[marktwain]

Silencers always seemed to make sense for use by the military.

Silencer tech is much better now than it has ever been in the past.

[Justa]

Good stuff. They can even be used to communicate beyond voice range.

SOFs have very mature tactics fighting with silenced weapons.

[GOPBiker]

They need to be in the public domain, like .22 ammo.

No stamp or approval necessary and the price would plummet to an appropriate level such as $25-$75 per item.

Sales will be through the roof instantly.

[D Rider]

Try that after artillery.

[Buffalo Head]

Silencers or sound suppressors all by themselves are considered "firearms" by the federal government and many states and regulated in the same manner as machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Permission from the government is required, plus a $200 transfer tax is required to legally acquire any of the three.

This infringement of the 2nd Amendment was allowed by the Supreme Court in 1937 when they "found" wrongly that that silencers were not used by the military and therefore not covered by the 2nd Amendment. Evidence was not presented to the court that our military did in fact use short barrel shotguns in the trench warfare in WWI.

Every concerned Patriot should contact their representatives to have the National Firearms Act of 1934 repealed.

[The Free Engineer]

It also may help to avoid tinitus and other hearing problems for the grunts later in their lives.

[eartick]

700 bucks a pop. Uncle Sammy should be able to swing a better deal than that.

Of course we are talking about a regime that pays out the butt for a claw hammer

I hope the brass consider titanium construction to eliminate as much weight as possible.

My 30 cal can weighs in at 2lbs and I wish I would have spent the cash to go with titanium now after toting this thing around on the end of a 24" barrel all day now.. But, it sure is sweet when you are bust yoddle dogs at 4-500 yards. The survivors just kind of look around and just wonder what happen to Uncle Charlie. Lots of follow ups.

[nickedknack]

Not a firearms expert:

* What are the approximate sizes & weights for M4 and 50-cal silencers?
* Part of the reason for development of the M4, as I understand, was a shorter barrel for close quarters/MOUT/building clearing ops. Would a silencer have any negative impact in those situations and need to be removed?
* Effect of the silencers on muzzle velocity, trajectory, accuracy?

Thanks

[ctdonath2]

There’s been a movement to make suppressors cool. Between that and inflation making the $200 tax tolerable, capitalism developed quality suppressors for civilian use. Now soldiers are wondering why civvies have the better gear.

Same happened with .50 caliber rifles.

[Moonman62]

In case anyone else is wondering about supersonic ammo.

http://blog.silencershop.com/shooting-supersonic-suppressed/

[NonValueAdded]

Silencing a 50 cal???

[Vaquero]

A quick removable and reattachable silencer would be best.

For suppressing fire big noisy loud guns would attract the enemy to focus on a point, while silenced fire to the enemy’s flanks would more easily put them down without alarm.

[PLMerite]

“...from M4 rifles to .50 caliber machine guns.”

I sure would like to see a picture of an M2 with a silencer.

Couldn’t find one on the net.

[Lazamataz]

I want a suppressed .44 magnum revolver.

[trisham]

Excellent!