Over-barrel suppressors for the range

[brouta]

Something I saw from some USA shooters got me thinking on this.

Suppressors not allowed here of course for average shooters. Some are arguing for them for hearing protection reasons but no wins so far obviously.

In the country is one thing, at the range your hearing suffers most of course because there are dozens of people around you blasting away.

Does anyone know, has anyone looked at doing slip on over barrel suppressors for at shooting ranges?

Seems like if they could be left in the hands of ranges and used for the duration, that might be baby step of progress that could get pushed through?

Slip 'em on, shoot, give em back to the range at the end of the day.

Could just be the idle thoughts of a newbie here but that's what crossed my mind

[Chronos]

It's a nice idea, problem is firstly if it attaches to your rifle it would probably change the rifles point of impact by changing the barrel harmonics making your range load testing or zeroing less effective. You may also have problems seeing through it unless your scope is mounted high.

The biggest problem is the way the act is written, it says silencers are prohibited. Then it says a silencer is any device designed to reduce the noise of a firearm (paraphrasing of course)

That means if you (or the range) are in position of anything designed to quieten the sound if a gunshot you are breaking the law.

There are circumstances where you are allowed to fit a silencer, with a permit but the second you do that firearm becomes a prohibited weapon making storage, transport and use if it more restricted

Basically the act needs to be changed before such things will be allowed for the majority of us

There are some here with more experience on this subject so hopefully they will chime in

Chronos

[Ariat]

Yeah nice idea.

Laws aside there would be a few practical challenges though.

Obviously 1 size does not fit all.

You would need a suppressor designed for each brands barrel, in each profile they offer.

Then each of those would need to come suited the the calibre being shot to be its most effective.

Not sure if it would be worth anyone's while to build these hundreds of suppressors to cater for everyone?

[brouta]

Basically the act needs to be changed before such things will be allowed for the majority of us

Yeah I realise it wouldn't work with things as they are.

This was an idea to open the door if you will.

[Fry]

Then each of those would need to come suited the the calibre being shot to be its most effective.

Yep.

Still plenty of muzzle blast shooting a 22 or 243 pill out of a 338 diameter suppressor I expect.

[Seik]

This was an idea to open the door if you will.

It's not going to change overnight from zero to full access of course.

Some data from NZ would be a good starting point.

As I understand it, suppressors are treated as an OH&S safety issue over there at ranges.

It's allowed and I think mandatory at some ranges for hearing protection.

[roob]

I guess they're worried about pistols more than rifles?

Maybe they could do something like specify a muzzle-thread for suppressors that is exclusive to rifles and prohibited for pistols?

Then range shooters could have their hearing protection.

Legal for range shooting and if you get caught with the pistol version you're in trouble.

[Chickenhawk]

I guess they're worried about pistols more than rifles?

They could definitely open things up for rifles IMO.

No doubt the pollies making this legislation are getting their information from hollywood movies where you can suppress a .50BMG and it becomes whisp quiet.

In reality that's not the case obviously, and there is still noise generated from a suppressed centerfire rifle.

The OH&S safety approach is a good one IMO.

[Rippah]

There are some here with more experience on this subject so hopefully they will chime in

It's something I've followed when raise by pro-shooting bodies.

No progress in the years I've been reading though.

In the minds of our politicians I think suppressors are firmly entrenched as being made for assassinating them. Ridiculous obviously.

The fact people want to protect their hearing doesn't seem to come into it.

[petemacsydney]

As much as we would all like to have suppressors, it'll never happen because as soon as policy change hits the media, the government would get ripped a new one for even considering letting it happen.

Doesn't matter how you spin it, it would be political suicide to allow a suppressor policy change.... sadly.....

[WesleySnipes]

Education is key, as with anything. It doesn't take a bright spark to learn that it's impossible to silence something breaking the sound barrier, which most rifles do. I have met too many people for my liking that believe that suppressors fully silence any firearm as according to the sh*tty action flick they saw last Saturday night.

As well as the fact that its unsafe to hunt with ear protection out in the field especially with mates around as you're limiting one of your best senses. I think allowing suppressors is a common sense move to increase user safety. You shouldn't operate any loud machinery without muffs or plugs in the trade as it's an OH&S issue, firearms should be no different.

And if they're so worried about pistols than rifles shouldn't be an issue.

[petemacsydney]

don't get me wrong mate, i don't think its right and i agree with many of the good points people make on the debate - as you say education is key, ....but.... the media will treat it like the government is enabling stealth in crime (albeit incorrectly stated).

you can just imagine the media linkages to school masacres and crimes in the states. all completely unjustified linkages, but that's what the media do and the media will have a field day on this one and the gov know that, so they wont even try.

unfortunately we dont have the gun lobby voting powers in Asutralia that they do in the states. its not right, its not fair, but hey, thats politics and the media...

[roob]

And if they're so worried about pistols than rifles shouldn't be an issue.

I was just assuming that with my comment.

Have read anything confirming that from the powers that be.

Makes sense to me though.

[Norton]

What makes sense to shooters and what makes sense to politicians are rarely the same.

[tiki]

Doesn't matter how you spin it, it would be political suicide to allow a suppressor policy change.... sadly.....

We need someone who's about to retire and will push it through before jumping ship

[shazz]

unfortunately we dont have the gun lobby voting powers in Asutralia that they do in the states. its not right, its not fair, but hey, thats politics and the media...

I've read a few things over the past few months that said the number of shoots were on the rise.

We'll never have the NRA but hopefully in time we get a body with some significant pull.

[Octane]

Obviously 1 size does not fit all.

Yep.

Brouta, if you do a little research you'll find the slip on suppressors are designed for the specific barrels you're seeing them on.

Nice idea, but they're not quite as simple to 'slip on' like name suggests.

[Vati]

I suppose you could always buy one but need to store it at the range? Leave it there at the end of the day.

Any progress is progress.