Silencers
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Recently, after listening to a Bill Burr stand up special where he talks about fags giving him shit for wanting a .22 and how the scenario plays out in his mind of a home invasion, I felt like he made some good points.
Muzzle flash is going to blind you from your eyes trying to readjust
The sound is going to be deafening inside of your home
People miss all the time
So, I have decided to acquire a silencer and I'm going to buy a pistol specifically for it.
Anyone have any suggestions for tried and true pistol/silencer combos that are tried, true, and quiet? Part of me wants to just get a .22 because I know it will be the quietest (as well, I've yet to hear about someone not on drugs running towards a hail of .22) but it lacks stopping power. Maybe a 9mm or .45?
Help me /k/, I'm conflicted and inexperienced with the matter.
.45 is generally considered the best pistol round to suppress. Though you could also build a .300BLK SBR with a suppressor which will make the gun easier to use at night. And considering the prices of most threaded barrel pistols the price might not be too much more in the end
>>29277115
Get a Ruger Mark III with the threaded barrel.
>>29277134
>.45 is generally considered the best pistol round to suppress
Why is this anon? Just because it's been around for so long, they've pretty much perfected it?
I'm hesitant about the .300BLK, its not a very common round in comparison to the 5.56 and most of the SBR's I see are much more expensive than just getting a pistol with a threaded barrel.
>>29277151
I was looking at that one, very nice looking gun, but if a .45 is just as easily suppressed, why not get the .45? It's literally a 2 round difference in the magazine with much greater stopping power.
>>29277182
Because .45ACP is inherently subsonic in most all factory loadings, unlike 9mm or .40, which are supersonic in regular loadings and will require special subsonic loads.
>>29277200
Ah, I see. Makes perfect sense and much more convenient than having to buy subsonic ammo.
Well, if .45 is the way to go, is there a model pistol you would recommend that would compliment a silencer the best? I already have a Rock River that I conceal carry, but no threaded barrel and I'm not really wanting have to put a silencer on when some psycho is at my bedroom door.
>>29277182
Not sure where you've seen that, but you can get a .300BLK upper for around 3-400 bucks new, and probably cheaper if you shopped around. They'll take any 5.56 BCG so say 4-500 is the cheapest upper you'd build, if you really save. Otherwise 600 for the done upper unless I'm missing some many for factory threads. And then toss it on any mil-spec AR-15 lower, but do not put a stock on it till you get your SBR stamp. Then get your suppressor stamp and you're good to go
And for .45, >>29277200
He's already got it, .45 is a slow moving bullet, so they make for the best suppressed guns
>>29277115
If you're using a can, you may as well go centerfire. .22 will be quietest, but I wouldn't trust rimfire for self defense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2GchQ3orB0
>>29277252
Just a quick browse on gunbroker. I'm sure building it myself would be much cheaper, but I'm already getting a tax stamp for the silencer, I just don't think the SBR is what I'm really looking for overall.
>>29277292
Very informative. I'm going to have to do more research on what he means when dry firing and wet firing.
>>29277115
>Muzzle flash is going to blind you from your eyes trying to readjust
>The sound is going to be deafening inside of your home
>People miss all the time
SBR'd AR-15 in .300BLK, with a silencer of some sort.
Easy to aim with, no flash, good ballistics, hearing safe, roomy magazines.
Of course, this involves two tax stamps.
You could go around one of them by making the weapon an AR pistol.
>>29277339
This makes zero sense to me
AR pistol
>easier to conceal
>no tax stamp
SBR
>longer and harder to conceal
>tax stamp
Am I missing something here or is this ass-backwards?
>>29277252
>.300BLK upper
If you already have a .223 AR, you don't have to get a whole new upper, .300BLK uses the same bolt, bolt-carrier, receiver, gas-system, magazines, etc.
All you need to do is to get a new barrel.
>>29277354
a proper stock
also
>concealing a home defense weapon
>>29277336
Unless you have other plans for the pistol, it is an overall better package
>More ammo
>More control
>Easier to use
You won't be ready to use it if you ever have to, an SBR is inherently easier to control than a pistol when you're dead tired out of bed
>Arguably better mobility and control
Everything is in nice and tight to your body, and it's harder to wrestle over a rifle than a handgun
>>29277354
SBR can have a proper stock that you can shoulder, and can be pretty much as compact as any AR-pistol.
Pic related is an SBR.
If it had just a bare buffertube, it could be a pistol.
The length and bulk would be just the same.
>>29277369
>just buy a new barrel, take apart your upper throw the .300 on it and put your barrel in a closet until you decide you want to shoot 5.56 again
Just get a new upper and switch uppers when you want to change to 300 or 5.56
>>29277369
I think this is supposed to be a dedicated home defense fun tho, as well I don't think it's really recommended to swap BCGs between uppers, unless you mean for him to swap the barrels out of the uppers. But that's a bitch and a half in itself unless he has the proper tools already
You know what to do
>>29277336
>what he means when dry firing and wet firing
What that means is whether or not there is some water in the baffles. A wet suppressor is even quieter, but obviously there's the added hassle of dealing with water.
hickok45 has a video on wet vs. dry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG_ADkNy3E0
>>29277372
These are all very valid points and making me reconsider the notion of buying a pistol.
>>29277371
I get having a stock is more beneficial, but all of the NFA rules generally are against you making a weapon shorter and more concealable, whereas this goes against that line of logic completely.
>>29277385
I don't and honestly, I've never built an AR before, so I'd probably have to do a ton of research before engaging in a project such as this.
>>29277391
This was pretty much what I was looking at from the get-go. Any info on specifically what that pistol and silencer are?
BTW, just on a side note, but does anyone else here try not to deviate outside of common rounds (9mm, .45, 5.56, 7.62) out of fear that widespread civil unrest is going to occur and you're going to be left with a gun that you can't find ammo for or am I being extremely paranoid?
>>29277428
>but all of the NFA rules generally are against you making a weapon shorter and more concealable, whereas this goes against that line of logic completely.
I don't know what you are getting at here
>>29277428
There shouldn't be much building required if you decide to go the .300BLK route,you'd basically be buying an upper with no BCG or charging handle most likely, it'll be specified as 300. And these days you can get a completed lower for a similar cost as you'd get it finished, and if I were you I'd look at probably a carbine buffer tube since they run better with 300. After that get whatever gucci or pleb tier BCG and whatever charging handle feels best in your hands, and drop them right into the upper, then it takes two pins to connect the upper and lower. Just make sure you don't have a welded flash hider on the barrel, get something threaded, and make sure there's no stock on the buffer tube until you either get a tax stamp for it as an SBR, or a Sig brace. Till you get the stamp it's a pistol and cannot have a normal stock, nor can it be shouldered if you install a brace. It's a fairly easy process, just shop around for what feels nice in your hands, and you'll do well. Not to mention the AR has a lot more modularity than a pistol, which is good since you'll want this gun to be as comfortable as possible
>>29277445
Maybe I'm misconstruing the law here, I'm not as familiar with it as some of you may be consider I don't own any NFA classified weapons, but from my perspective, the law is there to make weapons that are smaller and therefore more concealable, require a tax stamp whereas an AR pistol that is about just as long as a SBR with a collapsible stock is perfectly fine and requiring no tax stamp.
I guess what I'm driving at is what is point of the law?
>>29277428
>but all of the NFA rules generally are against you making a weapon shorter and more concealable
What?
If you have a weapon registered as an SBR, it can be any length you want, any grips or stocks, whatever.
>>29277485
>the law is there to make weapons that are smaller and therefore more concealable, require a tax stamp
Yes, they also wanted pistols to be NFA items but that failed.
>whereas an AR pistol that is about just as long as a SBR with a collapsible stock is perfectly fine and requiring no tax stamp
This is due to the ATF definition of a pistol and AR pistols being incapable of mounting a stock.
>I guess what I'm driving at is what is point of the law?
To fuck over gun owners and make it harder to get things the government views as dangerous, just because the citizenry found a way to follow the law to the letter while also essentially having an SBR with no stock does not have any bearing on the validity of the NFA in the ATF/antigunner politicians minds.
If anything it's further justification for them to pass more restrictive laws.
>look they are using loopholes to get around our gun control!
There is no point to the law, politicians and soccermoms are scared of guns and want to ban or restrict as much as they can so now we have stupid hoops to jump through and pistols are just a workaround to one of those hoops.
>>29277485
>an AR pistol that is about just as long as a SBR with a collapsible stock is perfectly fine and requiring no tax stamp.
True, but if you want a stock and vertical foregrip, you can have that with an SBR.
That said, an AR pistol is absolutely functional. You can shoulder it if it has a bare buffer tube (no brace or anything). Though you can't have a VFG, you can put a magwell grip on it, if that's your thing.
>>29277516
IIRC, angles foregrips are g2g as well
>>29277529
Those too, yes.
>>29277200
This anon is right and saved me typing. Thank you.
>>29277509
As much as I agree with all the points that you have made, I feel as though the restriction on full-auto was needed. It's a unpopular opinion, but I frankly feel like if you want a fully automatic weapon, you SHOULD have to jump through some hoops to get it. As fun as they are to shoot, I would be be pretty fucking scared myself if I saw some nutjob waltzing down the street with a M249 Bravo in tow. Same thing applies to explosives as well, you should be licensed to own and handle them.
>>29277586
I disagree, if you want to be a faggot about it move to faggotville
>hurr I don't like am scared of thing
>better ban/heavily restrict thing
Get out of my country.
>>29277586
>M249 Bravo
opinion discarded
>>29277600
Right, let's just give people who have no formal training nor prior knowledge of how to handle high explosives hand grenades, C4, RPGs, and belt felt machine guns capable of 1,000 RPM.
This should turn out well.
>>29277621
What, that's what my roommate calls it, he was part of cavalry over in Afghanistan and was one of the main guns that he used besides his M4.
>>29277653
Maybe you should start including said training in their schooling instead of trying to legislate away their rights you faggot.
>capable of 1,000 RPM.
MILITARY GRADE RPM!
>>29277663
>curriculum in school should include how to handle explosives and fully automatic weapons
That sounds about as retarded as Common Core. So where is the roof on your "rights"? If someone started passing out nuclear suitcase bombs to every Joe Bob and Danny Frank that wanted one, do you think you would even have a country in which to exercise said rights left?
>>29277700
You do know that explosives, or DDs are handled under a seperate law, and wouldn't be effected if we repealed the NFA, right? Or were you just busy jumping to extremes to justify your misinformed opinion? You asked us about NFA items and we told you, now shut the fuck up and take the advice or leave
>>29277700
>Jesus this slope is slippery
>>29277700
>compulsory military training is retarded
I will inform all the nations still partaking oh wise one.
>So where is the roof on your "rights"?
When I infringe on someone elses rights.
>If someone started passing out nuclear suitcase bombs
>my argument is so weak I need to start mouth shitting fallacies about nuclear weapons
First of all I don't think nuclear weapons fall under "arms".
Secondly they serve no strategic purpose in defend of person, family,state or country and really only pose a threat to the security of my nation.
The US has more small arms than people and 0% of them are used to kill someone and your argument is that if we actually allow the people their rights to proper small arms they will suddenly become murderous maniacs.
>>29277735
defense*
And I specifically meant suitcase nukes when I said they serve no strategic purpose.
Obviously ICBMs do.
>>29277354
Gun control doesn't have to make sense. Only what makes people feel safe anon.
>>29277714
Dude, I just wikid the shit, DD's as you say are clearly under Title II firearms
Explosive ordnance
Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines and similar devices (e.g. grenade launchers, rocket launchers). Parts intended for making such a device are also DDs. Small rockets, with less than 4 ounces (113 grams) of propellant, are exempt.
So, in this case, if the NFA was done away with, explosives are fair game.
>>29277735
Do any of these countries with compulsory military service have over 300 million citizens as well as give them access to weapons while not in service? Hell, I'm having a hard time finding many first world countries that have compulsory military training at all.
>>29277762
So you're meaning to say that if they did away with the NFA tomorrow, but under the condition that the rulings towards full-auto and explosives were still upheld, you wouldn't be satisfied?
>>29277776
What does it matter?
We have 300,000,000 citizens and many more guns in their hands and fuck all gun crime.
The majority of gun deaths are suicides.
And we have very few accidents.
Now give that population that is already doing a marvelous job proper training on how to treat and use their firearms.
>>29277776
Fuck no, it's my right to defend myself against the threat of a tyrannical government. You know, the same system TELLING ME I can't have an automatic weapon like their army (which means I'm not on the same grounds to fight back.)
I'm not one of the posters originally trying to put sense into your head but I'll gladly play ball.
>>29277776
Explosives are also controled under the Explosives Control Act on the federal level & most states have there own explosive laws.
>>29277796
Ok, on whose dime? The tax payers dollar? Not to mention, the sheer logistics of trying to teach every citizen, some of which don't even like guns, how to use them? Sounds highly impractical, costly, and never going to happen. And at that point, aren't you making something that is a freedom of choice to be something that is mandatory? "Billy flunked his gun course because he doesn't like guns and doesnt want to use them"
>>29277801
Do you not think you couldn't defend yourself against a tyrannical government with what you already have? Shit, governments the world over have been toppled with lower tech shit than what is on the shelf at an average American gun store. Not to mention, say that this scenario in your head that you have about a tyrannical government taking over happens... What stops you from shooting the traitorous soldiers that decided to side with the tyrannical government and taking their gun? And if you're going to bring up armored vehicles and drones, don't bother. No small arms are getting through an Abrams and drones still need Air Force pilots, which will be in very short supply. Not to mention, both of these modes of attack will be increasingly hard to maintain overtime due to maintenance on the vehicles and their supply lines.
>>29277819
Show me the state legislature that allows any regular old jackoff to buy as much dynamite, RDX, and C4 as they want without a license.
>>29277835
>Ok, on whose dime? The tax payers dollar?
We used to have shooting clubs in school and we already pay for military trainers.
>Not to mention, the sheer logistics of trying to teach every citizen, some of which don't even like guns, how to use them?
Compulsory is incorrect then, a class in high school and further optional training beyond is not far fetched and we spend assloads of money on stupider things.
>aren't you making something that is a freedom of choice to be something that is mandatory?
Yes I secede that any weapons training beyond highschool should be optional.
Basic function should be mandatory though.
>>29277586
Wow, turns out you're a fag.
I'm disappointed.
>>29277850
I'm not against the idea of shooting clubs, but that isn't curriculum, that is extra-curricular. We pay military trainers to train our military, not every kid in public schools. I don't even think we would have enough people trained enough to even institute a program like that, let alone pay all of them. Perhaps an elective that a student can choose to take? Also, basic function? That's a pretty broad swath, considering how different one gun's mode of operation is from another, how would you manage to teach basic functionality when the mechanics of an M16 are vastly different from a 1911 or a Colt single action?
>>29277885
And you're a weeaboo shitheel, fight me.
>>29277921
>Also, basic function? That's a pretty broad swath
Not really
>this is how bullets actually work
>don't point them at people
>keep your finger off the trigger
You don't have to teach them the ins and out of every firearm for them to have a basic grasp on how not to kill somebody with one.
And again, we spend billions of dollars on nonsense, I'm sure we can find the pennies to pay some trainers or the very least give a tax write off for getting trained.
>>29277943
You know, we used to have a program like that in this country that was spectacular, it was called parenting but I suppose this will be another issue forced upon the school system to deal with where others have failed.
Position still stands though. NFA is completely bogus, save explosives and full-auto, with the addendum that full-auto can start being produced again (because $20-120k for a machine gun is ridiculous) though you still have to be approved to own one.
>>29277979
Well shit happens when half of the parents are lefty faggots that don't want their kids touching guns and another large portion ignore their kids outright.
Society is not just going to unfuck itself, teach the kids what they need to know to function in the world because their fuckup parents most likely will not.
>>29277835
>Show me the state legislature that allows any regular old jackoff to buy as much dynamite, RDX, and C4 as they want without a license.
1. I was replying to the guy saying if the NFA was removed explosives would become unregulated.
2.laws say what you can't do not what you can, so even if i was saying any old jackoff could buy H.E. it would be impossible to show you a law that said they could.
>>29277200
9mm 147gr is subsonic and suppresses much better than .45
>>29277134
>I'm hesitant about the .300BLK, its not a very common round in comparison to the 5.56 and most of the SBR's I see are much more expensive than just getting a pistol with a threaded barrel.
I'd shy away from using an SBR in a home defense scenario just because that poor thing will be locked up in evidence and mishandled atrociously during the investigation, potentially with an evidence number dremeled into it if the PD is that shitty, if you ever have to use it.
I'm not sure if there's any potential shit you could get into if you had a suppressor on a handgun, had a defensive shooting, then removed the suppressor so it's just the handgun turned into evidence.
>>29277921
Why would I give you the satisfaction of a fight, you bootheel licking cucklord?
>>29278011
Absolutely true, but I only stated that regular 9mm loadings aren't subsonic, which they are not, and that .45 is regularly subsonic in most off the shelf loadings.
>>29278046
He's not saying that you're wrong. He's just helping OP with some useful additional information.
>>29278031
Hmm... these are legitimate concerns as well. I know I had my .22 LR confiscated that I was letting my friend borrow and when I luckily got it out of evidence lock up, it was beat to hell and covered in sticky masking tape. Fucking dumb asses.
I would say that you would definitely be tampering with evidence at that point. There is always a possibility that they dig the slug out of the shitbird that broke in and take a look at it under a microscope. From what I understand, rounds fired from a suppressed weapon have distinctive markings, at which point, they're going to look up your file and you're going to show up for possessing a silencer.
>>29278046
I dunno, maybe you had some want to improve your dick sucking game by losing some teeth?
Pic related, its not every day we have a celebrity in our midst folks.
>>29278060
>He's not saying that you're wrong
I never implied that he said I was wrong.
>>29278083
>I dunno, maybe you had some want to improve your dick sucking game by losing some teeth?
Ah, a venerable professional I see.
>>29277292
This. .22 is totally unreliable for self defense and too small. You're a moron if you are looking to use .22 for anything other than plinking or hunting small game.
>>29278083
Lol what are you talking about? Rounds through a can do not have markings you fucking idiot. The round never contacts the can. Stop posting here.
>>29278238
.22LR would probably not be an amazing weapon for defense, no, but conversely, a full-auto magdump from a converted 10/22 would fuck someone up, even if they don't drop immediately.
>>29278245
Maybe the dumb cuck thinks a suppressor somehow leaves marks on the bullet as it goes trough it?
>>29277246
USP-45 or a Glock 21
>>29278238
>sitting at home alone
>dark in my room, browsing my phone before bedtime
>suddenly dog stirs, starts barking at the door to my room
>"What is it boy?"
>growling
>suddenly and very faintly
>scuffling
>oh shit
>grab Buckmark from nightstand
>aim it at door
>just as sights level door is kicked open
>maniac with an axe starts charging
>magdump
>as soon as the ringing in my ears fade the firs thing I hear is
>laughing?
>maniac standing there pointing at me and laughing
>"Did you seriously use a fucking .22, faggot? Are you a fucking pussy brah? It's all about stopping pow-"
>maniac passes out
>bleeds to death
>>29278031
>potentially with an evidence number dremeled into it if the PD is that shitty, if you ever have to use it.
But that becomes an awesome conversation piece
>I'm not sure if there's any potential shit you could get into if you had a suppressor on a handgun, had a defensive shooting, then removed the suppressor so it's just the handgun turned into evidence.
A shitload. The forensics will be off a lot, you're tampering with evidence, and now you're suspicious and have even worse jury appeal than if you left it on.
>>29277586
A well regulated militia needs machine guns and grenades more than bolt actions and pistols. You can fuck right off with your pussy "I trust the government to protect me" bullshit.
It is absolitely illegal to use an NFA item on a human being for ANY reason.
>>29277586
It's one of those perceptions vs reality things
You can go down to the fun store and purchase a .50 cal anti-materiel rifle. It can destroy tank treads, engine blocks, and bring down a helicopter with ease.
A violent crime has never been committed with one, and it may be another century before it's used in a crime once, if ever.
Unless the criminals are wealthy and organized, they can only afford to use expendable concealable weapons. That's why semi-auto rifles "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime despite being the most effective weapons.
Eventually a mass shooting would happen with an automatic weapon. They'll hit less people.
>>29277134
>.45 is generally considered the best pistol round to suppress.
No. It's one of the easiest since almost all .45acp is subsonic but it's far from best. 9mm suppresses much better in subsonic weights due to the much higher SD.
>>29277835
>Ok, on whose dime? The tax payers dollar? Not to mention, the sheer logistics of trying to teach every citizen, some of which don't even like guns, how to use them? Sounds highly impractical, costly, and never going to happen. And at that point, aren't you making something that is a freedom of choice to be something that is mandatory? "Billy flunked his gun course because he doesn't like guns and doesnt want to use them"
Handle it just like sex ed and stop being an obtuse faggot about it. Information is good for people as long as it's accurate and not like that ammendment cliffs notes pic that gets passed around here from time to time.
>>29279198
>who is Gary Fadden
>>29277653
Eat a dick OP.
>>29277115
Ruger SR22 comes with a threaded barrel.
>but it lacks stopping power.
Get the right ammo, nigger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpIm1otEG1E
look at that aguila near the end. 2-3 of those center mass and anyone goes down.
>>29277339
Don't forget shit tier ballistics identical to 45acp.
>>29279776
Seems like .380ACP is better at incapacitating, statistically, and ultimately, incapacitation is what matters the most for a defensive gun
It's also subsonic, while having the advantage of centerfire ignition and more reliable feeding.
Get some of these for your .380ACP Beretta and it'll perform even better.
>>29279919
Nope, people who carry 380s are better at incapacitating.
>>29279776
>357 sig and mag in the same category
Fucking stupid. Just like you.
>>29279915
With subsonics? I guess, but personally I'd be willing to use somewhat better performing ammo at the cost of a louder gun.
The suppressor would still do some dampening.
>>29279919
If I was doing what OP is talking about, I'd go for a .357 if I didn't go for a .22lr.
>>29277182
Out of a pistol length barrel, it is guaranteed to be subsonic, it is also big and heavy. Which makes up for the slower speed. Suppressors further reduce velocity, and the only way to make up for that power loss is by adding weight, since going supersonic isn't an option.
>You can't go faster, so throw a heavier rock
>>29279986
I just grabbed the first and best stat in my ammo folder, I didn't make the damn thing, you imbecile.
>>29277115
get a Mark 23 with a suppressor
