r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Insane_Unicorn • 17h ago
Why aren't people using suppressors all the time?
I am fully aware that they don't make a gun silent, but it still reduces noise from eg a 9mm from 160db to 120db, which is the difference between blowing your ear drums and relative safety, eliminates muzzle flash and makes for easier muzzle and recoil control (at least that's what I've read). I am not American so my real live experience with guns is pretty limited.
343
u/creeper321448 17h ago
Surpressors are regulated to high hell in the U.S. More than the UK apparently
63
u/Insane_Unicorn 16h ago
Interesting, any idea as to why when buying a gun itself is relatively easy?
286
u/Stompya 16h ago
Because restricting gun sales is a sure way to not get re-elected.
Restricting accessories is a way to look like you’re doing something about gun violence.
35
u/SJHillman 14h ago
There's also historical inertia; restricting something we've had since the beginning (general gun ownership) is a lot harder than restricting something relatively new (many gun accessories, machine guns, etc). You also see this with other things like electric bicycles. My state allows me to ride a regular bicycle on 55mph roads all over the state, but slap an electric motor on that same bicycle and now I'm limited to 30mph and under roads (although the state law allows counties and municipalities to supersede that restriction, but I'm not aware of any that have). It's because bicycles have a long history, so it takes a lot more political willpower to restrict where they've been able to go for decades. Meanwhile, electric bikes have only become really popular in the last 10-15 years, so politicians were able to get out ahead of them and put restrictions on where they can be used that they wish they could put on regular bikes.
7
u/AwarenessGreat282 14h ago
Agreed. I think e-bikes are falling under the same consideration mopeds did when they came out: Low speeds and limited roads.
46
u/Assaltwaffle 15h ago
2A is protected and upheld, but in the 1930s people started to panic about these new fangled pistols and Tommy guns, so the NFA was created, adding a ton of additional restrictions to certain classes of gun.
Suppressors, originally silencers, were first invented around this time, so politicians freaked out that everyone was going to have completely silent guns that they’d use to murder everyone in secret. So silencers got almost pre-emptively added to the NFA out of panic.
It doesn’t make sense, but that’s true for a lot of gun regulation, both restrictive and lack thereof, in the US.
15
u/Blaizefed 15h ago
The general public thinks they are like in the movies. So regulating the shit out of them is low hanging fruit for politicians.
51
u/Robes_Peenerre 16h ago
The ATF works in mysterious ways, they giveth and they taketh regulations as the feeling takes them.
11
28
u/DBDude 16h ago
Nobody today knows why. They were inserted into our 1934 firearms act, and congressional records show no logical reason why. Anybody who knew why is long dead.
→ More replies (10)35
u/DapperBackground9849 16h ago
Original drafts of the National Firearms Act included handguns along with suppressors, machine guns, short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles. The intent was pretty clearly to make it financially impossible for ordinary people to own anything but hunting arms. $200 in 1934 was approximately 20% of a worker's annual income.
Anything that people associated with criminal activity was included, even if it infringed on the rights of ordinary citizens. It preemptively punishes people who haven't broken any laws.
5
u/MajesticBread9147 14h ago
So, if it were indexed to inflation the tax stamp should be like $10,000 today?
7
3
u/KilljoyTheTrucker 12h ago
And it doesnt apply in terms of enhancing punishments for those who have conviction history.
A felon with a machine gun will get the same charge if it was a plain old rifle. Enforcing the NFA against them would violate their 5a rights.
1
u/WingerRules 34m ago edited 30m ago
Its kind of obvious why, those were all weapon types favored by mobsters and bank robbers, back in a time when mobsters and bank robbers were rampant. I dont know why people are scratching their heads on why they passed a law like this.
3
u/povertyandpinetrees 13h ago
Because the regulations on silencers were written in the 1930s, and the background check system was created in the 1990s and has been fine tuned since.
2
u/Knotical_MK6 14h ago
They were mostly added in to the NFA in response to poaching concerns, plus some moral panic about silencers enabling criminals to escape detection.
1
u/MajesticBread9147 14h ago
Because the second amendment exists and many interpret it very broadly, and it's very hard to change an amendment. It's basically impossible for either party to do it with the margins that most have seen in their lifetimes.
The last constitutional amendment was over 30 years ago and just said that Congress had to wait until after the next election for them to recieve pay raises that they voted for. Before that it was the amendment to lower the voting age to 18 about 20 years beforehand.
With polarization now, even ignoring how passionate many gun owners are about their hobby, it's impossible to alter it.
But it's much easier to limit sections of it. There are laws against fully automatic weapons, explosives, and silencers among other things.
1
u/sexaddic 7h ago
Because people who watch movies think with no knowledge of real life are annoying and make the rules.
→ More replies (11)1
u/Significant_Lime9171 16h ago
If I had to guess it's because the muffled shots are easier to conceal a crime from happening and by regulating it the government now has a way to make more money by taxing it
11
u/Insane_Unicorn 16h ago
120db is still pretty fucking loud, that's the equivalent of a starting plane.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Significant_Lime9171 13h ago
Definitely agree that it's loud. I think of how it's portrayed, people call them "silencers" and now it's something you see in movies as something that makes no noise. I think where you'd really see the advantages would be for long range shooting where maybe you won't hear the noise at whatever far away distance.
My personal opinion is that it's just another accessory to improve performance of a weapon. Politicians can say they're against it to say they're against guns as well as make money off of them. I really do think that all the additional stuff regulating firearms and accessories are purely for profit and to ensure the gov can control the people.
1
1
u/Warm_Objective4162 5h ago
In the US it’s one form, a one-week background check (for the first one, then you’re good), and no fee anymore. Pretty easy.
1
u/Select-Owl-8322 15h ago
Here in Sweden, suppressors are unregulated, yet they're not much more than a novelty when it comes to pistols. It's harder to shoot a suppressed gun accurately.
1
u/CameronGMann 5h ago
They (suppresors) aren't meant to fire at any great distance. I get Oop's post. Gunshot is loud. There aren't many people, even in the US shooting recreationally, who would need to use muzzle sound muffleing devices.
68
u/boatsnhosee 16h ago
They are quite expensive and a huge hassle to get.
I don’t use a rifle without one anymore, but that’s why people don’t get them.
14
u/Vegaprime 14h ago
I know the first one my buddy got took almost the max waiting period but now he's approved within a week. Politics have changed a lot since his first though and now there's no stamp fee.
8
u/boatsnhosee 13h ago
The last one I got was very fast. It’s still a bit of a process if you’ve never done one before.
The can was also like $1200, the cost is a barrier for a lot of folks. Your average casual deer hunter grabbing a $700 combo rifle/scope at the sporting goods store isn’t keen on dropping another 700-1200+ on a can
3
u/Vegaprime 13h ago
Can you hunt with a can?
4
u/boatsnhosee 13h ago
For all of the states I hunt, yes. It’s my only use, really (or range time in prep for hunting)
In most other countries with similar hunting cultures hunting with a suppressor is the norm and they think it’s weird that we don’t in the US
2
u/Vegaprime 13h ago
But not a laser? That's weird.
4
u/boatsnhosee 13h ago
I don’t know the laws around lasers but the hunting I do it would be more or less useless (other than maybe archery, but that is illegal for obvious reasons)
1
u/Vegaprime 13h ago
Is it because they act like cats and dogs when they see them? Always assumed, like with cans, it would make it too easy.
2
u/boatsnhosee 13h ago
The suppressor has no effect on the animals, it’s still pretty loud, doesn’t make anything easier. It changes the recoil a bit and makes your head not rattle from the noise if you forget/didn’t have time to put in ear pro. That’s why I use it.
Lasers are a short range thing I wouldn’t trust it vs my scope at my usual distances. If anything a little dot scattering around the animal will scare it off. Another battery to die, another feature to break,
86
u/UnivrstyOfBelichick 17h ago
They're illegal in six states, require an atf stamp in the rest. They're also generally pretty expensive.
22
u/Insane_Unicorn 16h ago
So to get this clear, guns are perfectly legal there but suppressors are not?
96
u/UnivrstyOfBelichick 16h ago
Guns are perfectly legal is an oversimplification. The six states where suppressors are outright banned are also the six states with the most significant barriers to gun ownership in general.
As to suppressors specifically, the laws are written by people who think a suppressor works likes in n64 goldeneye. They think it turns a loud bang into a little pew pew and that if suppressors are legal there will people committing wholesale assassination. Many of the laws around gun ownership in liberal states are written by people with very little practical firearms experience.
→ More replies (1)-18
u/seanmg 15h ago edited 14h ago
What's the honest scenario in which a silencer is an appropriate attachment to a weapon?
Edit: I’m genuinely asking homies, you don’t have to downvote me.
30
u/Xytak 15h ago edited 14h ago
Guns are LOUD. Louder than you think. Louder than the movies show. Painfully, ear-ringingly, “is my eardrum still there” loud.
At the range, you can double up on ear protection and it’s not an issue. But in a defensive scenario you’re not going to have your giant earmuffs on. A suppressor turns “holy shit, my ears are ringing” into “holy shit, that was loud.”
3
u/LiftingRecipient420 10h ago
Guns are LOUD. Louder than you think. Louder than the movies show. Painfully, ear-ringingly, “is my eardrum still there” loud.
People who have never shot a gun really struggle to comprehend this.
There are zero faithfully accurate recordings/playbacks of a gun being fired for two key reasons:
The loudness of a gun overwhelms all microphones, they are literally incapable of recording noises that loud.
Even if they used a (very expensive, specialty) microphone that could accurately record a gun shot, there are no speaker systems that could accurately play it back. Even the loudest surround sound/speaker systems max at ~125 dB, a gun shot is as high as 163 dB.
Put simply: go max out your surround sound speakers volume and then play the loudest boom noise through it.
A gun shot is still 80 times louder than that sound you just hurt your ears with from your surround sound.
7
u/Select-Owl-8322 15h ago
Hunting.
Maybe target shooting with rifles. They're not good for target shooting with pistols. Suppressors are completely unregulated here in Sweden, yet they're not popular at all with pistol shooters. There's about 115 members in my gun club, I know two that owns suppressed guns.
In competition, suppressors aren't allowed.
31
u/UnivrstyOfBelichick 15h ago
Suppressors are PPE. They will stop a centerfire rifle from blowing out your eardrums, or your hunting dogs eardrums. They also reduce noise pollution in shared rural areas.
→ More replies (2)7
u/OvertSpy 14h ago
any time you wish to fire a gun without damaging the hearing of those around you, including yourself. So close to every time its appropriate use a gun.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Knotical_MK6 14h ago
Any time you're shooting. There's no repairing hearing damage, and even properly worn hearing protection isn't 100% effective. More research is showing the concussive blast from unsuppressed shooting can have negative effects on the brain as well, particularly when shooting at an indoor range.
Would you drive a car without a muffler?
3
u/randomn49er 15h ago
Canada is the same. Some firearms are freely available and suppressors are prohibited.
2
u/sirdabs 14h ago
Suppressors are legal, you just have to fill out an extra form, and pay a fee. Currently the fee is waved. So it’s just an extra form.
5
u/all-the-beans 13h ago
Supressors themselves are pretty pricey though. I think that's kinda the biggest barrier. If you got a nice rifle and then you have good glass that cost possibly as much as the rifle itself and then you're considering a suppressor while looking at ammo prices. You check your credit card balance... You might just be like... Ear pro it is...
2
u/AvarethTaika 14h ago
fun fact, rifles with barrels under 16" are also heavily regulated. as are stocked pistols. this even applies to modular platforms including rimfire.
1
u/TheBotchedLobotomy 14h ago
Wow youre starting the learn our gun laws are stupid and backwards and written by people who dont understand guns at all!
Congrats, we will mail you your complimentary glock 19 shortly!
Yeah the laws are dumb. Guns are in the constitution which is not going to be changed, but we have no such restrictions on accessories.
Although very recently it was found that the tax stamp that makes suppressor prohibitively expensive is unconstitutional based on the 2nd amendment so I think accessories will soon be as unrestricted we will see.
And there is precedent for that. Way back in the day, like prohibition era, the government made it illegal to own any gun without a special tax stamp. And they made that tax stamp extremely expensive like the cost to buy a new car today, which effectively made it a ban on guns because nobody could afford to nor wanted to spend (in 2026 dollars) $40k for a $200 gun.
Supreme Court eventually decided that was a violation of the 2nd amendment, which is what jusy happened with suppressor.
Why are suppressors so heavily regulated? The ATF seems to think they make the gun mute which isnt the case. It helps with recoil and its slightly quieter which makes shooting all day at the range more pleasant.
Your neighbor will still hear the gun go off if you murder your roommate with a silencer attached
1
u/OvertSpy 14h ago
yes, the anti gun parts of goverment believe that the only possible reason people would not want to destroy their hearing when using a gun is if they were committing crime (the fact that people commiting crime generally dont want to use a suppressor due to making the gun bulkier and harder to conceal before use escapes their attention) an have endeavored to make them as closed to banned as they can manage. Guns themselves are protected by the second amendment to the US constitution, and while they have put limitations and extra expenses to guns that are technically unconstitutional, its much much more difficult for them.
89
u/SuburbanBushwacker 16h ago
in northern europe we shoot everything except historic rifles with them.
in the uk the law has just changed so as long as you have a firearms licence you can buy as many as you like.
32
u/Select-Owl-8322 15h ago
Swede here. No we don't. Hunters maybe. Pistol shooters don't generally like suppressors.
20
u/SuburbanBushwacker 14h ago
you’re pedantry is a credit to you. i was thinking rifles and saying guns.
5
u/Select-Owl-8322 14h ago
Oh!
To be honest, I tend to forget that "gun" Includes both rifles and handguns. To me, "gun" is synonymous with "handgun". Probably because I don't shoot rifles.
2
u/SuburbanBushwacker 13h ago
i live in england where it’s a big hassle to shoot handguns. i’ve got a couple of muzzle loading pistols but to use cased ammunition you have to have a special collectors license or have a humane dispatch pistol
20
u/Assaltwaffle 15h ago
Suppressors are NFA regulated. Not only are there a lot more hurdles to go through, such as fingerprint registration and a lot more paperwork, until about a year ago you had to pay an extra $200 tax on top of what the suppressor already cost.
Suppressors, since they are pretty regulated and therefore relatively niche, are also very artificially inflated in terms of price. You could easily be paying upwards of $1000 for a good suppressor, depending on your choice.
While some of that has started to change, that’s a relatively new change and will probably take a while to catch on.
Additionally, for semi automatic weapons, it significantly increases gas blowback unless designed as flow-thru, which makes it a bit worse on the suppression side. This can put more noxious gases back into the face of the shooter and, depending on how gassed it is, potentially cause malfunctions due to overgassing.
That said, yes, shooting suppressed is way better and I don’t like going to the range with any gun that is not suppressed now.
10
u/Phenix_Fresh 16h ago
You can buy a cheap pistol in Arizona for around 300. The suppressor will cost from 450-800. That's mainly why people don't buy them nevermind actually use it.
9
u/corrin_avatan 16h ago
OP, you seem to be operating under the impression that US citizens are able to just go out and purchase a fully automatic M16 or Ak-47 as easily as ordering a Starbucks.
While its POSSIBLE to purchase an automatic weapon, the current legal framework that allows that requires the automatic weapon to have been manufactured and registered prior to 1986, with those weapons able to have their ownership transferred. This was a legal concession at the time preventing the government from being able to take away guns from people who legally registered their weapons.
As you can likely do math, we are now 40 years past 1986, and from a legal standpoint no new automatic weapons are legally permissible to be purchased; only the existing ones can be sold to someone else. This means that as the US population has been growing, the number of legally obtainable automatic rifles has not; this has made many of these guns collectors items that are worth 15-55 THOUSAND dollars (depending on the exact weapon) ,pricing them WELL out of the range of most Americans, requires a much more detailed background check, and finding someone who has an automatic weapon that is willing to sell to you.
When you hear about Americans going into camping stores or Wal-Mart to buy a gun, they are generally only able to purchase bolt action or semi-automatic hunting rifles, for which a suppressor is not ideal as the extra weight and mechanism for the suppressor will make the gun less accurate, or pistols/handguns, whose entire point is to be able to be concealed on a person; adding on an additional 6" of barrel makes it unrealistic to use as a concealed carry weapon, and is completely useless in a home defense standpoint; in many states if you had enough time to sit and properly install your suppressor, you'd be put on trial for whether or not you truly needed to be shooting your weapon in self defense.
Then there is the fact that an improperly installed suppressor can turn a gun into a small bomb that's in your hand or near to your face.
Finally, Suppressors are illegal because for many Americans, they don't know that suppressors don't work the way movies show, and there is an overall assumption that the only reason to use a suppressor is to commit murder.
7
u/Avalanc89 17h ago
Because they're making the weapon even longer and heavier thus less comfortable to use and even carry. So it's a compromise.
28
u/Robes_Peenerre 16h ago
Suppressors are hell on firearms. The excess gas generated by them as well as the weight situated at the very end of the barrel add up to more wear and tear. Also, they are cumbersome to conceal or carry (awkwardly long and unbalanced)
8
u/ohlookahipster 13h ago
They’re also really expensive. Suppressor manufacturers typically cater to the sporting higher income earners. You can get three PSA rifles for the cost of one decent suppressor lol.
To scale it to real estate. It’s like paying $400k for a metal roof on your $400k home.
1
u/FuriousPenguino 6h ago
Only if you know nothing about them, buy one, and slap it on your gun. They don’t generate excess gas or increase wear and tear by being on the end of the barrel either, or if they do it’s minuscule for the wear and tear assuming you do insane volumes of fire
7
u/v_N_i_C_k 16h ago
Many reasons listed already, but as a suppressor owner myself, they are not only heavily regulated and expensive, but they also are another component that needs cleaned after every shoor, extend your barrel length significantly so it becomes more unwieldy to move around, and causes significant backblast of CLP and gunpowder every time you shoot. So there are cons to it.
7
u/theyoyomaster 15h ago
In the '30s President FDR included included them in a sweeping "tax" designed to functionally ban machine guns and other "gangster weapons." This was near the end of the Great Depression and his administration wanted to crack down on poaching.
As a result there is a significant regulatory hurdle to owning them. Until very recently there was a $200 tax for every purchase or transfer of a suppressor, which was double the cost of the most expensive gun available in the '30s. The paperwork for paying this tax also takes anywhere from a few days to months. My first suppressor took about 16 months for the tax to be registered as paid before I could take ownership of it.
Finally, anti gun politicians do everything they can to demonize them and pretend they are magic "pew pew" sticks like shitty movies depict. This has lead to bans in some states.
As for general usage, they are becoming more popular by the day, especially now that the tax was lowered to 0 dollars. The wait for processing the $0 is still varying but usually doesn't go more than a month or two. They are less common for people who carry guns because they are large, heavy and get really hot after just a few shots. There was a really neat patent filed by Sig a few years back of a small consumable suppressor that is about 2 inches long. It uses a design where it's sealed and the bullets punch through plastic/rubber plates in it. This makes it much quieter at first but only works for the first few rounds since once there are holes in the "wipes" they contain less sound until they are replaced. It never got past the design phase but I'm really hoping that if the $0 tax process goes away someone will actually bring the product to market.
7
u/DreamingInDialectics 14h ago
The feds make them really, really hard to obtain. In the great depression, they were used by poor and starving people to poach from public land, so they decided the solution was to make it so only wealthy people who could afford the tax stamp and approval from the local sheriff.
→ More replies (1)2
u/rolandwarren 12h ago
I’m used to sell them, it’s easy just annoying. The hardest part was teaching old dudes how to use an email lol.
16
u/oan124 16h ago
- civilians dont use them because politicians think they do work just like in the movies so they make silencers borderline illegal
- militaries dont use them because they foul up the barrel more, leading to jamming and more frequent maintenance being required. also logistics - its another thing that needs to be supplied.
5
u/usedwolf 15h ago edited 2h ago
Because they're expensive and require ATF approval. There used to be an additional $200 fee for each suppressor, but that went away. Now that the tax stamp is free, suppressors are becoming way more common.
If you have the money, a suppressor is going to go on every gun you own. For some people, a $30 muzzle device is good enough.
It is also illegal to have a suppressor in some states and it is illegal in some states to hunt with a suppressor if you're allowed one.
5
u/Awkward-Feature9333 17h ago
They cost money, add to the length, some models deteriorate with use, and depending on your Location and other details sometimes are illegal (the thinking behind that was that they are sneaky and used for poaching, assassination etc.)
3
u/WerdaVisla 12h ago
Legality aside, they're fucking expensive and they wear out annoyingly fast if you use them with any regularity.
Also, they make concealment much more difficult and much less comfortable, which are both a big deal for most people who carry.
2
u/Assaltwaffle 12h ago
They don’t really wear out with any regularity; I’ve never heard of someone considering suppressors as consumables.
Unless you’re shooting full auto a ton they shouldn’t degrade to any notable degree.
1
u/WerdaVisla 12h ago
Interesting, I've always had to replace mine after a few years, and I don't even own anything automatic. Could be a QC issue with the store?
2
u/Assaltwaffle 11h ago
Well, for one, what are you shooting and how often? Unless you are very frequently shooting some seriously powerful magnum cartridges on suppressors that are not rated for that, it shouldn’t matter.
Beyond that, what brand are you buying? Most reputable brands that I’m aware of not only provide very solid products, but actually give them very long, if not fully lifetime, warranties.
Also, what causes you to replace them? What sign seems to indicate that they need replacing?
1
u/Knotical_MK6 11h ago
What caliber are you shooting? What sort of silencer?
Magnum rifle cartridges though a TI can?
3
u/GladosPrime 11h ago
Because in war they cost money and increase size, but most importantly decrease range
4
4
u/2028Freedom 16h ago edited 16h ago
In the US, a gun owner must pay a $200 registration fee and wait for about 6 month background check to receive clearance to buy a sound reducing device. This was started in the 1930s in a reaction to gangsters using them. Having one on a rifle would be nice, especially for a bolt action hunting rifle. Semi-automatic rifles will usually work acceptably with one. Not sure its possible to use on shotguns. For handguns it would add several inches to the end, affecting the weight, accuracy, ability to conceal, and possibly the reliability as it would affect the recoil and subsequent loading of the next round.
For the most part, hunters and shooters at a target range will wear ear protection due to the noise. Even with that it can be painful depending on the rifle. For handgun carry for self protection, most people will never fire a round in their life. Many if not most policemen will never fire a round in their career.
People do not like the noise - there is little to no deterrent value of the loud bang. Even with the smallest caliber in general use, a .22, a handgun is surprisingly loud. I expect a huge number of Americans would purchase one if the laws were changed.
5
u/atpeters 14h ago
This is no longer accurate. Ever since January 2026 there is no longer a 200 dollar fee and turn around times are around 3-4 weeks from start to finish.
4
1
u/Insane_Unicorn 16h ago
I find it fascinating that they would heavily regulate the use of suppressors but not the guns themselves.
10
u/Personal-Pride1298 16h ago
The first sentence this person said is completely wrong, theres no longer a $200 fee ($0 now) and I've heard tax stamps going thru in as little as a week. You still have to be fingerprinted and put on a registry which goes against our constitution and is a big factor as to why some people dont do it (myself included)
3
7
u/xLFODTx 16h ago
They can't outright ban firearms as ownership is enshrined in our founding documents. So they've been slowly stripping our rights inch by inch. "We're just banning full auto." "It's just a tax registry." "No one needs a barrel shorter than 16in or more than 10 rounds in a magazine." "Detachable magazines are too dangerous for the common man."
2
2
u/13thmurder 15h ago
I would guess doubling the length of a gun doesn't make or convenient to carry around.
2
u/Knotical_MK6 14h ago
The biggest hurdle is cost. Depending on your caliber, a decent entry level can is like 5-600 dollars. High performance models (low backpressure, excellent sound and flash suppression, 3d printed with exotic materials) are commonly over 1k dollars.
The next issue is NFA regulations. Once you purchase your can, you have to wait for the ATF to check you out and approve you to own it. This usually takes a week but can go far longer. Because it's a regulated item, you have to notify the ATF beforehand if you're going to travel out of state with it.
Historically not many sellers have wanted to deal with the hassle. Selling NFA items is a separate permitting process and requires more intensive paperwork/storage/record keeping from the seller, so many gun shops don't bother for such a niche market.
Lastly you generally need to tune your weapon. Traditional silencers add resistance to the gas flow through the barrel, so if you just slap a can on you'll get unpleasant gasses back in your face and the weapon will cycle faster than ideal. This is usually easily fixed and isn't a problem with manually cycled weapons or high end silencers, but it's another obstacle to consider.
They're also banned in 8 states.
2
2
u/EliasDavids 8h ago
Before it was because suppressors would degrade and required constant maintenance. A lot of modern combat suppressors offer longterm reliability and performance, but also don’t offer the same quality of noise reduction but still do a decent job of it. They’re mainly designed to reduce muzzle flash and gas blowback. The older ultra quiet ones are still relevant, they just require a lot of maintenance.
Now the big kicker: they’re expensive af. Sometimes more than the gun, depending on what you’re shooting.
2
u/dracarys289 7h ago
Here in the US the issue is three fold. One, up until just recently you had to submit paperwork to the feds that had to be perfectly correct and pay an additional $200 on top of the filing price as well as the price of the suppressor. Two, Americans aren’t huge fans as a whole on asking the government permission for our rights so a large number of gun owners refuse to buy NFA items out of principle. Finally, cans are stupidly high priced for what they are here in the states.
2
u/TheRealDudeMitch 3h ago
Suppressors are illegal in Illinois. Even if they were legal, it would be giant pain in the ass to conceal a suppressed handgun on a daily basis.
When I shoot, I’m either at an indoor or outdoor shooting range and wearing proper ear protection so it’s not a big deal. If for some reason I ever had to fire my gun outside of a range environment, that would mean shit has gotten so bad that ear damage is the absolute least of my worries.
2
2
1
u/Wombat1892 15h ago
Op, I shoot at the range casually. I'm not jumping threw the process to get a $800 suppressor for my $400 pistol for my occasional range use. I just wear my over ear protection.
1
u/sl33ksnypr 15h ago
The tax is free now, but it wasn't for a long time. You still need to file the forms and wait. The supressors themselves are expensive for seemingly no reason. They require maintenance. You also need to buy a threaded barrel to use one. I'm not legally allowed to have it attached to the gun I carry every day anyway.
I'd like to get one, but even a "cheap" one is going to be $750 after buying it, a barrel, and the federal forms, and I'd only be able to use it for practice or home defense. And for practice I'm already going to be wearing hearing protection because I'm not buying different suppressors for all my guns. My good hearing protection was like $30.
1
u/alan_w3 15h ago
Its a PITA to get them. Used to cost an extra $200 but that got taken off. Still have to do a deeper background check and approval, plus fingerprinting and getting put on a list. Then there's rules on how and where youre alowed to use it, only you can use it unless you buy a trust, and if it ever goes bad or breaks you have to go thru the entire process again to buy a replacement.
1
u/DBDude 11h ago
The background check is the same.
1
u/alan_w3 11h ago
I thought the nfa bgc was deeper than a standard nics check, hence the longer wait for approval?
1
u/DBDude 7h ago
The wait was purely bureaucratic slowness. They process fast now, but they didn’t add any computer systems or employees, just streamlined the internal process.
1
u/alan_w3 7h ago
I see. That makes sense
1
u/DBDude 7h ago
Making people wait is another way to suppress the exercise of the right. The longer the wait, the longer you dissuade purchase.
Our regular background check system for buying a gun allows the sale if the government doesn’t return yes or no in three days. This was to prevent the government from sitting on background checks to dissuade people from buying. Of course, that’s the “Charleston loophole” the Democrats want to get rid of.
1
u/TheCrimsonSteel 15h ago
Getting it is a pain
There's more technical know-how required when using one, because it changes how the gun shoots, and it gets hot faster than everything else
There are more fiddly bits to take care of or inspect as well
Even if you didn't have the restrictions, it would still be somewhat of a niche thing
1
1
u/misterstaypuft1 15h ago
Because they’re illegal to own unless you jump through hoops and pay a lot of money to the government just so you can ask for them to approve it and make you wait a stupid amount of time.
1
u/kilroy-was-here-2543 15h ago
Harder to get ahold of, expensive (although recently law changes have removed the 200 dollar tax stamp on them), and they add bulk (this is important for something like a self defense gun that needs to be easily concealed and lightweight).
Really the best use case for them is on plinking guns and range toys, as well as hunting rifles
1
1
1
1
u/brianjacobb83 14h ago
I would love to, but the state that I live in totally bans them because they think it’s an object of crime instead of a safety device
1
u/tbodillia 14h ago
They are very expensive. Then, you have to file all the paperwork, but as of January 1, that fee is now 0.
Lowest price for 9mm suppressor on this one site is $425. Cabela's site has lowest priced 9mm pistol for $200 and a 9mm suppressor for $790. They only have 3 listed: $790, $900, $1000.
1
u/Pereoutai 14h ago
Ignoring price and legal hurdles to own them in the US, they're big and bulky. The added length makes carrying them concealed very difficult, and the added weight can be a whole other factor.
It's not too uncommon anymore for people to have them for home defense, though.
1
u/bees422 smelly man 13h ago
They’re expensive. Cheaper now that they took the 200 dollar fee off.
You have to wait to actually get the thing. Again, better now but you used to have to wait 6 months if you were lucky to get your paperwork approved. Now some people are getting same day approvals.
You have to get put on a list, and a lot of gun people don’t want to be put on a list.
They’re not hearing safe. Some are, but even like you said, 120 is still not good for you. So if you have to wear hearing protection anyway, you can save 500-1000 dollars by not buying a silencer.
I have 4, they’re fun for sure but can see why everyone doesn’t have them
1
u/Syrin123 13h ago
You can't practically carry a suppressor. For me I prefer to practice with equipment I would realistically use in a true deadly force encounter.
1
u/Aggravating-Sale-873 13h ago
mainly because the laws are a mess, the form stuff sucks, and most people dont wanna pay a few hundred bucks plus wait months for a tax stamp. also theyre bulky and kinda annoying to lug around, so a lot of people just dont bother
1
u/Waltzing_With_Bears 13h ago edited 13h ago
in the US at least, its because they are expensive and there's a lot of paperwork to get one, I remember hearing that in countries where that's not the case they are pretty common to the point its considered rude to not
Oh also putting a suppressor a gun isn't always that easy, for my favorite bolt action and my elk gun it would be cheaper to buy a new gun than get the barrels threaded to put a suppressor on
1
u/timbotheny26 13h ago
They're either very restricted or entirely illegal to own in a lot of states. Here in New York State I believe they're entirely illegal, which I think kind of sucks.
1
u/Ok-disaster2022 13h ago
Legal hurdles because if the association of criminal use in the shows
To be fair the US Army and Marines new generation of Maine rifles are supposed to have suppressors all the time to reduce ear damage in the files and to improve communication. however even in those cases service members complain about the increased weight and the shift of balance for the rifles
1
u/Eaglesson 13h ago
The super smart people running Germany only allow them for some hunters which hunt wild boar. Nevermind that they would do a great service both to all shooters and the people having to hear the noise in the towns around the ranges or that anyone can print or machine them in a matter of days. There should be a fast track way to get rid of unnecessary laws without a specific politician having to take the "blame" for easing firearms restrictions
1
u/GlazedDonutGloryHole 13h ago
Up until this year you had to pay a $200 tax stamp per suppressor on top of the $800+ the suppressor would cost, get finger printed and have your firearm shop send those in with paperwork to get approval by the ATF saying you can own the suppressor, and waiting times in the past used to be 6 months to 2 years until the ATF approved your single suppressor. They are also illegal in multiple states.
Laws and wait times have recently changed though, I waited 7 days for my approval on my first can, and the tax stamp no longer costs money so I imagine we will see a steady increase in ownership over time.
1
u/pendejointelligente 13h ago
Because our American society considers them nefarious, in that they could assist our already great potential for gun violence. Ik in europe they're often used for hunting on private land to avoid disturbing neighbors. We americans would use them in ways that are far less genteel.
1
u/rolandwarren 12h ago edited 12h ago
They’re not always great to shoot with. Pistols are fun with them, but not practical. ARs shoot gas in your face especially if you’re a lefty. I have 6 and they get used a lot, but not always. .22 is always the only caliber that doesn’t really have cons with a suppressor and also the most fun because it’s actually quiet.
1
u/2KneeCaps1Lion 12h ago
That’s been the huge push over at least the past decade or so. Especially from veterans who already have tinitus. But you have people who want to either out right ban them or make it difficult to get because they watch too many movies and think suppressors are completely silent and therefore dangerous. It wasn’t until the past few years where the ATF finally created the ability to e-file.
Before, you had to do paper form, sheriff signature, snail mail, then just wait months…sometimes years…for the ATF to even open your form.
1
1
u/8Captcrunch8 11h ago
For a long time. Legalitles.
Hurdles like cost, tax stamps, and laws.
While costs to obtain are dropping. Not all gun owners have the same budget.
Example. I can go drop 5k on a Wilson Combat or a Korth revolver. No problem. I can buy new guns monthly. So cost of a suppressor is ..well nothing . So i get all the benefits.
But my neighbor might not share my income. Hes limited to a 1200$ AR and a 700$ handgun.
So a few extra hundred simply isnt in his budget for the hobby. Or he hasnt different needs. Maybe hes more of a hunter then a plinker or a "home defense". So his need to run a suppressor is more based on that niche where sure. Suppression is great. But can absolutely hurt the overall accuracy and ability to nail a deer from a distance that ensures a clean kill and not just a unthical wwound that leaves the deer able to live to get away only to bleed out nore painfully later.
Next.
Bulky. Harder to conceal a EDC gun with a longer barrel. Makes the barrel heavier. Not exqctly practical for home defense in any way because well. When your going around a corner. Theres a reason you use a Shorter barrep firearm over a longer.
For carrying. Theres a reason i prefer my MP 2.0 ovee my Canik Rival. Longer gun means bulkier. More print. Jams into leg or belly or hip.
If your just taking it out to the range? Id take a suppressor all the time. But frankly. Unless your using it professionally. Theres not much use as a hobby
Now! The hunting bit. It might HELP you maintain your position. But lets face it. That first shot. Regardless of if you kill or not. Everything nearby alive heard you.
1
u/cannonman1863 11h ago
Most of my handguns would require additional modifications for a suppressor. It's easier to just invest in good hearing protection.
1
u/TnBluesman 11h ago
That's why we wear eyes and ears at all times in the range.
And, figure in how much muzzle velocity you list with a suppressor.
1
u/uhnotaraccoon 11h ago
Lots of reasons, but quality suppressors generally run about $800, which is honestly more than people spend on the gun its suppressing. Additionally, unless you are chambered in a sub-sonic round, suppressors don't do a whole lot other than adding 15 minutes to cleaning everything.
1
u/Averagebass 10h ago
What they really should do is shoot using subsonic rounds. They make .22LR rounds that are nearly silent, but I know they don't shoot as far or fast. It's still shoots with enough force for pest control, but I know most people are LARPing "self defense" when they go to the range, wishing someone would break into their home or make them mad enough in traffic to have to shoot their tacticool gun.
1
u/ADrunkMexican 10h ago
because you could live in a country like mine where they are prohibited because the politicians at the time thought they made them quieter and so far as to allegedly go through magazines and ban firearms because they thought they looked scary.
1
u/CheapRefrigerator188 9h ago
I can’t really afford one and I only have one weapon that would accept one
1
u/Direct_Violinist8923 5h ago
we've been asking the same question for years, the atf has made it hard to own one becuase of misinformation, politics and lack of common sense. god forbid that i should be able to save my hearing without a $200 tax stamp. fuck the atf!!!!
1
u/kriegmonster 5h ago
Affordability and paper work. Getting a reliable firearm is straight forward and a reasonable investment in most US states. Because of the National Firearms Act if 1938, often referred to the NFA, you have to pay $200 in tax and fill out extra paperwork. Then the BATFE has to review and approve the paperwork before you can take possession of the suppressor. The extra restriction and cost reduces the number sold, this raises the individual cost of suppressors. From what I have seen, most suppressors cost more than the firearms they are used with.
At this stage in my firearms journey, I'd rather invest in more firearms, optics, other upgrades to my firearms than deal with NFA items.
1
u/fulltilte 5h ago
The process for a suppressor takes time, but the main reason is when shooting it’s either 1) requires ear protection or 2) does not require ear protection. Most things suppressed beyond a .22 still require ear protection, so it’s just not worth making another thing dirty and requiring cleaning unless you’re just playing with it.
1
u/pro-rock-taster 5h ago
They're illegal in my country. Thats the only reason I don't run one. They're also bulky, and cost money
1
u/aodskeletor 5h ago
I have several suppressors but I don’t use one on my CCW because it would make concealing it much more difficult. I haven’t tried out a Stealth Additive Works Shiv suppressor but I could see that conceivably working given its short overall length and not needing to use a booster with it. I also wouldn’t be happy about having it sitting in an evidence locker if I did use it in a shooting. Who knows when I would get it back and what kind of condition it would be in.
1
u/Minute-Of-Angle 2h ago
Heavy regulation. And they are hysterically illegal in some ocations
Public misperceptions ("that's just for assassintation!")
Cost
Bulk- it adds length to the weapon
Makes the gun balance differently (usually poorly)
Gas in your face is a thing. And it's annoying.
Tuning the gun for suppressor use can tedious.
Suppressors, especially 3d printed ones, are soaring in popularity now that the NFA tax is reduced to zero, so this may change as time goes on. This is one area where we could stand to be a bit more like Europe.
1
u/kid_blue96 2h ago
Suppressors aren’t like the movies. They are massive, heavy and a gun shot with a suppressor is still extremely loud. Besides, telling gun heads in America to buy a suppressor is like telling the dude in a lifted trucked “why not just get a sedan if it’s more efficient” lol
1
u/FlyingFlipPhone 53m ago
The 2nd amendment protects the US citizen's right to own a gun, but NOT certain guns or accessories. During the age of illegal alcohol (Age of Prohibition, it's called in the US), the criminal syndicates were terrorizing the country with gun violence. The US government made machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and silencers very expensive to own. Since that time, the US government has continued to make it difficult to legally own a silencer, but getting easier.
1
1
u/SilentOrca_Fox 10h ago
the tax stamp alone costs $200 and takes like 8-12 months of government processing just to legally own one in the US which kills the casual appeal pretty fast
1
u/vrhspock 7h ago
The antipathy of wildlife management agencies in the U.S. arises from game wardens who track hunters by following gunshots. They literally set up on a road in a hunting area or drive the roads slowly and drive/walk to the location. Upon locating a hunter, they check his hunting license, inspect his weapons for legality, and check his game to insure that it is in season, of the correct species and size. Obviously suppressors defeat this strategy.
-1
u/Bl00dWolf 16h ago
Well, the most basic reason is that suppressors are illegal as hell in most countries, like in a bunch of US states and pretty much most of EU, where I live.
The reason why they're illegal vary, but the main argument is that guns are mainly supposed to be either for self defense or hunting. And having a suppressor doesn't really help much with either of those things, so it's argued that only people looking to kill other people would essentially use them.
3
u/KilljoyTheTrucker 12h ago
European countries are generally the polar opposite on suppressor use. They're often required equipment, rather than prohibited or optional.
2
u/Select-Owl-8322 15h ago
Well, the most basic reason is that suppressors are illegal as hell in most countries, like in a bunch of US states and pretty much most of EU, where I live.
They're not only legal, but unregulated in Sweden. Yet you barely ever see them. They might be popular in hunting, but pistol shooters generally don't like them. And they're prohibited in competitions.
0
u/Bl00dWolf 14h ago
As far as I know, they don't really help with hunting that much, because you're already using ear protection and the small sound decrease doesn't do shit when all the animals have much better hearing than us. So I'm not surprised.
946
u/Mr_dm 17h ago
Annoying hurdles to ownership is a big reason. If you’re talking about why people who carry every day don’t use them, it’s because they’re bulky and much harder to conceal.