How can you get one in america? who distributes them?

wacki wrote:How can you get one in america? who distributes them?

You can't, there is no such thing as civilian ownership of imported silencers.

Bendersquint wrote:

wacki wrote:How can you get one in america? who distributes them?

You can't, there is no such thing as civilian ownership of imported silencers.

BUT someone like you could make those here under license? If the design was as good or better than existing US designs (efficiency).

Kramer wrote:

Bendersquint wrote:

wacki wrote:How can you get one in america? who distributes them?

You can't, there is no such thing as civilian ownership of imported silencers.

BUT someone like you could make those here under license? If the design was as good or better than existing US designs (efficiency).

Yes, I could make them tomorrow. Unfortunately they are no better than the US ones though so its a moot point and the ATF will not approve a design that is modular like that so it would be a waste of time.

That modular design is AWESOME... love the look of the tiny one!!! Brilliant. And can I believe my own fingers... That is a nice looking Glock. Great, now my 1911s will never talk to me again.

Would love to hear how different it sounds short.

Any chance you can meter it at the various lengths?

wacki wrote:Any chance you can meter it at the various lengths?

We are trying to import one, if we can get it then we will meter it and compare it to commercial US cans.

Bendersquint wrote:....... the ATF will not approve a design that is modular like that so it would be a waste of time.

It would be nice to make one and customize it up/down for your application.
Is it because the government thinks we may make more than one suppressor out of the core unit.
Do they not trust us?

twodollarbill wrote:

Bendersquint wrote:....... the ATF will not approve a design that is modular like that so it would be a waste of time.

It would be nice to make one and customize it up/down for your application.
Is it because the government thinks we may make more than one suppressor out of the core unit.
Do they not trust us?

Its because it changes the overall length of the suppressor.

As a manufacturer I can get an approval for a can that the tube breaks in half for disassembly.

But a suppressor that has no outer tube that each section at the discretion of the owner may or may not be used to alter the length of the useable can is a no no, even for a manufacturer!

There is no solution since even if each section was a tax stamp as soon as you you attach 2 registered components to each other you just created a 3rd unregistered silencer! It's a no-win situation, I think getting silencers off the NFA will be more likely than getting this type design approved though I will continue to try.

Bendersquint wrote:

twodollarbill wrote:

Bendersquint wrote:....... the ATF will not approve a design that is modular like that so it would be a waste of time.

It would be nice to make one and customize it up/down for your application.
Is it because the government thinks we may make more than one suppressor out of the core unit.
Do they not trust us?

Its because it changes the overall length of the suppressor.

As a manufacturer I can get an approval for a can that the tube breaks in half for disassembly.

But a suppressor that has no outer tube that each section at the discretion of the owner may or may not be used to alter the length of the useable can is a no no, even for a manufacturer!

There is no solution since even if each section was a tax stamp as soon as you you attach 2 registered components to each other you just created a 3rd unregistered silencer! It's a no-win situation, I think getting silencers off the NFA will be more likely than getting this type design approved though I will continue to try.

This reminds me of an article this weekend in the WSJ of why the dolts in Congress are stupidly trying to
pass a 'fairness internet tax' that seller must collect and send to individual states and sometimes
municipalities. The best counter argument, which will fall on deaf ears since the ruling elite have
disdain for their subjects, is Wisconsin where varying the ingredients in a custard cake
determines which sales tax to use - document is over 140 pages.

Perhaps, out of sheer need for ATF's sanity as they realize that they must concentrate on real issues,
integrating the intelligence to prevent another Marathon Islamo-facist disaster, they might put
suppressors on a the same list as purchasing a firearm and eliminate draining and resource waisting
paperwork. From past experience I know that the GS-12 or -13 who institutes this with a cost savings
analysis can earn 10% of a year's expenditure saved. More money for salaries. One can hope.

Ayn Rand warned of this strangling noose of paper work as evidenced in the old
Soviet Union. Time to choose another Rand, Rand Paul to wipe the Stygian Stables clean.

Historian wrote: Perhaps, out of sheer need for ATF's sanity as they realize that they must concentrate on real issues,
integrating the intelligence to prevent another Marathon Islamo-facist disaster, they might put
suppressors on a the same list as purchasing a firearm and eliminate draining and resource waisting
paperwork. From past experience I know that the GS-12 or -13 who institutes this with a cost savings
analysis can earn 10% of a year's expenditure saved. More money for salaries. One can hope.

Ayn Rand warned of this strangling noose of paper work as evidenced in the old
Soviet Union. Time to choose another Rand, Rand Paul to wipe the Stygian Stables clean.

The NFA Branch is a miniscule part of the ATF, they won't be taking suppressors off the list to save paperwork, if anything I can see an increase in the tax before they start removing items from the NFA.

Bendersquint wrote:
The NFA Branch is a miniscule part of the ATF, they won't be taking suppressors off the list to save paperwork, if anything I can see an increase in the tax before they start removing items from the NFA.

Doesn't that require congressional approval? Can the ATF do that on their own?

Waiting for the other "more free than Americuh" shoe to drop.

In the shorter configuration does it matter which baffle you use? Are any of the baffles marked as a "blast baffle"?

It would be interesting to know the difference in suppression even if it's just a "to the ear" measurement.

It's said to be equal to the original B&T with 1-2 baffles removed, all I can say is that it's ridiculously quiet at full length. Unfortunately I don't have much experience with US silencers, so I can't say how it compares to anything you might know. But it wasn't bad even compared to a good 22...

I don't have any metering equipment so I couldn't say with any certainty, but I find it very quiet at full length. It is noticeably louder like this but I mainly use it to practice in the backyard without disturbing the neighbors and since they're a 80-100m away I think the short config will suffice in making any noise at that range very quiet. I also always shoot with earpro, I don't think it's quite enough at full length to go without, but I got sensitive ears and a little tinnitus as well, so I am always super careful nowadays.

The baffles are all identical and I don't have any particular order in which they go, only the front baffle is different.

Thanks.

It's OK to be careful with your hearing.

Resurrecting an old thread ... once again it comes to life

I now own an A-Tec Carbon 2 -- to put a bit of "quiet" on my Steyr .376 "Scout" (Named the "Dragoon" by Jeff Cooper)
It is a very light combo, and my 300 grain Sub-loads are very quiet ... (Modified cases, and Vitahvuori "Tin-Star")



Just to put the record straight: The laws in Denmark have been changed, so now silencers are legal for hunting and target practice in Denmark. --- on Rifles that is .... You can not legally mount a silencer on a weapon that is shorter overall than 60 cm (2 feet) and/or has a barrel shorter than 30 cm.
The individual silencer needs to be registered, you have to get a permit for the silencer, and a permit for a rifle is prerequisite. But registration is FREE ...

Next items on the shopping list is an Ase-Utra SL5 for my rifles under 6,5 mm and an SL7 for the larger ones... (.30 to .338)
...

That is very,very cool!!!!

I would buy it if I could.

Nice update to an old thread but it needs pics

DKDravis wrote:Resurrecting an old thread ... once again it comes to life

I now own an A-Tec Carbon 2 -- to put a bit of "quiet" on my Steyr .376 "Scout" (Named the "Dragoon" by Jeff Cooper)
It is a very light combo, and my 300 grain Sub-loads are very quiet ... (Modified cases, and Vitahvuori "Tin-Star")

Just to put the record straight: The laws in Denmark have been changed, so now silencers are legal for hunting and target practice in Denmark. --- on Rifles that is .... You can not legally mount a silencer on a weapon that is shorter overall than 60 cm (2 feet) and/or has a barrel shorter than 30 cm.
The individual silencer needs to be registered, you have to get a permit for the silencer, and a permit for a rifle is prerequisite. But registration is FREE ...

Next items on the shopping list is an Ase-Utra SL5 for my rifles under 6,5 mm and an SL7 for the larger ones... (.30 to .338)
...

Nice to hear our products are on the list

We have been selling quote well to Denmark, since the laws changed, for both range and hunting use.

Best Regards!

Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors

But its quite strange that in Sweden its completley forbidden to own a pistolsilencer, while just over the border in Norway they are completly unrestricted and can be bought and owned by anyone.