Post by: twistiron on August 18, 2011, 01:05:28 AM
Post by: vmkeith on August 18, 2011, 05:30:38 AM
Post by: BlackRidge on August 18, 2011, 12:18:03 PM
Try at your own risk
Post by: sebek556 on August 18, 2011, 12:20:51 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on August 18, 2011, 12:23:05 PM
Post by: predatorpro on August 18, 2011, 12:30:00 PM
Post by: runamuk on August 18, 2011, 12:47:58 PM
they cant arrest you for a law that doesnt exist......if a game warden gives you a hard time tell him youd like to see the rcw that says you cant use one for hunting
I am gonna agree with you and also agree with the person getting hassled if caught but if you are suppressed who is gonna tell on you :dunno: the coyotes :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on August 18, 2011, 12:51:10 PM
If that's the case, then let's outlaw bow hunting. :rolleyes:
Post by: twistiron on August 18, 2011, 01:01:09 PM
they cant arrest you for a law that doesnt exist......if a game warden gives you a hard time tell him youd like to see the rcw that says you cant use one for huntingya but at the same time i really like my gun and if they found some gay loop hole and confinscated it i would be >:( if i cant find a reason online i am going to check with my district director. thanks for the feedback and will keep you posted!!!!!!!!!
Post by: TheHunt on August 18, 2011, 01:07:17 PM
If would be nice to have a rifle with a suppressor so that I would not have to wear muffs.
Post by: twistiron on August 18, 2011, 02:46:13 PM
the topic has been here before i am looking into if the gov signed it or not??????? but some great points brought up there as well. some states like TX allow it for varmit but not game animals! i would settle for that! BYE BYE YOTES! i am going to stay on this issue, possibly a petition? we shall see.
Post by: sebek556 on August 18, 2011, 02:49:03 PM
Post by: twistiron on August 18, 2011, 02:56:41 PM
legal july 22 2011
now just got to stay of wdfw as to what they dictate for hunting! i will keep all you followers informed on my findings :tup:. people are going to argue poaching agaist allowing them but my logic states that if poaching is already illegal then using a silencer is not going to be there moral stopping point :dunno:. keep your fingers crossed, we need to stress the hearing conservation, noise polution reduction, better varmit managment, as well as the fact that you have to have a background check to purchase the stamp so only "QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS" will be using them.
Post by: rbros on August 18, 2011, 03:48:44 PM
Post by: twistiron on August 19, 2011, 01:56:09 AM
Post by: KillBilly on August 19, 2011, 05:05:33 AM
Post by: rbros on August 19, 2011, 07:56:29 AM
Post by: Caseyd on August 19, 2011, 08:29:48 AM
No offense, but none of my suppressors affect my ballistics. Point of impact with suppressor on is within 1/4" of impact with it off. Just as accurate with or without the cans on them.
You building your own yet?
Post by: h2ofowlr on August 19, 2011, 08:33:18 AM
If you have all the correct paperwork to OWN a suppressor, then it is now legal to USE it. This is not something that WDFW would have to include in the regs. It would be part of your weapon just a muzzle brake or scope would. One thing that you might want to consider though is that a suppressor will affect your ballistics considerably.I can see this changing for 2012. I think they want to know where the shot came from and hear them in the woods. I would rather supress my hunting rifle to save the hearing I have left also to help not spook the entire hillside of animals for other hunters as well. My personal preference.
There is nothing in the book on making it illegal to use one for hunting. It just muffles the sound, it doesn't effect anything else about the way a gun shoots or the target it is shooting at. It saves your hearing and doesn't alarm those around you. They should do away with the tax stamp and let anyone and everyone buy them that wants to. Less noise issues. If I could figure out how to mount one to my duck gun it would be in the shop as we speak. I have permanent ringing in my left ear from the effects of shooting.
Post by: rbros on August 19, 2011, 08:34:09 AM
Post by: Bofire on August 19, 2011, 08:44:21 AM
Carl
Post by: KillBilly on August 19, 2011, 09:33:14 AM
No offense, but none of my suppressors affect my ballistics. Point of impact with suppressor on is within 1/4" of impact with it off. Just as accurate with or without the cans on them.
Well your special then because silencers/suppressors have always had an effect on ballistics.
Post by: rbros on August 19, 2011, 10:12:41 AM
Post by: twistiron on August 19, 2011, 01:33:20 PM
Post by: FALFire on August 19, 2011, 02:41:45 PM
No offense, but none of my suppressors affect my ballistics. Point of impact with suppressor on is within 1/4" of impact with it off. Just as accurate with or without the cans on them.
Well your special then because silencers/suppressors have always had an effect on ballistics.
KILLBILLY,
Could you please provide documented proof of the "effect on ballistics" you are referring to? I have done quite a bit of reading lately on suppressors. The things I have learned about is in many cases improved accuracy with less recoil is noticed. I spoke to a gun dealer a couple of days ago that has used them on prairie dog hunts, his comments were very positive and killing P-Dogs at very long distances was a non issue for him and his shooting pals. :dunno:
I have also fired both Rem. 700's in 223 and 308 and they both produced 1/2 MOA groups at 100 yards using suppressors. Quite effective and a real pleasure to not need ear protection while doing so. I suppose without the can the groups may have been 1/4 MOA or better but I was very pleased to see the results I was getting at the time. I'll just be standing by for that documentation.
Post by: FALFire on August 19, 2011, 02:49:34 PM
Not yet......I do have my Class 2 NFA manufacturers license, but I haven't had time to build any yet. I have several and have sold several Thunderbeast can's and they work very well. Hopefully will experiment this winter once rifle builds are caught up.
I was looking at the Thunderbeasts cans a couple of days ago, I believe it was the 30P-1 (?) Titanium model. I am looking to use it on a 308 and quite possibly my 243. Have you any experience using a 30 cal can on a 6mm caliber or even 223? I'm certain the maximum efficiency is not there but I'm really only planning on using it for coyotes, raccoons and target shooting.
Thanks
Post by: KillBilly on August 19, 2011, 04:21:53 PM
With the older suppressors or ones that the bullets pass through a mesh of somesort, yes, I have seen them affect accuracy and ballisitics. With the newer baffle type, the hole is slightly over bullet diameter, so its basically redirecting the gas after the bullet exits the muzzle. I have shot a bunch of them over the chrono and most of the time velocity is very close if not the same as with no suppressor. Shooting them out to 1500+ yds and still using the same dope as without them. I did have one rifle it increased velocity slightly, but not by much. They make a very effective muzzle brake as well and reduce recoil.
Well I spent some more time today researching suppressors and find that rbros is more correct than my first source was. I still found one more person that stated they "Felt" that suppressors affected Ballistics and accuracy. "felt" won't cut it... several folks agreed with rbros so I tip my hat and stand corrected. the sources that agreed with rbros are folks that i trust very highly. Having said that I was also cautioned to pay special attention to the mfg. and make sure they are a reputable & trusted source.
Post by: KillBilly on August 19, 2011, 04:29:23 PM
"Gov. Christine Gregoire today signed legislation that will allow Washington residents to not only own suppressors but now be able to actually use them.
Henceforth, it will be legal for residents who obtain the necessary paperwork and pay the federal tax – that is, comply with applicable federal law – to take their legally-owned suppressors to indoor and outdoor gun ranges and actually use them. This may also reduce problems in the outdoors, where many traditional shooting areas that are not developed ranges have been closed due to complaints primarily based on noise.
It has been legal to own suppressors and even have them mounted on firearms for display purposes in this state for sometime. People just couldn’t shoot with them.
This column wrote about the legislation here earlier this year, and again here, about two weeks ago."
Post by: KillBilly on August 19, 2011, 04:40:20 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202011/1016.SL.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202011/1016.SL.pdf)
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
HOUSE BILL 1016
Chapter 13, Laws of 2011
62nd Legislature
2011 Regular Session
FIREARMS--NOISE SUPPRESSORS
EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/22/11
1 AN ACT Relating to firearm noise suppressors; and amending RCW
2 9.41.250.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 9.41.250 and 2007 c 379 s 1 are each amended to read
5 as follows:
6 (1) Every person who:
7 (a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument
8 or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal
9 knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is
10 automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical
11 device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is
12 ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward,
13 downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;
14 (b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk,
15 pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or
16 (c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any
17 firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in
18 accordance with federal law,
19 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
p. 1 HB 1016.SL
1 (2) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to:
2 (a) The possession of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement
3 officer while the officer:
4 (i) Is on official duty; or
5 (ii) Is transporting the knife to or from the place where the knife
6 is stored when the officer is not on official duty; or
7 (b) The storage of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement
8 officer.
Passed by the House February 7, 2011.
Passed by the Senate March 29, 2011.
Approved by the Governor April 11, 2011.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State April 11, 2011.
Post by: FALFire on August 19, 2011, 06:22:42 PM
Thank you for doing the follow up research, too much bad info gets spread about these days. Once we correct our old beliefs and hearsay rumors we can provide better info to those looking to pursue new adventures. I really hope that WDFW allows us to use the suppressors for at minimum, predator control. I hunt on several ranches with cattle nearby and would much rather not piss off the rancher while taking out a dog or two while he is out feeding. However, I'm not holding my breath knowing how the State Game Dept. is. :bash:
Post by: KillBilly on August 19, 2011, 07:00:56 PM
Killbilly,
Thank you for doing the follow up research, too much bad info gets spread about these days. Once we correct our old beliefs and hearsay rumors we can provide better info to those looking to pursue new adventures. I really hope that WDFW allows us to use the suppressors for at minimum, predator control. I hunt on several ranches with cattle nearby and would much rather not piss off the rancher while taking out a dog or two while he is out feeding. However, I'm not holding my breath knowing how the State Game Dept. is. :bash:
I am looking at this on the bright side... right now it is legal to use a suppressor on a hunting/target rifle or pistol. I cannot imagine what would drive WDFW to make it unlawful in the future.
Post by: FALFire on August 19, 2011, 07:50:24 PM
I can hear the WDFW in a meeting now....... If we allow suppressors "There will be thousands of big game animals poached every year" by the improper use of these evil attachments, SO THEY SHOULD BE BANNED FOR ALL HUNTING! :yike: Now for the next item.... We need to get our wolf population up! Get the helicopters and the dart guns ready we're off to Montana!! >:( Note to those that don't get it......It's sarcasm :tung:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 19, 2011, 08:05:47 PM
Now for the next item.... We need to get our wolf population up! Get the helicopters and the dart guns ready we're off to Montana!! >:( Note to those that don't get it......It's sarcasm :tung:Not trying to thread jack....but WDFW doesn't need to do that. That's what they'll use the Park Service for. Kind of like how Olympic National Park reintroduced a bunch of fishers from Canada...but only a handful still live in the actual park. From what I've been told, as soon as Olympic National Park has removed the dams it is shifting over to bring in wolves---because they are replanting the area that used to be a lake and don't want the elk to eat everything.
Post by: Swannytheswan on August 19, 2011, 09:32:12 PM
Olympic National Park has removed the dams it is shifting over to bring in wolves---because they are replanting the area that used to be a lake and don't want the elk to eat everything.
I hope your wrong Jimmy... I hope your wrong....in other news I wish I had the money for a gun and a suppressor to put on it!
Post by: addicted on August 19, 2011, 09:42:36 PM
I have several and have sold several Thunderbeast can's and they work very well.
I'm interested in your future toolings but for curiosity sake about how much do you charge fo a thunderbeast?
Post by: Mookie on August 19, 2011, 11:50:32 PM
I am looking at this on the bright side... right now it is legal to use a suppressor on a hunting/target rifle or pistol. I cannot imagine what would drive WDFW to make it unlawful in the future.Really? We are talking about the same group of people who blame over fishing and squaw fish on the decline of kokanee and bull trout, when it is those idiots that lower the water level right after they spawn in shallow water. Those same idiots who won't give us more doe tags when the stupid things are nothing but a pest because there are so many.
These dunderheads will make a law just to justify waking up in the morning.
Post by: rbros on August 20, 2011, 08:23:02 AM
Not yet......I do have my Class 2 NFA manufacturers license, but I haven't had time to build any yet. I have several and have sold several Thunderbeast can's and they work very well. Hopefully will experiment this winter once rifle builds are caught up.
I was looking at the Thunderbeasts cans a couple of days ago, I believe it was the 30P-1 (?) Titanium model. I am looking to use it on a 308 and quite possibly my 243. Have you any experience using a 30 cal can on a 6mm caliber or even 223? I'm certain the maximum efficiency is not there but I'm really only planning on using it for coyotes, raccoons and target shooting.
Thanks
I have sold several 30p's and have a couple personally. They work well from 6mm-30cal. They are a little big on the 223's. They work really well on my 7WSM and will reside on there for hunting season.
Post by: KillBilly on August 20, 2011, 09:12:09 AM
I agree with you, as of right now there are no laws on the books that prohibit the use of suppressors for hunting, only because they have never been legal to use in this state up until a few weeks ago. So we'll see what the great minds in Olympia come up with! :rolleyes:
I can hear the WDFW in a meeting now....... If we allow suppressors "There will be thousands of big game animals poached every year" by the improper use of these evil attachments, SO THEY SHOULD BE BANNED FOR ALL HUNTING! :yike: Now for the next item.... We need to get our wolf population up! Get the helicopters and the dart guns ready we're off to Montana!! >:( Note to those that don't get it......It's sarcasm :tung:
Poaching has already been discussed in length by the lawmakers and opponents to the law. bottom line is that poachers will still poach. lawbreakers should not be able to obtain a suppressor legally. So like always the lawbreakwers will still break laws and obtain a suppressor illegallly and continue to poach as always. I don't see potential poachers being the issue. Since this law drove the amendment of one RCW it seems that they could just as easily amended others as well.
Just me, but I don't see it happeningany time soon.
Post by: KillBilly on August 20, 2011, 09:16:00 AM
I am looking at this on the bright side... right now it is legal to use a suppressor on a hunting/target rifle or pistol. I cannot imagine what would drive WDFW to make it unlawful in the future.Really? We are talking about the same group of people who blame over fishing and squaw fish on the decline of kokanee and bull trout, when it is those idiots that lower the water level right after they spawn in shallow water. Those same idiots who won't give us more doe tags when the stupid things are nothing but a pest because there are so many.
These dunderheads will make a law just to justify waking up in the morning.
It's your rant but I don't agree that we need to kill more Does. we will need them to keep population up.
Post by: GEARHEAD on August 20, 2011, 06:36:47 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on August 20, 2011, 06:45:47 PM
Anybody Aware of any planned suppressor demos. i heard a commercial for a demo in north central wa, a month ago, anybody have one planned this side of the state. i want one for my AR, for yotes, so as not to scare the stock or wake the kids, but it seems maybe they dont really reduce noise hardly at all, maybe 20-25% hope i'm wrong. would like to hear for myself.One of the clubs in Bellevue I believe has had several suppressor shoots. I would look at WA guns. They have a supressor section and have posted various shoots, so you probably could check it out.
As for ballistics, the military places them on the Rem. 700, .308 sniper rifles. My buddy said it has not effected his accuracy. He has been dead on. :yike:
Post by: demontang on August 20, 2011, 08:02:12 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on August 20, 2011, 08:15:33 PM
Post by: FALFire on August 21, 2011, 06:40:41 AM
It's a dumb association that people assume people with suppressed weapons are going to run out and poach. If that was the case they are already doing it with a homemade version thats off the radar.
You may just be giving too much credit to the WDFW :chuckle:
It's pretty obvious poachers would not spend a dime on a device to muffle the sound of any weapon they use, I'm certain most of us here would agree. However, the State Game Dept, I'm sure would rather pass a law to protect us from ourselves :rolleyes: Where I live one could shoot 10 deer per day for a month and never get caught using a bazooka so I really doubt a poacher would ever consider such a device as using a suppressor does not make poaching any more illegal.
I feel very confident that those of us that would purchase a suppressor are like more of the "shooter" category than "hunter" anyway. :twocents:
Post by: rbros on August 21, 2011, 08:49:12 AM
Of all the suppressors I have tested, shooting a 308 in a treed area brings it down to a little louder than a 22LR. The 223 AR is about 22LR level. Using them in open spaces, Eastern Wa, the 308 is down to 22 or a little less, and the AR is pretty much about like a high power pellet gun. Played with a full auto 300AAC AR using subsonics and all you heard was the bolt coming back and forth.
Post by: FALFire on August 21, 2011, 09:27:47 AM
That sonic crack is exactly why I have hung on to my 300 Fireball. Subsonic in that baby will do a number on coyotes out to 100 yards :IBCOOL: Especially on doubles!!
Post by: Mookie on August 22, 2011, 07:18:41 AM
It's your rant but I don't agree that we need to kill more Does. we will need them to keep population up.considering yo live 300 miles away from me there would seem to be a significant difference in doe population. Over here they are tiny, extremely well versed in the art of reproduction, and are a pest, plus they do tons of damage to cars and crops. And I would love to use a suppressor on them as they are paranoid
Post by: demontang on August 22, 2011, 07:50:19 AM
Post by: addicted on August 22, 2011, 08:28:46 AM
a supressed rifle can be a great tool if used right and for me it would save my hearing out coyote hunting cause my k16 is freaking loud!!!
thats what i'm thinking. I'm getting closer and closer to a primary rifle which i would think, that if i surpressed it could save a lot of hearing from those spontanious hunting shots. it may not make a difference in a few years, but in 30 years probably.
Post by: GEARHEAD on August 22, 2011, 10:02:59 AM
Post by: FALFire on August 22, 2011, 10:55:26 AM
The other option I am aware of is to go through a TRUST, you will still be required to jump through the hoops, photos, prints blah, blah but the Sheriff or Chief Law Enforcement of your county or area will not know you have the suppressor at least that is from what I'm hearing from some. Rbros should be able to fill you in on all the legal stuff and get you steered in the right direction.
There are some benefits, so to speak, going the trust route. I'm told you can always add to your list of suppressors by simply adding them to the trust plus you can name a beneficiary in the event you die. If you choose the individual plan, then you need to go through the entire waiting process all over again for each can. Each individual method requires the surrender of the can upon your demise.
This is how I understand this to work and I'll be going the Trust method.
Post by: GEARHEAD on August 22, 2011, 12:03:32 PM
Post by: rbros on August 22, 2011, 12:20:16 PM
Post by: whacker1 on August 22, 2011, 12:24:00 PM
A trust is definitely the way to go. Its not necessary, but it sometimes help speed the process. Unfortunately, you can't just apply for the tax stamp with out purchasing the suppressor. On the Form 4 that gets sent into ATF, there needs to be a serial number for the suppressor. Wait time right now is 3-4 months average.
Is the $200 I saw mentioned earlier a one time fee or an annual fee?
Post by: rbros on August 22, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
Post by: whacker1 on August 22, 2011, 05:08:46 PM
The $200 is a 1 time fee per supressor. If its not in a trust, then if something happens to you, it has to be destroyed.
How does this trust work? Is it the same as a trust like you would use for any other estate planning function? Or is this something completely different?
Thank you for answering my questions.....It is fascinating to me.
Post by: Mookie on August 22, 2011, 07:55:54 PM
Go to either All American Arms and talk to Terry or Sharp shooters indoor range, wed- sat, and ask them. I prefer Sharp Shooters because they take the time and explain everything and don't mind questions. They quoted me $100 for them to do the trust (you can do it free if you have the time and/or energy) $200 tax stamp, and the cost of the suppressor. I won't go to AAA because he couldn't be bothered on a non busy day to even answer simple questions.
Post by: FALFire on August 22, 2011, 08:53:13 PM
Sorry to hear you did not do well with Terry, he and I spoke at length about cans the other day and he showed me several varieties that he had in stock. His wife was very helpful as well. We spoke for a good two hours and he was very willing to answer all of my questions, maybe it was a good day to speak with him, perhaps I caught him on a good day :dunno: In any case he still has a very strong passion for his business. I would recommend anyone wanting to deal with him regarding cans to do so.
Post by: FALFire on August 22, 2011, 09:03:13 PM
The $200 is a 1 time fee per supressor. If its not in a trust, then if something happens to you, it has to be destroyed.
How does this trust work? Is it the same as a trust like you would use for any other estate planning function? Or is this something completely different?
Thank you for answering my questions.....It is fascinating to me.
Whacker,
Trusts come in a variety of sorts, but you may only need a "Property Trust" with you being the trustee and naming one or several of your family members or friends as beneficiaries. You can add and delete beneficiaries as time goes on and describe which ones get what, of your listed properties upon your death. As Rbros stated, the BATF wants the suppressor back for destruction after you go away unless the Trust has a beneficiary named. Plus simply adding a second or third suppressor without all the hassle is a huge leap in the right direction. Unfortunately you will still need to purchase/apply for any subsequent tax stamps at $200 each for every suppressor you add to your list as each can will come with a serial number engraved on it.
Post by: addicted on August 22, 2011, 09:20:15 PM
Post by: FALFire on August 22, 2011, 09:29:37 PM
If one were to acquire a suppressor through other means and stamp a serial number on it, could one add it to the trust?
Yes but enjoying it in prison would not be much fun, Ya just might walk funny for a while :yike:
I would say since they are regulated by the BATF you would probably be better off just doing things legally.
Post by: Swannytheswan on August 22, 2011, 10:02:17 PM
If one were to acquire a suppressor through other means and stamp a serial number on it, could one add it to the trust?
If you are talking about making one because that requires another form and still the $200...if not you'll be walking funny :yike:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 22, 2011, 10:25:21 PM
Post by: Swannytheswan on August 22, 2011, 10:42:53 PM
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf)
Post by: addicted on August 23, 2011, 03:15:06 AM
If one were to acquire a suppressor through other means and stamp a serial number on it, could one add it to the trust?
If you are talking about making one because that requires another form and still the $200...if not you'll be walking funny :yike:
I wouldn't be making one, it's just that suppressors are no big deal in other countries.
Post by: Swannytheswan on August 23, 2011, 03:52:18 AM
Post by: FALFire on August 23, 2011, 05:02:05 AM
Could you imagine the conflict of interest and the possible years of waiting that they would put you through. What is ridicules is one can be checked and approved in only minutes for a handgun purchase but yet a suppressor takes weeks to several months along with photos, fingerprints, voice recognition, eye scan, blood tests, kidney removal and then you give you left nut and your first born to the dealer that sold you one of these things. :dunno:
Post by: whacker1 on August 23, 2011, 06:11:45 AM
If one were to acquire a suppressor through other means and stamp a serial number on it, could one add it to the trust?
If you are talking about making one because that requires another form and still the $200...if not you'll be walking funny :yike:
I wouldn't be making one, it's just that suppressors are no big deal in other countries.
Could he not set up the trust while on leave and then have the can shipped to a licensed dealer until which time the paperwork is all cleared? It seems like there would be a way to accoplish this, but may not be worth it for a $300-400 can.
Post by: addicted on August 23, 2011, 06:44:29 AM
it may be if the can only costs me 150 bucks to begin with. ;)If one were to acquire a suppressor through other means and stamp a serial number on it, could one add it to the trust?
If you are talking about making one because that requires another form and still the $200...if not you'll be walking funny :yike:
I wouldn't be making one, it's just that suppressors are no big deal in other countries.
Could he not set up the trust while on leave and then have the can shipped to a licensed dealer until which time the paperwork is all cleared? It seems like there would be a way to accoplish this, but may not be worth it for a $300-400 can.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 23, 2011, 06:52:21 AM
Post by: FALFire on August 23, 2011, 07:01:01 AM
Post by: Caseyd on August 23, 2011, 01:24:54 PM
Post by: FALFire on August 23, 2011, 08:57:39 PM
Its the demand. Dont you think prices will go down over time?
Not much if at all, suppressors have been legal in many other states for a long time.
Post by: butcher98951 on August 23, 2011, 09:06:27 PM
so i have been thinking of getting a suppresor for my rifle to hunt yote's with, the problem is i cannot find out if it is legal in WA. i looked all through the 2011 big game regs but found nothing :bash:. anyone know the regs on this. i have few farmers who are willing to let me hunt with a suppressor or bow (as not to spook there horses) i would like to have the reach of a rifle. thanks.
Ok im sorry but why would you need one i hunt on and around horses and never worry about spooken them... ok we might have only taken 36 yotes last year but it was still a good year and my 10 year old daughters shot 12 of there horses so save your money and if ya want yotes we will take the money you would spend on that suppressor..
Post by: Swannytheswan on August 23, 2011, 09:36:45 PM
Quote
my 10 year old daughters shot 12 of there horses
:yike: :yike:Your daughters shot 12 horses :yike: :yike: I hope they were feral horses.... :chuckle: :sry:
Post by: butcher98951 on August 23, 2011, 09:42:05 PM
Quotemy 10 year old daughters shot 12 of there horses
:yike: :yike:Your daughters shot 12 horses :yike: :yike: I hope they were feral horses.... :chuckle: :sry:
The only thing that is sorry is my daughters shot more spilya then you did :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: twistiron on August 24, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
Hi, Forrest. Here is our answer to your question:
We do not currently have any laws on the books that restrict the use of a suppressor while hunting. So, as long as a person is following the federal regulations associated with possessing a suppressor (registering it and possessing a tax stamp), plus all the regulations pertaining to hunting (using the correct legal barrel length and caliber), he/she is not breaking any written laws. I do not know if our Wildlife Program plans to change this. I haven’t heard that they are.
Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045
WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator
Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: FALFire on August 24, 2011, 12:29:54 PM
Thanks for the update :tup: :tup:
Post by: whacker1 on August 24, 2011, 03:41:42 PM
Exactly what I suspected. No laws, no violations.........YET! :chuckle:
Thanks for the update :tup: :tup:
Lori always has a way of implying that WDFW has an intention of reviewing every law that is questioned.
Post by: FALFire on August 24, 2011, 05:19:13 PM
Exactly what I suspected. No laws, no violations.........YET! :chuckle:
Thanks for the update :tup: :tup:
Lori always has a way of implying that WDFW has an intention of reviewing every law that is questioned.
But of course, they have to protect us from ourselves don't they?
Post by: KillBilly on August 24, 2011, 05:49:20 PM
here ya go fellas the response from the wdfw about hunting with a suppressor! :tup:
Hi, Forrest. Here is our answer to your question:
We do not currently have any laws on the books that restrict the use of a suppressor while hunting. So, as long as a person is following the federal regulations associated with possessing a suppressor (registering it and possessing a tax stamp), plus all the regulations pertaining to hunting (using the correct legal barrel length and caliber), he/she is not breaking any written laws. I do not know if our Wildlife Program plans to change this. I haven’t heard that they are.
Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045
WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator
Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov
After so many people on this site said it was legal, you only accept what we told you after "Lori" says so.... but that's okay none of us know *censored* from shinola :dunno:
Post by: twistiron on August 24, 2011, 07:02:43 PM
Post by: FALFire on August 24, 2011, 08:20:04 PM
here ya go fellas the response from the wdfw about hunting with a suppressor! :tup:
Hi, Forrest. Here is our answer to your question:
We do not currently have any laws on the books that restrict the use of a suppressor while hunting. So, as long as a person is following the federal regulations associated with possessing a suppressor (registering it and possessing a tax stamp), plus all the regulations pertaining to hunting (using the correct legal barrel length and caliber), he/she is not breaking any written laws. I do not know if our Wildlife Program plans to change this. I haven’t heard that they are.
Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045
WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator
Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov
After so many people on this site said it was legal, you only accept what we told you after "Lori" says so.... but that's okay none of us know *censored* from shinola :dunno:
Are you saying that we should all take the word of another member here on the board because they said it was so??
Okay.....I'll call :bs: on that one. " Gee Mr. Game Officer the guys on Hunt Wa. website told me it was Okay" :dunno:
Post by: GEARHEAD on August 25, 2011, 09:47:36 PM
Post by: FALFire on August 26, 2011, 04:51:44 AM
Post by: KillBilly on August 26, 2011, 07:35:47 AM
killbilly, thats not the case at all i had emailed her right after i initially posted it on here at that point no one had said much other then being interested in the results! i had taken your word for it already and strated looking into purchase options when i recived the email. i just posted the email to support the knowledge you all provided, well done and thank you. my appologies if i insulted you, not my intentions.
Not insulted at all, and was not angry. More curious in fact because this happens lots of times on lots of subjects by many people. My apologies if I came across as mad...didn't mean it that way.
Post by: KillBilly on August 26, 2011, 07:38:23 AM
here ya go fellas the response from the wdfw about hunting with a suppressor! :tup:
Hi, Forrest. Here is our answer to your question:
We do not currently have any laws on the books that restrict the use of a suppressor while hunting. So, as long as a person is following the federal regulations associated with possessing a suppressor (registering it and possessing a tax stamp), plus all the regulations pertaining to hunting (using the correct legal barrel length and caliber), he/she is not breaking any written laws. I do not know if our Wildlife Program plans to change this. I haven’t heard that they are.
Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045
WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator
Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov
After so many people on this site said it was legal, you only accept what we told you after "Lori" says so.... but that's okay none of us know *censored* from shinola :dunno:
Are you saying that we should all take the word of another member here on the board because they said it was so??
Okay.....I'll call :bs: on that one. " Gee Mr. Game Officer the guys on Hunt Wa. website told me it was Okay" :dunno:
Back at ya ... it was an RCW and the House Bill that amended that RCW that was being quoted as making it legal....not just the word of any member.
Post by: Antlershed on August 26, 2011, 12:29:27 PM
But the RCW does not state anything about hunting, so why not take the extra precaution and seek clarification from WDFW? Had he used it for yote hunting, and then had his gun confiscated through some loophole, he probably would have got flamed for not double checking with WDFW first :rolleyes:here ya go fellas the response from the wdfw about hunting with a suppressor! :tup:
Hi, Forrest. Here is our answer to your question:
We do not currently have any laws on the books that restrict the use of a suppressor while hunting. So, as long as a person is following the federal regulations associated with possessing a suppressor (registering it and possessing a tax stamp), plus all the regulations pertaining to hunting (using the correct legal barrel length and caliber), he/she is not breaking any written laws. I do not know if our Wildlife Program plans to change this. I haven’t heard that they are.
Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045
WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator
Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov
After so many people on this site said it was legal, you only accept what we told you after "Lori" says so.... but that's okay none of us know *censored* from shinola :dunno:
Are you saying that we should all take the word of another member here on the board because they said it was so??
Okay.....I'll call :bs: on that one. " Gee Mr. Game Officer the guys on Hunt Wa. website told me it was Okay" :dunno:
Back at ya ... it was an RCW and the House Bill that amended that RCW that was being quoted as making it legal....not just the word of any member.
Post by: FALFire on August 26, 2011, 06:16:30 PM
Post by: twistiron on August 26, 2011, 10:01:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 31, 2011, 09:24:57 AM
I'm pretty sure they can add that as a rule right away if they chose to.
What the WDFW Commission could do is ammend the WAC for legal hunting firearms making it unlawful to use the suppressor while hunting. The changing of WAC's is not subject to a vote by the legislature, simply the vote of the commission.
Post by: FALFire on August 31, 2011, 04:22:02 PM
Post by: addicted on September 02, 2011, 03:30:02 AM
a 223 blast(uncorking) is abou 120 decibles. This is what you can expect to have muffled by a suppressor due to slower depressurization of the gasses.
the sonic crack from the speed of the bullet produces another 160 decibles. This crack has an inverted sound wave which makes the person who hears it out in the field think that the shot came from the other direction, this has worked well for our troops downrange.
I wonder if you are really saving your ears at all with that second sonic crack.?
Post by: 1911fan on September 16, 2011, 08:59:05 PM
I have a .223 can, and in open areas on prairie dogs and such I never wear hearing protection. I've shot a .308 and a .22-250AI in those conditions also, and they are quiet. I'm looking forward to yotes this winter with a suppressed bolt gun in .223, ought to be nicer on the old eardrums. FWIW, I've got four cans: .22, .17HMR, .223, and .308; don't wear earpro with any of them.
1911fan
Post by: Killercolin on September 17, 2011, 12:44:25 AM
Post by: DJ_Mack on July 09, 2015, 10:58:55 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 10, 2015, 09:08:39 AM
Post by: grundy53 on July 10, 2015, 09:12:02 AM
As far as I know they are legal. Unless there was a change recently in the law. You'd be surprised at the number of guys at sporting goods stores that tell you can't use bait, semiautos, calls, scents, hollow points, fmj, etc.:yeah: It's amazing what some people believe.
Post by: DJ_Mack on July 10, 2015, 10:31:48 AM
Post by: b23 on July 10, 2015, 10:44:08 AM
Post by: DJ_Mack on July 10, 2015, 10:47:58 AM
Post by: blackdog on July 10, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
Post by: b23 on July 10, 2015, 11:56:58 AM
Apparently ATF has recently begun denying Form 1 SBR's.
As if they ever need one, let alone a good one, but do you know why they are denying them??????
Post by: sooperfly on July 10, 2015, 01:25:46 PM
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_15/582816_Form_1_DENIED___There_it_is_folks____.html&page=1
So here is what I got from Brian Blake, the original sponsor of the bill.
A staff member at the DOL had a conversation with the ATF a few weeks back and the discussion centered on SB 5956, and lack of clarity and confusion about manufacturing SBR's. This person is not a policy maker, but apparently the ATF person may have taken it that way. The head of Washington DOL Firearms Division will be contacting the ATF to let them know that the conversation was not with a representative allowed to direct policy on behalf of Washington State.
The AG's office has not made any official statements on the bill at this time.
Also, the DOL did not advise the ATF to not approve the forms, nor did the AG's office. The DOL's position is that it isn't their position to interpret the laws, and that it is up to the ATF to make their own interpretation.
Also, Thanks RichM for sending me Ted Clutter's contact information and email addresses. Brian Blake and the DOL have that information now and they will contact Ted. The rest of you may want to not deluge Mr. Clutter with a bunch of emails. Brian says he will work on this. Please let him work through the process.
Thanks.