Muzzle brake noise reduction allowed?

[artimu]

Might be barking up the wrong tree here but it's just an idea.

Suppressors are illegal here of course. And muzzle brakes make the report louder.

I see (in US gun shows mind you) some custom stuff where they put a 'compensator' around a muzzle brake and barrel to absorb some of the extra sound that the brake is putting out towards the shooter.

Would such a thing be allowed here in Aus if you were just suppressing a brake rifle back down to it's regular non-braked sound level?

[Chronos]

Firstly no brakes make the noise louder, they do redirect some of the noise backwards, giving the impression that the rifle is louder.

Secondly, the way the legislation is written makes it quite clear when it says

"Silencers or any other device designed for attachment to a firearm for the purpose of muffling, reducing or stopping the noise created by firing the firearm."


Note it says "any device"

Not only are silencers controlled but fitting one to your firearm makes it a "prohibited weapon" adding to potential charges you may face.

There are no loopholes. Don't get caught using one, particularly if you have hopes of one day getting them made legal.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass ... 13_1.3.pdf

Chronos

[Apollo]

For you guys in Western Australia it's illegal to have emty/fired cartridge cases floating around unsecured since they classify it as "Ammo".

It's a wonder you are allowed to have a Muzzle Break ..... Joking.

As Chronos said and I believe it applies all over Australia, if you attempt to surpress the sound of a firearm you have commited an offence. Where's that thread about Coke Bottles in South Australia...???

Now, Silencers are not illegal....!!!!! They are restricted items. Not sure of all the state laws but most I know of you can apply for a permit to own and use a silencer BUT you have to to come up with a genuine reason. Once approved not only is the silencer a restricted item but the firearm it is fitted to also becomes a restricted item for the permit holders use only.

[Manimal]

High marks for creative thinking.

Though the short answer is no.

[roob]

Now, Silencers are not illegal....!!!!! They are restricted items. Not sure of all the state laws but most I know of you can apply for a permit to own and use a silencer BUT you have to to come up with a genuine reason. Once approved not only is the silencer a restricted item but the firearm it is fitted to also becomes a restricted item for the permit holders use only.

Now that I didn't know.

I was also under the impression they were just flat out barred.

Time to get thinking... Come up with some creative reasons for having one now

[Chronos]

Now that I didn't know.

I was also under the impression they were just flat out barred.

Time to get thinking... Come up with some creative reasons for having one now

I think you'll struggle to justify it unless you are employed in Feral destruction in built up areas

To be honest I just don't get the fascination with them. Unless you're shooting subsonic ammo and it actually matters if you're heard I dont see the point

Chronos

[Hercl]

I don't know about being "fascinated" with them.

It would just be nice to not have to wear ear muffs for comfort and also to be employing an additional safety method of protecting my hearing.

I suspect that's the same motivation for most people. Not because they're "cool".

[Warrigul]

To be honest I just don't get the fascination with them. Unless you're shooting subsonic ammo and it actually matters if you're heard I dont see the point

Chronos

Before they were made illegal, those of us who actually got out there and hunted made wide use of them. They have many benefits.

[Warrigul]

Firstly no brakes make the noise louder, they do redirect some of the noise backwards, giving the impression that the rifle is louder.

In actual fact they do increase the total amount of sound pressure.

Aside from the re-direction of blast(apparent to the user sound pressure) they do alter the pitch and convert some of the gas movement to sound, just blow across the top of a bottle and then tell me it is no louder than the sound your breath makes.

I had all the info put in front of me a couple of years ago when we were trying to decide on a policy for brakes on the mound, in the end we just put them down one end.

However it wouldn't be any justification for muffling, the laws are VERY clear on that.

[Chronos]

I don't know about being "fascinated" with them.

It would just be nice to not have to wear ear muffs for comfort and also to be employing an additional safety method of protecting my hearing.

I suspect that's the same motivation for most people. Not because they're "cool".

I disagree, I think most shooters want one because they think they're cool. I just think on a centerfire rifle they are a too big and heavy to be practical.

As far as not having to wear earmuffs that's not accurate as there is simply not enough reduction in pressure to prevent hearing damage and earmuffs are still required. Unless we're talking about sub sonic ammo. The sound effects seen in movies are largely responsible for this. A .308 will produce noise around 155db (a 20" barrel could be as much as 165db), and a large suppressor will reduce this by around 25db.

The pain threshold for noise is around 140db so the resulting single shot from a silenced 20" .308 would be the equivalent if 40 hrs in a noisy workplace, easily enough to damage your hearing.

Chronos

[Triang]

Would be nice for rifles at the range where weight isn't an issue IMO.

I don't fancy lugging one around the field I must admit.

Sat on a hill varminting for a day would also be good though.

[Hercl]

Chronos,

If they're too heavy for field work that's one thing. If hunting though I think it's fair to say most people don't fire enough shots for it to be as much of a concern as a day at the range.

I don't know anything about the various decibel levels. Whatever the specifics though, my point about an additional layer of protection for shooters ears is still valid.

Like Triang said, for an afternoon varminting and especially for a day at the range where you're going to be subjected to hundreds of shots, I'd take all the protection I can get.

Even if it only knocks of 15%. It's 15% less abuse for everyones hearing to be subjected too.

Personally, I'd still take one if they were available.

My 2c.

[Chronos]

Would be nice for rifles at the range where weight isn't an issue IMO.

I don't fancy lugging one around the field I must admit.

Sat on a hill varminting for a day would also be good though.

Yeah I agree, would make your neighbours happy

Chronos

[Warrigul]

I disagree, I think most shooters want one because they think they're cool. I just think on a centerfire rifle they are a too big and heavy to be practical.

As far as not having to wear earmuffs that's not accurate as there is simply not enough reduction in pressure to prevent hearing damage and earmuffs are still required. Unless we're talking about sub sonic ammo. The sound effects seen in movies are largely responsible for this. A .308 will produce noise around 155db (a 20" barrel could be as much as 165db), and a large suppressor will reduce this by around 25db.

The pain threshold for noise is around 140db so the resulting single shot from a silenced 20" .308 would be the equivalent if 40 hrs in a noisy workplace, easily enough to damage your hearing.

Chronos

I don't think you have actually ever used one, my old one on my .243 Parker hale, apart from the crack from going supersonic, made it sound like a .22 magnum at worst. In the early days of deer and forester culling they used to hear the crack but not know where it was coming from, whilst they still scattered from muzzle noise it was never as far and seldom directly away from you. The sonic boom is never as bad as the muzzle noise. As far as weight in a centerfire silencer goes, in the old speak it was a slight tad over a pound and hardly noticeable especially for a young bloke. The ones they make these days would surely be lighter and more efficient than 30 odd years ago.

In the old days a moderator made a centerfire more than bearable and earmuffs unneccesary(I have VERY good hearing still).

I NEVER shot a .22 without one be it subs or lasers, it was undetectable when using subsonics and when shooting winchester lasers for rabbits and wallaby at range the sonic boom didn't make them scatter as bad.The .22 silencer weight was negligble. A silencer and subsonics was essential for spotlighting rabbits and wallaby in the old days.

I miss moderators from a practical point of view(having used them extensively) and it irks me no end when people who don't know what they are talking about spout rubbish. Hollywood hype and misinformed "experts" was what got them banned in the first place.

[Chronos]

I don't think you have actually ever used one, my old one on my .243 Parker hale, apart from the crack from going supersonic, made it sound like a .22. In the early days of deer and forester culling they used to hear the crack but not know where it was coming from, whilst they still scattered it was never as far and seldom directly away from you. The sonic boom is never as bad as the muzzle noise. As far as weight in a centerfire silencer goes, in the old speak it was a slight tad over a pound and hardly noticeable especially for a young bloke. The ones they make these days would surely be lighter and more efficient than 30 odd years ago.

In the old days a moderator made a centerfire more than bearable and earmuffs unneccesary(I have VERY good hearing still).

I NEVER shot a .22 without one be it subs or lasers, it was undetectable when using subsonics and when shooting winchester lasers for rabbits and wallaby at range the sonic boom didn't make them scatter as bad.The .22 silencer weight was negligble. A silencer and subsonics was essential for spotlighting rabbits and wallaby in the old days.

I miss moderators from a practical point of view(having used them extensively) and it irks me no end when people who don't know what they are talking about spout rubbish. Hollywood hype and misinformed "experts" was what got them banned in the first place.

You're right warrigull as far as I have never shot a centerfire rifle with a moderator but what I say about the noise level is correct, by your own admission there is still the supersonic crack. People should be aware that a moderator is not the answer to hearing protection, certainly not if you plan on sitting at the range and firing a hundred rounds from your centerfire in load testing.

Clearly you know much more about them than I have read and will probably ever will. At no point would I claim to be an "expert", I can only go on the word of friends who have used them both in NZ and the UK as well as data that's available online.

Your points about the use of moderators on rimfire rifles are indisputable, I too would probably fit one to one of my .22's were they available.

This has taken this thread way off topic. The point of the thread is essentially "can you fit a device that reduces the report if your rifle?"

And the answer is no, unless you have the correct permit to do so.

Chronos

[Warrigul]

You're right warrigull as far as I have never shot a centerfire rifle with a moderator but what I say about the noise level is correct, by your own admission there is still the supersonic crack. People should be aware that a moderator is not the answer to hearing protection, certainly not if you plan on sitting at the range and firing a hundred rounds from your centerfire in load testing.

It may be off topic in your opinion, but you have said that noise reduction is not an argument that could be used to justify a permit allowing their posession, I would argue otherwise.

Honestly I have yet to see a set or earmuffs with a greater than 40dba NRR, indeed many are rated at around 25NRR (what you have claimed a good silencer is rated at- your source is?)and by your statements (a 308 equalling 155dba) rifles would still be harmful to the user even if earmuffs were used. However if the noise were initially reduced by a silencer then perhaps earmuffs would be effective? The full effect of the sonic boom or crack is only experienced if you are directly under it and it is never as great as unmoderated muzzle blast(the noise experienced when you are marking in the butts is mainly sonic but is tolerable). So based on those a silencer would be a justifiable alternative to earmuffs, however it would be a fool that didn't use earmuffs, and even plugs, when exposing themselves to any sustained noise- such as in having 100 shots when load testing. Also the requirement in the UK for a silencer in built up areas (not for hiding the shooting but minimising effects to others in the area) could also be used as justification for silencers in my humble opinion.

I have mates that hunt in NZ. There is a distinct lack of testing done on Kiwi silencers, only statements that noise is reduced by 2/3 etc, but of the three that I know that use them when over there there is no need for hearing protection at all and I certainly didn't need protection when I used one years ago.

We may be on the web but we need to get the facts right as misinformation was what got these practical and useful tools banned in the first place.

[Chronos]

Sorry, my mistake. I should have added the source

http://www.accurateshooter.com/gear-rev ... d-to-know/

Chronos

"If you take an accurate bolt-action rifle in .260 Remington or .308 Winchester and fit a suppressor, the recoil will be noticeably reduced and the report will be more similar to a .22 WMR. Most premium .30 caliber suppressors will reduce the report by 25-30 dB — a very substantial sound attenuation. While I do recommend wearing ear protection when using suppressors because hearing damage is subtle but cumulative, the entire experience is more pleasant with a suppressed rifle."

[Warrigul]

Sorry, my mistake. I should have added the source

http://www.accurateshooter.com/gear-rev ... d-to-know/

Chronos

"If you take an accurate bolt-action rifle in .260 Remington or .308 Winchester and fit a suppressor, the recoil will be noticeably reduced and the report will be more similar to a .22 WMR. Most premium .30 caliber suppressors will reduce the report by 25-30 dB — a very substantial sound attenuation. While I do recommend wearing ear protection when using suppressors because hearing damage is subtle but cumulative, the entire experience is more pleasant with a suppressed rifle."

It is still someone elses' opinion(regardless of how knowledgible journalists are), as in the advertising the Kiwis use there is no reference to credible testing.

It would be laughed at if it were used to justify a law allowing silencers.

Oh......... hang on there was no legitimate evidence or fact used to outlaw them in the first place........................................................ it was just heresay and we lost useful tools because of it..

This is just going around and around, suffice it to say that if something is said it should be backed up by more than"someone said", but that is the WWW for you.

[Chronos]

I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore or who you're arguing with.

Your opinion comes from your experiences, that's fine.

My point is as it was in my previous post. Fitting a moderator to a .308 does not provide sufficient suppression to remove the need for hearing protection.

As I said previously this is off topic

Chronos

[Warrigul]

Your opinion comes from your experiences, that's fine.

And yours comes from what you've read, I can see no point in going any further with this.

[artimu]

Thanks for all the information guys.

Thought this might be wishful thinking but you've gotta ask

I'll just keep signing the petitions to legalise them in the mean time

[rwhitey]

https://muzzlebrakeaustralia.com.au/sho ... -22322-250


Is something like this what you’re talking about?
If so I don’t see how this muffles, reduces, or stops the noise. It only redirects it.

[Ferrisweil]

I’ve been lucky enough to use quite a few suppressors, mostly in the UK.
Do they make a difference? Yes, def lowered recoil and took the “crack” out of the sound.
Is it quiet? Def not! If you want a suppressor because you want to be quiet, unless you’re shooting subs, it won’t happen.
Do they change the balance of the rifle? Yes, but all depends on the quality
Would I like one? Yes
Do I need one? No!

I strongly believe that this is one of those purchase where u get what you pay for.
A mate of mine is legally permitted to use them in Australia but reckons one of the biggest problems is actually importing them. There choice here in AUS isn’t a patch on the States etc and importing them is a nightmare

[perentie]

https://muzzlebrakeaustralia.com.au/shop?olsPage=products%2Fmuzzle-brake-vtr-with-concussionredirector-sleeve-12x28-22cal-22322-250


Is something like this what you’re talking about?
If so I don’t see how this muffles, reduces, or stops the noise. It only redirects it.

That is what I thought the OP was asking about.
Nothing to do with Silencers etc going off topic.
So those redirectors must be legal.

[perentie]

[quote="artimu"]Thanks for all the information guys.

Thought this might be wishful thinking but you've gotta ask

I'll just keep signing the petitions to legalise them in the mean time [/quote

You were not asking about a Silencer but the Muzzle Brake Redirector.
Looks like they are legal as per the previous link.
They are only .22 size but they might make a bigger one.

[Diamond Jim]

I'm sure UK and NZ shooters wouldn't bother with them if they were not effective. From what I've read they are a PITA to clean and add length and weight to the rifle. If they didn't work there would be no market for them yet they seem almost mandatory in the UK - on properties much smaller than Aussie farms with higher population densities. Professional gamekeepers use them. I don't understand the objection to them by Australian lawmakers. It's irrational.