Wednesday, October 28, 2009

It's a movement....

It has long been my perception that NFA ownership was increasing. It wasn't until my early 20s that I really got into the whole gun culture, about the time I got my first job at a gun store; at the time, in the early '90s, I could count the people I knew who owned NFA weapons on both hands. Most of them owned full autos of one variety or another, although I knew one guy with a pistol-gripped short shotgun (as a smoothbore handgun, these are registered as an "Any Other Weapon", or AOW in gun nut lingo,) and the only person I knew with a suppressor had it attached to a MAC-10.

Now you can't swing a cat at a gun show without hitting someone selling suppressors, and I'm one of the few people I shoot with who doesn't own a can (or a short-barreled rifle or a full auto or a tax stamp of any kind.)

It looks like my perception is backed up by the numbers.

If suppressors keep getting more popular, I think one of the gun culture's next attacks should be to get them removed from the NFA. After all, they're good for your health!

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Move suppressors to Title I with federal preemption, but I've been saying this for decades.

Maybe someone will actually listen someday? :-)

Shootin' Buddy

aczarnowski said...

No cans in MN period. One of the rare cases where I wish we were more like Europe.

Alan said...

Suppressors, sort barreled rifles and AOWs must be accounting for the increase in transfers. I just can't imagine almost a million transfers from a pool that only has 100K to 200K machine guns in it.

I like to see those transfer numbers broken down by type.

Tam said...

I'd bet suppressors accounts for most of it.

Weer'd Beard said...

I wants me a can so BAD!

Sadly they are verboten in the PRM.

RaspberrySurprise said...

Don't even get me started on the boondoggle that we have going on in Michigan with regards to NFA items.

Jeff said...

I'd be willing to bet that most of the increase is Suppressors and SBR's. I'd imagine there is also a fair amount of form 1 SBR's Suppressors probably account for much of it, Hell, would Cerebrus have just bought AAC if they were not selling so many cans?

Vaarok said...

Remington is very strongly pressing for decriminalization of cans in NY state, and then ramping up for wholesale production thereof, and not just for military contract.

The local political scene's all abuzz about what's going on down in Ilion.

perlhaqr said...

I would love it if suppressors weren't NFA. I've got some designs I'd like to try building, but I can't afford the experimentation costs.

Blackwing1 said...

Like aczarnowski I live in the Soviet Socialist State of Minnesota, where protecting your hearing at the range is unlawful.

What's the rationalization for banning them? Afraid of poaching? Or did the legislators listen to "Low Spark of High-Heeled Boys" one too many times?

Rabbit said...

If things continue the way they have this year with my employer I've given serious consideration to getting my paperwork together and machining 'boutique' suppressors.

Regards,
Rabbit.

Anonymous said...

Substitute for handguns in 1934.

Shootin' Buddy

tomcatshanger said...

Texas happens to be very NFA friendly at a state level, and local government can't ban them.

They also don't have to sign off, though you can sue them into compliance or go the trust/corp route.

Tam said...

I really should get my AR lower SBR'ed, what with that badass switch-barrel upper and all...

Rick R. said...

Take suppressors off the NFA list!

It's for the CHILDREN!

{snicker}

bedlamite said...

Part of the increase may be that years ago, $200 was a significant increase in the cost of a firearm, and in some cases, more than the gun was worth. These days, many rifles have a 4 digit price tag, so it's not really that much more expensive to get a tax stamp.

Kristopher said...

I'm thinking that Alan's daughter needs a fuzzy pink can for her rifle.

Mikael said...

Re: aczarnowski

No cans whatsoever here in sweden either. Total ban on the can.

Handguns are competition shooters only.

Rifles are easier, hunters and competition shooters.

But maybe 5% of the population has a full auto 7.62NATO(a G3A1) at home for being "home guard"(national guard)/reserves/few other exceptions.

Anonymous said...

I live in the Great state of Montana and as of October the 1st 2009 we have no restrictions or taxes on suppressors oh yea

NPB said...

I'm starting to educate myself more about NFA stuff, and a lot of the articles that I've read usually start off talking about the increased sophistication of supressors. Suppressors are apparently now a lot shorter, dryer, can operate in pistols without fixed barrels, don't turn pistols into single-shots, and don't send the reliability or accuracy of your firearms down the toilet.

All of these "new features" seem like they make the idea of a supressed firearm a lot more practical than it may have been in the past.

Anonymous said...

Nope won't happen. no agency will ever give an inch

Don said...

If they were legal in my state, I'd definitely have suppressors for most of my handguns and at least one .22 rifle.
They're almost all upside with none of the downsides of machine guns.

Will said...

NPB,
Some weapons are measurably more accurate with the can than w/o. Seems that eliminating the muzzle blast avoids upsetting the bullet as it exits. Similar to the discovery that eliminating the evil flashhider on some rifles helps accuracy.

Buffboy said...

Will, on the other hand, I've found the quickest way to accurize a normal mini14 is to put a flash hider/muzzle brake on it. This has probably more to do with the weight than the effects (considering the new Mini14, Ruger knows it too) but "whatever" it usually cuts groups in half on one.

Personally, I think the uptick is based on the piles of 10"-14.5" barrels out there available for the AR15 more than suppressors. I'd love it if suppressors were taken out of the NFA legislation but I don't look for it to happen.

NPB said...

Will,

I've got very limited personal experience with suppressors, but most of what I've recently read states that you should expect an increase in accuracy when you supress your firearm. Now, the most recent suppressor article that I've read also indicated that this was not always the case. Either way, I think it's pretty nice to get more accuracy and less noise all at the same time.

Tam said...

"Now, the most recent suppressor article that I've read also indicated that this was not always the case."

Cans that used rubber wipes may have deleterious effects on velocity and accuracy, but a modern wipeless suppressor usually improves both.

Clark Kent said...

I'm so leery of federal databases that I'll pass on the registration aspect. I wonder if the intense marketing of Gamo air rifles is related to the demand for suppressed accoustics married to the same concern?

I talked with two weathered nimrods at the range recently, who hinted as much. Both had the Gamo rifles with the bulge at the end of the barrel. These guns were gnat-squashing accurate at 50-yard targets, and you had to watch closely to know when they were firing.

Tam said...

If you're not already in several federal databases juicier than the NFA registry, you're doing something wrong.

Dave R. said...

Nonsense! "Enforce existing gun laws" is the line we all need to parrot in order to prevent further incursions. Rolling back existing gun laws is not in the playbook.