Shooters Union support for suppressors in QLD

[Wapiti]

I 100 percent support the Shooters Union Australia in their call for suppressors to be legalised. Having hunted in NZ and as/with pro shooters in another state where supressors are in fact demanded in many instances because of their effectiveness, I call for these essential tools for user WHS and effectiveness on the ground to be available in Qld..
Shooters Union Australia Press Release:
12-05-2025 ·
SHOOTERS UNION CALLS BRUCE HIGHWAY CLOSURE “OVER-REACTION”; CALLS FOR SUPPRESSOR LEGALISATION
One of the country’s peak shooting representative groups has called Friday’s closure of the Bruce Highway near Gympie due to reports of gunshots nearby “an over-reaction” and says it’s time for a serious discussion about legalising firearm noise suppressors in Queensland.
An emergency declaration was put into effect near Gympie on May 9 following reports of gunshots near the Bruce Highway – later confirmed to be from shooters on a nearby property engaging in lawful target shooting activities.
Shooters Union Australia president Graham Park said the Police response to the issue seemed excessive and out of proportion to the issue.
“Police closed the highway in both directions for two hours, had the army using their vehicles to block the road, and were running around in full tactical gear, all because some licensed shooters were legally shooting within hearing distance of the road,” he said.
“While we appreciate Queensland Police Service’s work in keeping the community safe, their reaction here seems like an over-reaction – it’s not like someone was running down the highway with a machine-gun firing at vehicles, or drivers reporting bullet holes in their vehicles.
“The Police response to Friday’s incident would be totally understandable if there was an actual threat – and it would have been very obvious if that was the case – but instead it comes across as alarmist.”
Mr Park said the situation was a perfect illustration of why the shooting industry was calling for firearm suppressors to be legalised in Queensland. Currently, the devices are considered Category R Weapons – the same as artillery and rocket launchers – and almost completely prohibited for civilian ownership or use.
“Shooters want suppressors legalised to avoid issues with hearing damage, allow more humane control of feral animals, and avoid issues like what we had in Gympie on Friday,” he said.
“There’s no suggestion at this stage the shooters were doing anything illegal or unsafe, and if sound suppressors were legal, then this whole situation could have been avoided.
“In many countries, using a suppressor while hunting or shooting in semi-rural areas is not only legal, but actively encouraged as good etiquette to avoid unnecessarily alarming people who might be in the area.
“In this case, target shooters could have enjoyed practicing peacefully on private property, motorists nearby would not have been worried by gunshots, traffic would not have been blocked, and police would not have had to spent several hours of their Friday afternoon responding to a non-incident.”
ENDS

[No1_49er]

Some "light reading" for ya'll https://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/__dat ... rearms.pdf

[on_one_wheel]

Look at that ... a reduction of up to 28db with hunting ammo according to the government's own report.

They won't let is drive around without muflers on our cars, however they're happy for us to blow our ear drums to bits while shooting.

[Oldbloke]

28db, that's heaps, I'm surprised.

[deye243]

I'm not surprised a properly designed suppressor on a seven millimeter Remington Magnum makes it sound like a 22 Magnum huge difference

[womble]

There’s an exemption for suppressor manufacturers.

Does that mean it’s legal if I make it ?

Then I’m not hunting. I’m field testing our new range of products from suppressors’r’us.
And just carry some business cards to hand out to rangers or police.

I’ll even throw in a 20 percent discount and give them a promo code

[No1_49er]

It's interesting to note that the study was published in 2011 - 14 years ago. I'd say that technology has moved along since then and that the degree of moderation from 28bB has improved considerably since then.

It can be reasonably said that the moderation is a bit better than the "fanny hair" which o_o_w claimed, on another forum. He seems to have moderated his viewpoint since then.

One often hears the term "silencers" from the nay-sayers. They are not, and never have been "silencers". That fiction is perpetrated by the movie "industry", and perpetuating the myth with that term does nobody any good.

[Wapiti]

Rather than be a negative, ill-informed and frankly, deliberately damaging internet troll, here's a bit of what's been going on by many of us lately.

This has been going on for some time, and many have put a big effort into this.
In my contributions to the SU, Agforce, Firearms Dealers Association and Nioa's (apologies if I've left anyone out), I outlined the huge difference when conducting primary production activities when using a suppressor in comparison to without.
Many other shooting professionals, representatives from agricultural groups, and those from the industry as well as our political representatives have put a lot of time into this.
But it went completely to deaf ears because of ill-informed personal bias.
SSAA has not supported this other than a few words unless I've completely missed something as far as representation and sheer member strength goes, and I really have given up on their support.

There were two main corners the fight is coming from:

1. The WHS regulations as they sit in Qld, and the "Hierarchy of Controls" used to firstly eliminate, then engineer out, them finally PPE the issue identified to minimise the workplace users exposure, detrimental health effects both short and long term.
A farm is a regulated workplace, and by law this has to happen.
When I ran fabrication workshops and construction sites, if I failed to minimize, eliminate or engineer all the identified safety concerns out for the workers, I was in breach of the WPHS Act and that is a big deal.

Imagine a very noisy manufacturing machine, that couldn't be redesigned to take out the noise. A machine with a sound level that, even with PPE (hearing protection), this machine developed a Db level that, even with that PPE, damaged the hearing of the user over time anyway?
This is what a high-powered firearm does.
And the solution was to cover the sound-producing part of the machine with an engineered cover that drops the sound level to where the users PPE can guard his ears from permanent damage over time, in doing his job and earning a living.
That is what a suppressor does.

High-powered rifle Db level - 160-170db
Reduce human ear exposure by the best Db usually easily available - 25-32Db.
So the ear gets 135-140Db STILL through the PPE.
Drop that even more with a good suppressor, by up to 28Db.
So we are at around 110Db, a level where, when using PPE, you have a much longer (in this case, shots) time you can be exposed to hearing loss from the activity, in fact, probably even a feral animal controller level time exposure of no hearing damage.

And,
2. When encountering the animals to control, it is amazing how much less they are disturbed by the first, second or even more shots, before they react.
This means that the farmer, or controller, can very potentially solve the problems he faces in stock and feed loss, animal welfare issues and financial losses, much easier and quicker.
Those who've used them will see this and be converts immediately.

And I stand by what I've said. When firing a 308 rifle with full power loads, in the field, without hearing protection deliberately, all I hear is the projectile breaking the sound barrier continuously as it travels over the paddocks and hits the target. There is none of the blast of the shot. Yes, it is still over the safe threshold by heaps and there is a strange pop seemingly 6 feet inb front of the muzzle, maybe only like a .22HV, but that is what I hear. Noi concussive blast whatsoever, just a high Db level still, of course.
If I did that without the suppressor, my ears would be ruined for the day.

The real pity is, the losers who actually, by their deliberate negativity for whatever reason, jealously, bitterness, self-made personality disorders, whatever, hold others back with their own failure. It's easy to undermine others efforts, pick apart their statements or belittle their efforts to cover their own lack of achievments, as they wallow in their own self-pity. But some of us will keep trying because that's what we do everywhere else in our lives.
You can continue to wallow in your own self-pity and whinge about others, or you can be one of those trying to change things.

[bladeracer]

One often hears the term "silencers" from the nay-sayers. They are not, and never have been "silencers". That fiction is perpetrated by the movie "industry", and perpetuating the myth with that term does nobody any good.

Any time you enter into "official" language then they are silencers, that is what they were called when they were invented and manufactured. Legislation can't refer to silencers as suppressors, moderators or any other slang terminology. So we are stuck with the term silencer.

[womble]

Hiram Percy Maxim 1902

If you want someone to blame

[womble]

This guy

[No1_49er]

An interesting lineage, too.
Hiram Percy Maxim, son of Hiram Maxim, inventor of the machine-gun.

[Bugman]

He invented the first firearm silencer and using lessons learned from that, the automotive muffler.

Thanks for that. I am never to old to learn

[Wapiti]

Well let's just hope that this gets somewhere.
I also make no apologies for countering comments deliberately made to discredit what myself or others have made in posting up information that through their own experience, is true, and put up with the best intentions.

Anyway, what I am pleased to see is that SU and other groups mentioned are going in to bat for us over this, that's the main reason I put this up. And also there's another reason.

For too long, the people who represent shooters haven't done much to stop further encroachment of our rights. SFP, SSAA etc, wait until we are hit with more restrictions then they and bargain (weakly, I feel) some concessions. But we always lose something else, and that's what happens when you wait for a punch in the face.

SU are pushing for an actual easing of these law restrictions, not just fighting when we are further restricted , when it's hard to fight.
I see people accuse them of fear mongering when they bring info out on scuttlebutt that weapons licensing are planning something, doing something, etc.
But we've seen just recently that doing that and making everyone jump up and down and cause political unrest, that they back down.

The upside to this is that we might just get to use the benefits that suppressor use will give us. I'll keep pushing it along anyway, regardless of who doesn't agree with us. Even our supposed peers. If you believe in yourself you will keep trying.

[alexjones]

All a suppressor does is make a very loud noise into a loud noise. It is a good idea to still wear muffs when shooting centrefire rifles.

[No1_49er]

I don't believe that anybody has said that the use of suppressors mitigates the need for hearing protection.
Even when shooting with a suppressed rifle, I still use noise-cancelling earmuffs or noise-cancelling ears-buds.
Axil is my product of choice.

[wanneroo]

I don't own a suppressor yet but have plenty of experience using them with all sorts of firearms.

Here is a video of my brother in law shooting a Remington 700 .308, subsonic suppressed, supersonic suppressed and unsuppressed.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-PDyxakuAyM

Here is a longer horizontal version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMCvnPPqeoU

Overall the decibel level gets dropped from around 160 to 130 and really the big difference is not so much up close but further away, hundreds of meters away or further, where the sound drops to levels that neighbors are not going to notice as much or hear as much. Also while 130 db is considered hearing safe, it's still loud enough I would wear some hearing protection for the range and repeated firing. For hunting, for the shot or two the average hunter might fire in a day, it helps protect their ears for that.

With ammo that goes supersonic there is still the crack as the bullet goes supersonic. To get down to Hollywood levels of "pfftt', you have to shoot something that doesn't have a lot of gunpowder and it has to be subsonic. The sound still goes up to around 130 db but there is no supersonic crack.

Overall suppressors reduce hearing damage for shooters, reduce noise pollution and are an all around great thing for everyone. Right now in the USA Republicans are working in Congress to remove suppressors from the NFA so they can be bought over the counter with a regular background check.

Here is a Ruger .22 suppressed I shot last year. The suppressor brings the noise down to air gun levels:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4wghnXALo2o
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mxKLFuv5aBs

Here's an FNX 45 I shot a few years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KbyEFAdH8MY

Here's 300 Blackout suppressed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g06tJkrf_-I

H&K MP5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CJY-O4ceAw

B&T TP9:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6uDKwoS6Tc

In the end as the videos illustrate, they reduce noise pollution and hearing damage but there is still plenty of noise, it's just less obnoxious for all.

[womble]

Thanks wannaroot always a pleasure.

I don’t think they will ever be removed from prohibited.

I think exemptions are a realistic goal.

There’s room for compromise. And I think that’s the best angle to take.

You have to look at the other person’s perspective and try to understand it.

Gun control advocate Samantha Lee “ if someone is shooting, you want people to be able to hear it so they can run”

That is their perspective. That is their reasoning. I’m not asking us to agree with it. Because yes it’s weird. But that’s how they think.

And honestly you have to factor that in and allow for it. Because we can’t change their minds.

If you want to change their minds your best course is to befriend them and invite them out to the range to participate. It probably won’t work, but there’s nothing to gain from being confrontational with them. That just reinforces them. You just have to hold that in and be respectful.

And here comes the really hard part. You have to get them to like you. Not agree with you. Just like you and view you as a decent bloke with all good intentions.

So wherever possible you agree with them, despite their warped logic. You be understanding. You have to build a bridge.

There are concessions to put forward. If it’s not a public space then there’s no anti gun people present to run away.

So I think exemptions are possible for perhaps shooting ranges. Perhaps private property under the landholder’s direction or employment. Paid or voluntary with a good structured safe program.

This dose’nt challenge their reasoning. It allows for it. You have allayed their concerns and accomodated what they wanted.

But an all out removal of the ban. Public land, state forests. Forget about it. Not going to happen. Flogging a dead horse against a brick wall.

Victoria has quite a few exemptions. NSW has a good working model. So it’s doable in some other states. Like Wapiti alludes to, you just have to believe.

It’s a strong evidence based case that can’t be challenged. So that’s not the problem. The problem is the relationship with the adversary.

[Wapiti]

Victoria has quite a few exemptions. NSW has a good working model. So it’s doable in some other states. Like Wapiti alludes to, you just have to believe.

It’s a strong evidence based case that can’t be challenged. So that’s not the problem. The problem is the relationship with the adversary.

Yes, we need to believe we can put forward this idea of a working model such as NSW. It works there and has proven advantageous in that state, and that's what we're after here.
We are just asking for their reclassification to a working, proven class such a C, so they can help those that shoot professionally, and or occupationally.

And yeah Womble, we do just have to believe that we are right, and can put forward this proposal and back it up with the might of the farmers representatives, the firearms industry, and the proven systems of other states.
As far as the relationship with the "adversary" goes, the government has changed, those representing it have changed and we hope, so are the attitudes. We will see.

[Wapiti]

And yeah, we know that by campaigning for a reduction in classification from R to C, we leave out sporting shooters and hunters, at least initially.
This is because to get such a political change is going to be daunting for the political animal... all it is concerned about is its own survival, even if it's a great idea in its own right. In politics, it's not about what's right very often.
They will be trembling about some socialist or green media getting this and suddenly, the ABC is running clips of crims with semi-autos that go pffft... use your imagination here.
The main thing is presenting a measured, informed perspective of the plan and its lawful use, and why. How the Hollywood version is rubbish... that's what the presentations and actual demonstrations were for.
For the use in primary production, animal welfare and WPHS requirements, and an informed presentation that suppressors are not like Hollywood BS.

Also I get that due to this push being only Cat C, that most hunters and range shooters are not going to be included, so we are not going to get much support from most of them, only those who truly see where this is going. In fact, it's obvious that this can really fuel the divide between country peoples needs and the opinions of others.
Maybe we'll never be able to, in the future, get suppressors EVER into Cat B. But to try and do so now, would be unobtanium and too political in one go. It is up to all of you, to smash YOUR supposed representation to push that after this is proven safe and effective like it is elsewhere.
Maybe it'll never happen, but some of us are going to try anyway because we see the benefits and it's just how we are.
I'd just hoped that by trying to put forward what's going on, we'd get support back. Like when people want access to farmers land to hunt in Qld. Doesn't it go both ways?

[Billo]

Wapiti why go to the effort of only getting the restriction on Sound moderators lifted for Cat C ?

Waste of time not to go after it for all shooters especially as most Pro shooters who make a living from shooting dont even have a Cat C license.

[alexjones]

Wapiti why go to the effort of only getting the restriction on Sound moderators lifted for Cat C ?

Waste of time not to go after it for all shooters especially as most Pro shooters who make a living from shooting dont even have a Cat C license.

I believe Every state where it is legal it is only legal for cat c and d holders.

So it starts with the occupation needs then hopefully can eventuate to the rest.

[womble]

NSW recreational/ sporting can be a genuine reason

Conditional “ Provide evidence from club/range or letter from property owner demonstrating the need to use a silencer for the particular recreational or sporting activity.

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0019/262009/PW_GR_Silencer.pdf

[alexjones]

NSW recreational/ sporting can be a genuine reason

Conditional “ Provide evidence from club/range or letter from property owner demonstrating the need to use a silencer for the particular recreational or sporting activity.

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0019/262009/PW_GR_Silencer.pdf

Correct. However in practise not one person has one.

[womble]

Not by law. Legally anyone with a firearms license can own one in NSW

The registry is just not processing the applications.

The prices they charge here for them are ridiculous anyway.

Some good news. You can have one on a gel blaster. Apparently a gel blaster is a real gun so they must be real suppressors.

[Wapiti]

Wapiti why go to the effort of only getting the restriction on Sound moderators lifted for Cat C ?

Waste of time not to go after it for all shooters especially as most Pro shooters who make a living from shooting dont even have a Cat C license.

I understand what you're saying mate, and I agree with you.

However, the Ag industry has been pushing this for some time from its members but never had the support of the firearms industry of any political representation interested in them up to this push. The Ag industry represents farmers and those contractors supplying it with skills and equipment. It doesn't represent casual sport shooters or hunters; the Ag industry is facing ruin from socialist government and can't spread itself out that thin.

Certainly, from what I've been told (and correct me if I'm wrong, I can only say here what I know so far) that the SSAA was invited to represent sporting shooters as well, in one big political push, but did not want to be included for whatever reason.

So it was felt that the best way forward was to start the push for primary producers and occupational shooters using the models that have been successful in other states, and even though just using them as an example should, in itself, get it over the line, that's been blocked by the anti-gun sentiment in Weapons Licensing.
That's also why you see the Shooters Union attacking the other over-zealous moves to further restrict sporting shooters. You've seen these in other threads, and you've also seen members here not supporting that push by SU, even attacking them.

And as others have rightly said, from a political perspective, using a model already working for primary producers in other states is being used.

[Billo]

Wapiti Currently only those deriving a substantial income in nsw get approval so I don't see that opening this up to primary producers is any sort of win, if anything it become a barrier to see any sort of expansion. OHS protections should be the same for all shooters

[womble]

Duty of care extends to visitors

Noise reduction in the workplace.

Worksafe Queensland. Use existing legislation.
Its a practical implementation of noise control measures

In the hierarchy of measures you eliminate or reduce at the source.

Link the relevant pdf files for your employer obligations in your application

If it was my property id insist on the use of suppressors under the worksafe act

Farmers assist program ssaa should adhere to worksafe practices on the property

[Wapiti]

Wapiti Currently only those deriving a substantial income in nsw get approval so I don't see that opening this up to primary producers is any sort of win, if anything it become a barrier to see any sort of expansion. OHS protections should be the same for all shooters

Can't see why not Billo, anyone with a Primary Producer class license in Qld can get Cat C without a fight, Cat D is also possible, if you keep the relevant records of stock and financial losses from feral animals on your tax statements, and provide evidence of what is doing that i.e. pics from trail cameras etc.

Both my wife and I have proved that, separately, so I will respectfully disagree with you mate, from actual experience

If suppressors were moved to Cat C, primary producers and occupational license holders with "C" now could get one. That's why they're campaigning for Cat C, the group isn't doing it as a waste of time.

And yes, OHS relevance should be for all, but we cannot get the support of all. Primary Production is job, and a farm is a workplace, and this is where our push must come from because the governments of all politics are anti-gun, so we'll go legal responsibility for a workplace and its workers, initially at least.

[Wapiti]

Duty of care extends to visitors

Noise reduction in the workplace.

Worksafe Queensland. Use existing legislation.
Its a practical implementation of noise control measures

In the hierarchy of measures you eliminate or reduce at the source.

Link the relevant pdf files for your employer obligations in your application

If it was my property id insist on the use of suppressors under the worksafe act
Mate, that's the legal requirement, but they so far have refused to make suppressors legal. So the only thing we can insist on is PPE, because they haven't made the first expected control measure legal.

Farmers assist program ssaa should adhere to worksafe practices on the property