Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber wipes which are only good for a couple shots. I hadn't intended to make that point a technical critique of suppressive technology so much as an indication of the perceived need over other options. When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear, then I'm hunting far away from hopefully all society and being safe about it?
Regardless, I appreciate your candor.
"real"? i don't think any of those are even available for purchase. take a look at thunderbeast arms or silencerco for what "real" suppressors look like.
they're astonishingly effective, and last for forever. (which is important when it takes 12 months to get one.)
> When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear
ugh, have you ever even stood next to someone setting off a hunting rifle?
suppressors are additive with ear protection (super useful for anyone with hearing damage), and also eliminate the whole-body experience of the blast.
The tradeoff is between the relative costs and benefits of suppressors. Given that ear protection is cheap, plentiful, and doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot, it's hard to justify the legality of suppressors for purely "safety" reasons.
If a gun's loudness sometimes acts as a deterrent, then the availability of this "piece of metal" will reduce/eliminate this deterrent, and consequently increase the probability of the weapon's being used.
The same can't be said for ear protection.
"A 30-decibel reduction in theory means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer." Are firearms with a silencer 'quiet'? - The Washington Post
What do you specifically mean by "proven to make a difference"? Suppressors are known for being used by intelligence services -- presumably they're not using them to protect their agents' hearing.
It should be blindingly obvious that silencers/suppressors have a use beyond "hearing safety". Namely, that they allow someone to shoot someone else without attracting as much attention.
Are you claiming otherwise?
The point is that given the availability of effective ear protection, there is no legitimate argument for civilian use of suppressors. There is no plausible argument that their existence would decrease the risk of a gun's being used illegally, and there are great reasons to believe that in some instances it would increase this risk, and/or make it more difficult to catch those who have done so.
Long range flamethrowers are illegal, but could be said to have a "legitimate use" for clearing brush. When there is no good argument for a thing to exist, and there are good safety-based arguments for it to not exist, then in the name of safety we should not have said thing.
A suppressor, aka "silencer", is a SAFETY device. If you believe otherwise, you've been watching too much TV. They don't render the weapon silent or even quiet, they bring the explosive sound down to a range that doesn't pose risk of hearing loss. I've seen the sound of a gun with a good silencer likened to slamming an unabridged dictionary onto a solid table as hard as you can. So the assassin in the next room, or even the guy out in the back yard, is still going to wake up somebody in the bedroom.
So the use of a silencer is to protect the hearing of everyone around you. As such, it's certainly a net-positive for society.