Posted on 03/15/2017 6:08:46 PM PDT by kevcol
Oddly enough, criminals haven’t yet deduced the allegedly awesome crime-evading powers of the silencer. A Chicago PD spokesman told Steve Chapman earlier this year that they rarely recover silencers in gun crimes; an ATF study found that, of 1.3 million silencers in use in the United States, an average of … 44 are used in the commission of crimes annually. Why would America’s felons leave a tool like this at home when, per Gillibrand, it could mean the difference between capture and escape? Are they idiots?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
What's that Lassie?
You heard Tom Peterson's gun from a mile away and he shot his wife?
And the echo reverberated in the well to reveal little Tommy Tucker has fallen in and needs to be rescued ?
#2. She looks like a pro.
Stupider than Biden which takes a lot.
She doesn’t know where the hamburger patties come from.
I wonder how many members of the very first Congress were idiots but there wasn’t enough press to expose them.
I wonder how many members of the very first Congress were idiots but there wasn’t enough press to expose them.
Hmmmmm ..?? Don’t the markings on the bullet casing still remain the same even with a silencer .. OR .. would the silencer cause additional markings .. OR .. erase the weapon’s markings from the barrel of the weapon onto the bullet casing ..?????
Not a gun owner - but a 2nd Amendment supporter .. and I’d really like to know the answers to the above paragraph.
The answer is simple. There is more to operating a silencer equipped firearm. The ammunition must be sub-sonic, and depending on the caliber of the firearm, may not be easily avaialable, and so cartridges must be hand loaded.The range of the weapon also is affected .
Most criminals just do n ot hav e the discipline,training, time or workshop to do the necessary adjustment and reloading work necessary to use a silencer equipped firearm on a regular basis.
I’ve seen and shot several pre charged pneumatic weapons in which the only significant sound is the projectile striking a target or flesh.
I would contend that suppressors might actually save lives in this scenario. A person that hears a shot and turns around or comes to investigate may become a "witness." Witnesses are bad news for criminals, therefore they just might decide to eliminate the witness too.
With police response times being what they are (typically minutes, sometimes double-digit minutes) they are almost certainly *not* going to catch any criminal in the act or even in the vicinity.
It was the low spark of high heeled boys.
GFY Kirsten. We won. This is happening. End of discussion.
A silencer/suppressor should not leave any markings at all. In a perfect world the bullet itself would never touch the inside of the barrel even let alone the silencer after the igniter fires the powder. The gas from the powder exploding pushes and surrounds the bullet. Still, since we don’t live in a perfect world, the bullet will rub against the rifling in the barrel and leave the same marks bullet after bullet giving it a unique fingerprint if you will. Over time the rifling will wear out rendering the barrel near worthless for accuracy.
In this way the firearm can still be accurate because it is consistently exiting the barrel the same way every time for the most part.
FYI: The longer the barrel the higher the velocity because the powder and gas have more time to push on the bullet as it moves forward. Once it leaves the end of the barrel there’s no more push which is why the same size caliber in a rifle can do more damage (due to higher velocities) and go farther more accurately than a short barreled handgun in the same size caliber.
It’s certainly cut down on shootings, hasn’t it? Maybe Chicago should go old school and just look for bleeding bodies to determine where there’s been a shooting.
I accidentally posted to myself somehow in post number 52 when I meant to post to you answering your question.
Only partly true. A suppressor will greatly reduce the sound of a firearm, even a centerfire rifle. It will not eliminate it, but greatly reduce it.
This is a very legitimate and useful function. Suddenly ranges become much better neighbors. People on rural properties can shoot at home if they desire.
Effective suppressors are bulky, often rivaling the length of a pistol. This is why they are not used often in crimes. Hard to conceal, awkward, and very slow on the draw. Not sterling virtues for the street criminal.
Demonrats win again. They know > 90% of Americans have never seen a suppressor except in movies. This bill will not pass. Heck, most Republicans are secretly anti-gun-rights. Nixon was a rabid gun-banner, as was Bush 41.
You’re just as uninformed as she is, apparently. Their Shot Spotter is defeated with a mere 30 dB of suppression? It’s crap to start with, then.
I agree with you.
Putting a suppressor on a firearm leads to a whole set of issues that most criminals would not want to bother with.
But I do know that a very inexpensive , easily used set up is readily available off the shelf.
I just won’t advertise it here.( PM’d)
Example #1 of why you need an IQ test for libs....
A 2 liter pop bottle works, as well.
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.