 AM PDT by marktwain

DALLAS— It is now legal in Texas to use a silencer on your firearm while hunting, after the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopted new rules in late March.

The main goal of a silencer is a pretty simple one: Hearing protection.

"Anything over 140 decibels is by OSHA standards is too loud for the human ear, and most gunfire is over 160 decibels," said Joshua Waldron, CEO for Silencerco, a silencer manufacturing company.

Silencers, legal in 39 states including Texas, are becoming more popular. The concept of hunters having silencers however has drawn some controversy. Some said having silencers while hunting is a bad idea because other hunters or people in the woods would not be able to hear the gunshot.

"If it is long distances, than maybe you can't hear it, however, with that being said, with people hunting, they are using high powered rifles, and silencers, they will still be loud, but not as loud," said William Tran, a shooting enthusiast.

The key with silencers is that, despite the name, silencers are not silent.

"OSHA considers that hearing safe threshold to be 140 decibels. That's still pretty loud, and you can hear these gunshots in the background, they are all suppressed gunshots, they are not silent," said Gary Hughes with Silencerco.

CW 33 News tested out a variety of guns with silencers to see how loud the gunshot sounded. With an adaptive combat rifle, the gunshot was very loud. With a .45 caliber gun, it was clear the sound was a gun shot, and even a .22 caliber handgun was not silent.

Some gun advocates believe not having a silencer could end up being more dangerous for hunters.

"A lot of people will put hearing protection on to protect their ears, but then they can't hear their surroundings, so it is actually dangerous when you're hunting when you are not able to hear other hunters and things," said Waldron.

Texans who want a silencer for their firearm must still go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, pay $200 and go through a criminal background check.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: banglist; hunting; silencer; tx
The legal suppression of gun muffling devices is one of the worst public health disasters of the U.S. government. Millions of people have lost significant hearing as a result of this insane policy.

It is beyond stupid, becoming malicious, when the government requires you to pay a 200 dollar tax, give fingerprints, and jump though numerous legalistic hoops in order to reduce the sound footprint of your firearm.

The federal law should have been repealed decades ago.

1 posted on 04/29/2012 6:13:27 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It is a tax. It took almost 100 years to repeal the Spanish-American war tax.


2 posted on 04/29/2012 6:18:49 AM PDT by rstrahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The key with silencers is that, despite the name, silencers are not silent.

It's not a misnomer. They're suppressors.
3 posted on 04/29/2012 6:21:08 AM PDT by andyk (Go Juan Pablo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

People think it’s like the movies where a “silencer” makes a gun super quiet instead of producing a significant, but reduced noise.


4 posted on 04/29/2012 6:23:33 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I agree on the repeal. Making a mistake a couple of times at the range by forgetting to put my ears on has caused me to have tinnitus in both ears.


5 posted on 04/29/2012 6:36:16 AM PDT by Rappini (Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
All of my Class III Firearms have silencers suppressors. Sweet weapons, indeed!
6 posted on 04/29/2012 6:39:46 AM PDT by carriage_hill (I'd vote for a "orange juice can", before 0bummer&HisRegimeFromHell, gets another 4yrs. Can-> later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Rifles can be significantly suppressed, but not the typical rifle. Given F=MxVxV, the mass of the bullet must be signficantly increased to have the same or adequate effects.

A sub-sonic .50 cal 600 grain bullet (think .50-70) would be suitable for deer and more suppressed.

Of course, you’ll have to be a better shot, as hold over will be significant even at 300 yards.


7 posted on 04/29/2012 6:40:06 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I like the idea of using the Federal OSHA laws against the powers who construct “infringements” against the 2nd Amendment. Really quite brilliant.


8 posted on 04/29/2012 6:48:04 AM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Check your oil before shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiqFcIXTqs


9 posted on 04/29/2012 7:17:45 AM PDT by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Texans who want a silencer for their firearm must still go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, pay $200 and go through a criminal background check."

OK...so what is the issue here? Texans, like anyone else could always apply for a silencer, pay the tax, have the paperwork on them and fire away. Now, if Texans told the Feds to get screwed and the silencers will be manufactured and sold only in Texas, to Texas residents, this would be a real story.

What am I missing here?

10 posted on 04/29/2012 7:24:22 AM PDT by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf

“What am I missing here? “

It is no longer illegal to use suppressors while hunting game in TX.


11 posted on 04/29/2012 7:35:28 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

My right ear has tinitus, in part due to shooting. Surpressors would be a wonderful thing.


12 posted on 04/29/2012 9:18:40 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

What’s insane is the almost 6 months the ATF takes to process an application.


13 posted on 04/29/2012 9:23:17 AM PDT by is_is (VP Dad of Sgt. G - My Hero - "Sleep Well America......Your Marines have your Back")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

At one of our Sunday “gatherings”, I shot a suppressed Mac 10. The sound reminded me of that of a pneumatic impact wrench. Curiously, the sun was behind me, and you could see the stream of copper-clad slugs quite clearly — making the experience similar to shooting a tight stream of water through a hose nozzle...


14 posted on 04/29/2012 9:15:09 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
It is no longer illegal to use suppressors while hunting game in TX.

In my Texas County, the Sheriff refuses to sign off for those who just want to pay the tax, rather than go the firearms trust route.

He has stated: "Never Have. Never Will."

I will not be voting for him, but he will win re-election here.

15 posted on 04/30/2012 1:07:47 AM PDT by sockmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

It’s a “beautiful sight” when all the conditions are just right, and *that happens*, isn’t it? Almost surreal...


16 posted on 04/30/2012 3:18:42 AM PDT by carriage_hill (I'd vote for a "orange juice can", before 0bummer&HisRegimeFromHell, gets another 4yrs. Can-> later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Using your example, wouldn't that .50-70 be a black powder rifle?
I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a suppressor being worked up for one of them.
That would be a real interesting exercise in engineering.
17 posted on 04/30/2012 4:55:33 AM PDT by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tainan
Using your example, wouldn't that .50-70 be a black powder rifle? I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a suppressor being worked up for one of them. That would be a real interesting exercise in engineering.

There is no reason it would have to be loaded with black powder. You can down load with the right smokeless powder to get subsonic velocity. Smaller cartridges are better for this though, as ignition problems start to develop for a mainly empty case, when the cases designed for black power are used.

Having said that, I'm not sure that black powder would pose a problem, except it would foul the suppressor like mad. Black power is not a high-explosive, so I would think it would make for a quieter round to begin with. I know that my old .44 cap and ball is nothing compared to a .44 mag in noise, although it produces a huge fire ball. Although black powder

18 posted on 04/30/2012 5:26:03 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson