5 Super-Quiet Guns That Don’t Need A Suppressor

Image source: AimSurplus.com

Most of the time when shooters are looking for quiet firearms, they will look for something on which they can mount a suppressor. That is all fine and well if you live in one of the 42 states where silencers are legal and if you can shell out the money ($250 -$1500) for a proper suppressor plus $200 for the permission slip from the ATF. Even if you go the form 1 route to make your own, there are still material costs and once again the $200 tax stamp.

However, if you stop and think about it, there are a number of firearms that are “quiet” in their own right. They may not give you the level of comfort experienced by shooting a suppressed rifle or pistol all day, but a handful of shots from one of these will definitely not “ring your ears” — and some are as quiet as an air rifle.

1. Mosin Nagant M91/30. If your Mosin’s barrel has been cut down in any way or is something like an M91/59 or M44, please do not attempt this, as you will go deaf. I found out by accident on the M91/59.

I had been testing a group of rifles, three suppressed and one unsuppressed. After replacing a target from a suppressed string of fire from an M1A, I went back to my bench and picked up a Mosin Nagant M91/30 sniper rifle.

After charging the rifle with a stripper clip of copper-washed military surplus (milsurp) ammo, I fired a shot. Then I fired another and another and finally realized that my ear protection was sitting on the bench next to me. My ears were not ringing. Out of curiosity, I cranked off another shot. My ears still were not ringing.

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

Since much of the noise from a gunshot has to do with the combustion of the powder before the bullet has left the barrel, I came to the conclusion that the powder charge was well-contained within the optimal length of the barrel. Coupled with the fact that the long 29-inch barrel was putting that signature about three-feet away from my ears meant I could shoot that all day with no indication of tinnitus.

Make no mistake, if you shoot something like this, people from a mile away may hear it, but you probably will not damage your eardrums if you have no ear pro.

2. Beretta M950. It seems like yesterday that these pistols were everywhere. It was a distinctive-looking, small 22 Short semi-auto pistol with a tip-up barrel. However, these pistols were notoriously quiet because there is just not a whole lot of powder in a 22 Short case. Fully extended, that barrel is going to be three feet away from my eardrums, even if I use the longer 4-inch version.

I used mine about 12 years ago to shoot a field mouse on the back porch. No ears rang, no neighborhood dogs barked, no neighbors came out to investigate and no police were called. The sound signature is like a pellet gun.

3. Marlin 25MG. This was a short-lived rifle manufactured by Marlin and has been out of production for at least 15 years. They were only made for about four or five years and were designed to be a “quiet” garden gun.

Chambered in 22 WRM and intended to use shot-shell loads, it has a smoothbore, like a shotgun. They were bought up by airports, warehouse workers and even a few museums for pest control without NFA hassles. They are a bit expensive when they come up for sale, but if your survival scenario calls for short-range small-game hunting without waking up the countryside, this is the one you need.

4. Smith & Wesson Model 17. This one does require special ammunition be used. I have tried it with Gemtech Subsonic, CCI Quiet and Remington Subsonic. Most 22 match ammo that uses a lead bullet and has a low velocity will do the job, too. You can use other double-action revolvers like a Ruger Single Six, Colt Scout or NAA Mini Revolver to the same effect.

I mentioned the Smith & Wesson Model 17 because that’s my double-action rim fire revolver of choice with an 8 3/8-inch barrel. All of those subsonic rounds that would not cycle my semi-autos work like a champ in this revolver, and if the cylinder gap is close like in my Smith, it sounds like a kid’s cap gun (back when they let kids play with cap guns).

5. Remington Rolling Block in 45-70. That may seem like an unusual choice based on the size of the bullet and case. But if you are a hand-loader, you can get a 200-plus grain bullet moving about 750 feet per second that meters about 130 decibels on a sound meter. Because it’s a long-barreled, single-shot rifle, you won’t be able to put too many lead balls in the air close enough to damage your ears.

These are but five examples that I found worked for me, but if you do a little research you may find some of your own, like a 148 grain Hollow Based Wad Cutter through a 38 Special with only two grains of Bull’s-eye powder behind it, or maybe a 30-inch goose gun single-shot 12 gauge that brings down birds without alerting the neighbors on the next ridge.

What is your favorite quiet gun? Share your advice in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns For Home Defense. Read More Here.

Suppressors - The First Battle In The New Push For Gun Rights

Submitted by Duane at Free Market Shooter blog,

Donald Trump Jr. firing a suppressed rifle

The first push for gun rights in the upcoming Trump administration is already shaping up, and Trump hasn’t even taken office yet.

The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (HPA) was introduced a week ago today, on Monday January 9th.  The bill is aimed at removing suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires an extremely difficult application process and a $200 “tax stamp” to “transfer” ownership from one individual to another.  The NRA sums up the truth on suppressors and the HPA below:

The HPA would remove sound suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and treat them as ordinary firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As with other firearms, commercial manufacturers, dealers, and importers would still have to be licensed, and the items’ retail sales would be subject to the GCA’s background check and transfer form requirements.

 

Currently, suppressors (misleadingly referred to as “silencers” in federal law) are subject to the NFA’s cumbersome and lengthy application process and a $200 tax stamp. Lawful purchasers can expect a raft of red tape and months of waiting. This is so, even though the devices themselves are completely harmless and very rarely used in crime.

 

Contrary to their portrayal in movies and television shows, suppressors do not render firearms all but soundless. They do, however, make them safer and quieter to operate.

 

Suppressors have soared in popularity in recent years, as more and more hunters and firearm owners have discovered their benefits. Private ownership is legal in 42 states, and they are lawful for hunting in 40 of those states.

 

Ironically, regulation of suppressors is one area where American gun owners are at a relative disadvantage to their counterparts in other countries. In England – which has gone a long way toward eradicating private firearm ownership – suppressors are nevertheless encouraged for private firearm owners and mandatory for uses such as pest control. 

I’ve previously detailed this exact point – suppressors are hardly the scourge the gun control crowd portrays them as.  The sound reduction is in the 20-30db range, maximum, and that sound reduction is only achieved by attaching a large, bulky device to the barrel of a firearm.  Given the fact that the sound reduction still keeps the firearm quite loud, even for a .22LR (generally considered the smallest widely available caliber), it is hardly practical for criminals to use them.

Take a look at the above chart – if you assume a 160db shot can be suppressed to 130db (still quite loud), the only real practical use for suppressors is to reduce the net effect of the deafening sound of a gunshot.  The excessive noise of gunshots is a nuisance for anyone nearby (within a mile or more), makes building and licensing shooting ranges difficult due to NIMBY, and the same nuisance problems apply for hunting.

Just think – would you want to hear the constant sound of gunshots from a shooting range near your home?  If firearm suppression were to become more commonplace, it would make the devices less of an auditory threat to the user and non-user alike.  Would automobiles have become as commonplace as they are today without mufflers?

However, that hasn’t stopped the MSM from jumping in to demonize suppressors.  Jeff Bezos’s blog, The Washington Post, recently released an article with the click-bait headline “Gun silencers are hard to buy. Donald Trump Jr. and silencer makers want to change that.”  WaPo did manage to push another bit of fake news in the article with its quote from the gun control crowd:

The silencer industry and gun rights groups say critics are vastly overstating the dangers, arguing that Hollywood has created an unrealistic image of silencers, which they prefer to call “suppressors.” They cite studies showing that silencers reduce the decibel level of a gunshot from a dangerous 165 to about 135 — the sound of a jackhammer — and that they are rarely used in crimes.

But gun-control activists say silencers are getting quieter, particularly in combination with subsonic ammunition, which is less lethal but still damaging. They point to videos on YouTube in which silencers make high-powered rifles have “no more sound than a pellet gun,” according to one demonstrator showing off a silenced semiautomatic ­.22LR.

If you check out the video cited by the gun control, you’ll realize the firearm is still quite auditory.  Not only that, the .22LR caliber is extremely weak, commonly being used to hunt animals of squirrel size, and the subsonic ammunition used for maximum suppression could have difficulty cycling the action of the gun.  Take a look at the videos in my original article to get an accurate idea of what sound suppression in firearms is actually like.

Sebastian of PA Gun Blog detailed the way this battle will be won and suppressors moved out of NFA restriction:

You can hate the Washington Post’s ignorant article about suppressors, but I have to admit that tying it to the Trumps was an effin’ brilliant way to frame the issue if the aim is to derail the bill. Why? Because most people don’t really give a shit or understand this issue, but if you try to imply the Trumps have something to gain from it, you trigger all the lefty hate rage, and that gets people who otherwise wouldn’t care motivated to oppose it. If the Trumps want it, surely it must be the Worst. Idea. Ever. That’s exactly what I’m seeing around social media.

The key is to speak out in favor of the issue. Put a human face on it. A lot of the same folks who complain about this bill are the same types who complain about noise emanating from gun clubs. Imagine if clubs could encourage members to use suppression? Right now that’s not a reasonable request because of the regulations. Push the training angle, and how it makes it much safer during instruction if the person being instructed can actually hear commands. This is one of those issues where we have really good arguments, and the other side is stuck hoping people believe Hollywood portrayals of how silencers work, and are willing to jump in and ra! ra! team! in opposition is the issue is framed in a way that triggers an emotional response.

The easiest way to win the battle is to show people the truth about what these devices are, and what they aren’t.  Listen to Sebastian and put a human face on the issue.  In addition, put an inhuman face on The Washington Post – Jeff Bezos – and expose the ignorance and duplicity of the MSM and Hollywood’s portrayal of suppressors.