On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:09:32 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Jan 26, 3:44*pm, Salmonbait wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:23:20 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Do you mean this?

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/

If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the
terror.
Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that
effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your
thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license..
see BATF Form .

If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable
suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops
and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end.

Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer.

Not at all.

Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe
trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1.
It is an impressive reduction in report.
The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal.

I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for
example.

Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

Like the cone on the end of a Lee Enfield "jungle carbine" It was
there but didn't work very well. I think all it did was send the noise
back to the enemy.

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/im..._carbine_9.jpg

That cone was a flash suppressor, not a silencer.


Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!