As this is written, President Trump has wrapped up his visit to the British Isles. By any reasonable standard, it was a great success. However, as is always the case with President Trump, if one listens to the American Media, his trip was a disaster. The same fake news was propounded by the BBC, but British newspapers were far more rational and honest.
During that visit, Mr. Trump gave Piers Morgan a 30+ minute interview. I’ve tried to find a link, but for some reason, all that is available are brief excerpts from various fake news organizations trying to attack Mr. Trump, who showed himself to be a nimble and amiable fellow, in a more or less enlightening and civil interview.
Fake News outlets have seized, among other comments, on this:
President Donald Trump said in an interview on Wednesday that he is going to ‘seriously look at’ banning silencers in the wake of one of the devices being recovered at a shooting where 12 people were murdered in Virginia Beach.
In an interview on British television with longtime gun-control activist Piers Morgan, Trump was asked about his view on silencers.
‘I don’t like it. I don’t like it,’ Trump said of the devices, which reduce the sound of gunshots but don’t actually silence them.
‘Would you like to see those banned?’ Morgan asked.
‘Well, I’d like to think about it,’ Trump said. “Nobody’s talked about silencers very much. They did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned. And we’re looking at that. I’m going to seriously look at it. I don’t love the idea of it. I don’t like the idea. What’s happening is crazy, okay? It’s crazy.
Those screaming that Mr. Trump is about to ban silencers–the actual term is “suppressor”–are ignoring the context. My impression was in saying “I don’t’ like it. I don’t like it,” Mr. Trump was responding to mass shootings generally and the Virginia Beach shooting in particular. I doubt Mr. Trump will support an effort to ban suppressors. He has, to date, been very solid on the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.
Consider this, from the NRA-ILA, via The Truth About Guns:
In response to reports that the Virginia Beach shooter used a firearm suppressor in carrying out his terrible crime, David Chipman, Senior Policy Advisor for the Giffords gun control group, claimed that a suppressed pistol is especially dangerous because the noise associated with the firearm is difficult to distinguish from a nail gun. As per usual for claims Chipman and his employer make about firearm suppressors, this is false.
In an article appearing in the Virginian-Pilot, Chipman claims, “The gun does not sound gun-like. It takes the edge out of the tone . . . This is how I would describe it: It makes a gun sort of sound like a nail gun.”
But, a suppressed .45 caliber pistol, like the one that is reported to have been used in Virginia Beach, is many times louder than a nail gun:
*A suppressed .45 caliber pistol produces about 130-135 dBA.
*A nail gun produces about 100 dBA.
*Decibels (dBA) are a logarithmic scale, so sound levels increase in a non-linear fashion. A 3 dBA increase doubles the sound pressure level. (Although most people perceive a 6 to 10 dBA increase as double the noise level.)
The 30-35 dBA difference between a nail gun and a suppressed pistol will be perceived as at least eight times louder to the human ear.
Sadly, because suppressors are heavily regulated, most Americans know relatively little about them, so I’m updating an article I first posted back in October of 2017: A Basic Suppressor Primer.
Suppressors are very much in the news these days, most recently because of the Virginia Beach attack, but also because of Hillary Clinton’s supremely uninformed assertion that if the Las Vegas mass murderer had used a suppressor, no one would have heard his gunshots, and more would have been killed. That was too much even for some in the legacy media, and several “fact checkers” actually told the truth about firearms for a change.
Because so many know so little about suppressors, I thought it useful to produce a brief primer.
Suppressors, usually incorrectly called “silencers,” were invented in 1902 by MIT graduate, Hiram Percy Maxim, son of Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim of machine gun fame. Maxim’s design was patented in 1909, and suppressors quickly became very popular. Even Theodore Roosevelt used one on his favorite Winchester Model 1894 rifle. But in 1934, the National Firearms act was passed, imposing licensing and registration requirements on suppressor ownership, including a $200 dollar, non-transferrable tax. In 1934, this amounted to a huge portion of the average American’s annual income, and stalled suppressor sales and development for nearly a half century. However, in recent years, interest in suppressors boomed–probably as a result of concerns over Barack Obama and his gun banning intentions–and at present, around 1.3 million are in private hands.
Suppressors are seldom used in crimes. According to the BATF, only about .003% of all suppressors have allegedly been used in the commission of a crime. According to BATF Assistant Deputy Director Ronald Turk:
Consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shooting. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating [National Firearms Act] classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the [Gun Control Act].
In mid-January, 2017, companion bills were introduced in the US House and Senate to declassify suppressors, removing the $200 dollar tax and onerous and time consuming–around eight months–federal vetting and paperwork. However, those bills were stalled by the feckless Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, apparently because they didn’t think “the time was right.” The Presidency, the House and the Senate were in Republican hands, as were most of the state governorships and state legislatures. The Republican Congress, as with so much else, missed a rare opportunity to further secure a fundamental, unalienable right.
Suppressors are relatively simple devices with no moving parts. With some exceptions, they are round tubes of various diameters and lengths, hence the common term “can.” There is no such thing as a “silencer.” Suppressors can reduce the noise level of a gunshot, and somewhat alter its character, but only to levels that are less likely to cause cumulative hearing damage. A suppressed shot is still identifiable as an obvious gunshot. The sound effects employed for dramatic effect on TV and in the movies are just that: sound effects. They don’t represent the reality of suppressors or physics.
But who would want a suppressor? Hunters, target shooters, anyone– like police officers and the military–that might have to shoot indoors, which would include any law-abiding citizen that might have to use their handgun indoors for home protection. In short, they are a very useful, hearing saving accessory. The only reason they are not more widely distributed among the population is because of the onerous and relatively expensive federal registration/taxation requirements. As even the BATF notes, they are rarely used in crimes, probably because they significantly increase the size of any firearm, as the photo of a 10mm Glock 20 illustrates. The suppressor doubles the length of the handgun.
Suppressors are not hard to make, but criminals generally don’t go to that much trouble. Unsuppressed weapons are easier. However, even if a criminal were unusually industrious, no law outlawing suppressors would stop them. They’re criminals, you see, because they don’t obey laws.
Because of the very size of suppressors, it’s unlikely police officers would carry handguns with suppressors attached. They’re too long and bulky. However, there are certainly circumstances where they’d love to be able to use them, and carrying a detached and quickly attachable suppressor would present little difficulty. An attached suppressor on a home defense handgun has obvious advantages.
How Do Suppressors Work? Suppressors are all about gas control. The noise of shooting comes from the supersonic crack of the bullet, and the propellant gases escaping the muzzle at supersonic velocity, disturbing the air at the muzzle. This is also the source of muzzle flash. Dampening the report is therefore a matter of controlling–trapping and dissipating–as much of the gas as possible, and reducing the velocity of bullets to subsonic levels, which eliminates the supersonic crack. The supersonic “crack” of a bullet cannot be suppressed, but with subsonic projectiles, there is no “crack.”
This is accomplished by means of baffles, as illustrated by the Maxim patent application and the cutaway suppressor attached to the Glock 20, a number of individual chambers that bleed off the gasses. However, rapid fire immediately heats any suppressor. Note the thick, round plastic hand guard on the HK MP5SD. Not only is such rapid heating hard on shooters, it’s also hard on suppressors. To deal with these issues, suppressors are commonly made of aluminum, steel, or even titanium, which is most effective, but much more expensive.
Unfortunately, there is no free lunch in physics. It’s not at all difficult to produce subsonic bullets–handloaders can easily accomplish it, and manufacturers do produce such ammunition–but slow bullets hamper accuracy, reduce effective range, and reduce penetrating power. This is why military and police agencies have, since 1974, favored the HK MP5SD in 9mm, the free world’s premier integrally suppressed submachine gun. While such weapons are obviously best employed at short range, being able to fire short bursts rather than single shots tends to help make up for the potentially weak penetration of the ammunition. But even the MP5SD, an excellent but dated suppressor design, has a unique and easily identifiable sound signature, which is clearly identifiable as gunfire.
Military Factory.com explains the function of the MP5SD’s suppressor:
The principle feature of the MPSD series is its large aluminum suppressor assembly added to the front of the weapon which is coupled to base supersonic 9mm cartridges. Within this assembly is a shortened barrel that has been perforated with some 30 openings to allow for the controlled escaping of gasses as the weapon cycles through its action. The suppressor therefore shrouds the perforated barrel assembly and is designed with a two-stage, two-chamber process. The initial chamber (the one closest to the receiver) surrounds the barrel in an expected fashion and it is this chamber that initially collects the escaping propellant gasses, controlling the effects of the escaping bullet by reducing its pressure and retarding its acceleration. The second chamber (ahead of the muzzle [the muzzle–the end of the short barrel–is inside the suppressor tube, it is notthe end of the suppressor can]) then takes these gasses and nullifies their effects even further by increasing gas volume and reducing its temperature while allowing a slow escape. The end result is that the subsonic bullet exits the muzzle at a lowered, now-subsonic, velocity and thusly its audible signature is reduced. Due to the fact that the MP5SD does not make use of subsonic ammunition coupled with its suppressor, it is not a truly ‘silent’ weapon in the accepted sense. A lightweight bolt assembly does figure into the device, however, and helps to lower the audible signature of the internal action.
Many special operations MP5 SDs are altered for use exclusively with subsonic 9mm ammunition, which tends to employ heavier bullets in an attempt to gain something lost to the reduced velocity of the bullet.
HK, working with Walther, has produced the MP5 SD6, a .22 LR semiautomatic twin of the MP5 SD. Compare the two photographs. The .22 version, while looking nearly identical to the 9mm version, does not have a functional suppressor. The “suppressor” can is actually quite a bit longer than the MP5 SDs, because it is merely a shroud and anchor for the 16.1” barrel. The full-auto MP5 SD has a barrel of less than 6”. The .22LR gun feels and handles almost exactly like the genuine MP5 SD, examples of which are almost impossible to find at any price. My article on the MP5 SD6 is available here.
Suppressors can so affect accuracy, commonly changing the point of impact of any firearm. For guns designed to take removable suppressors this can be problematic, and careful choice of ammunition–and practice with and without the suppressor–is a necessity. Most suppressor users fire standard velocity ammunition. Most suppressors attach to the barrel via a threaded muzzle, though a number of manufacturers have introduced a variety of means of locking them solidly to barrels, theoretically preventing impact point shift, and making them consistently accurate regardless of how often the silencer is attached/removed.
Generally, the larger the suppressor, the more effective the suppression, so suppressors may obscure the sights of some guns, even laser sights. In addition, guns designed exclusively for the use of subsonic ammunition usually require alterations to the recoil springs to deal with the weaker recoil impulse.
How Quiet Are Suppressors? Guns and Ammo explains:
Plus or minus, gunshots run 160 to 180 decibels. A good suppressor will trim 20 to 40 dBs off that signature and often make gunshots ‘ear safe’ according to government standards. The bigger the suppressor, generally speaking, the better it will be at quieting guns.
Even that 20-40 dB reduction does no more than reduce the level of a gunshot to that of a jackhammer.
An example of a very quiet suppressed gun was the Welrod of WWII.
Notice the barrel–outlined in red–is only about 4” long, but the suppressor greatly lengthens the gun. This is true of all suppressed guns. The MP5 SD’s barrel is quite short; the suppressor, much longer.
The Welrod, chambered primarily in 9mm or .32 ACP, achieved its relative quiet because of its large suppressor, and because it was a single shot, bolt action gun. There was no action cycling, no flying brass, etc. when it fired. It was slow to reload, so was best employed wisely under near ideal circumstances. The suppressor design was also rudimentary. The baffles broke down quickly, and unlike modern designs, its suppressed effect was lost after 15-20 rounds. Semi or full automatic gun designs are louder. Even a 2 liter soda bottle can be employed to make an expedient suppressor, though its effectiveness lasts only a single shot, and sometimes, not even that as the gasses tend to tear the thin plastic bottles apart.
Suppressing rifles magnifies the problems associated with suppressors.Their cartridges produce far greater velocity, propelled by a substantially greater volume of propellant. This requires much larger, longer suppressors, as illustrated by the .50 BMG Barrett rifle with its Barrett QDL suppressor/muzzle brake.
The .50 BMG cartridge, designed for the .50 caliber Browning machinegun family, is not at all a quiet or subtle cartridge, but a good suppressor can tone down the violence of the report. At the very long ranges for which the Barrett is employed in the sniper role, an effective suppressor might keep terrorists from ever hearing the shot that killed one of them, allowing follow up shots.
Our military uses a variety of suppressors for the AR-15 family. A primary advantage of such suppressors–apart from helping to preserve the hearing of our troops–is reducing muzzle flash, and making it harder for enemies to pinpoint the location of fire, an obviously good thing for snipers and spotters.
This photo illustrates an integral suppressor on the excellent Israeli Tavor 5.56mm rifle, though this example appears to be chambered for 9mm.Some Tavors have short barrels for close quarter battle–common in Israel–so adding a suppressor does not greatly increase the length. Notice the unusual shape of the Rat Worx ZRX suppressor. Indoors, the muzzle flash and report of a .223/5.56mm round is truly impressive. A good suppressor can improve an operator’s, situational awareness, accuracy and save their hearing and eyesight.
Recently, shotgun suppressors have been developed. Notice the size and length of this suppressor. Because of the very nature of shotgun ammunition, the sound reduction can’t approach that of a good rifle or pistol suppressor–much more gas will inevitably escape–but notice the shooter is not wearing ear protection. Such suppressors do work, but no one would mistake the report of a shotgun so equipped as anything other than gunfire.
Shooters that take the .22 rifle, or a handgun, to the range only once or twice a year may have relatively little interest in suppressors, but more involved shooters would be far more likely to buy them. Suppressors are current relatively expensive, but easier availability would surely decrease prices as manufacturers increase production to meet demand and increase market share as more manufacturers enter the marketplace.
Though hunting has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, hunters would be a significant market. They can’t afford to wear hearing protection, particularly when hunting dangerous game.
Like most anti-liberty types, Hillary Clinton knows nothing about firearms and their accessories other than that she wants to ban them all. There is no reason why suppressors should be any more difficult to buy or possess than firearms. It would be easy to write laws that would enhance sentences for the criminal misuse of suppressors, which should address any potential, logical, objections. Of course, the goal of gun banners is not hampering criminals–they don’t obey any laws–but the law-abiding., who aren’t buying their kind of “freedom.”
Isn’t it interesting that the safety Nazis and their allies supposedly so concerned with health and welfare issues, are violently opposed to suppressors, which will prevent hearing loss, and greatly reduce the noise of shooting ranges? Of course, such people believe they’ll one day ban and seize all guns and accessories from the law abiding. Banning any firearm accessory, apart from demonstrating their moral and intellectual superiority over deplorable gun owners, helps establish precedent for eventual absolute bans.
All politicians dissemble, but I’m sure Mr. Trump would be well advised about the many benefits of suppressors, and I doubt he’ll be trying to ban them in the future. Whether there will ever be a Republican majority willing to actually honor the Constitution is another question.