We'll I'm convinced these are going to be the cats meow and I've committed to a batch currently to be in hand in October. Can't wait, one will be a demo.

They won't be very popular in the sporting clays / skeet world. Most of those shooters prefer O/U shotguns for weight balance and reliability. This tool doesn't appear compatible with an O/U or SxS shotgun. I'm also having trouble seeing a 3-gunner add 2lbs to the end of a high-speed shotgun... Upland bird hunting - no - too heavy. Duck hunters... maybe... in the South where they aren't already loaded down with 50lbs of cold-weather gear.

I really just don't see an active market for these... Sure, I know plenty of people who might be interested in owning one because of the "cool" factor... but after the novelty wears off, my guess is the suppressor will be packed alongside the old Remington or Mossberg pump under a bed somewhere, labeled as a self-defense tool, collecting dust and never seeing the light of day. But then, I know I'm wrong. Because people who stash a Remington or Mossberg pump under the bed probably purchased that firearm on the basis of its affordability, et al. Spending $1200+ on an accessory for a $400 gun that rarely gets used probably won't happen.


Sure, I think it would be cool to have one... I'd turkey hunt with it.
And it might be fun to do some skeet shooting with a semi-auto.

It may indeed be the bee's knees... but I'm not sure about the market potential.

Enough rambling... How about a serious question.... how does this perform on various semi-auto shotguns? Are we going to be over-gassed at the skeet range now?

I have already purchased two shotguns to SBS just for this can/ I'm sending off an 1100 for a 14'' conversion and doing a form 1 on an 870 12". I was already doing an older Benelli M1 , unfortunately it can't be threaded for a choke . I'm on the waiting list with SS for the can , I would be curious to know how many are on that list?

My first demo gun is going to be the UTS-15. I think it’s perfect for that platform. My understanding is the blowback is minimal but I’ve yet to shoot one. I’m taking pre-orders if anyone’s interested, first in, first out.

A suppressed shotgun is just a toy. To be cheap to make and very effective, integral is the way to go. Ask me how I know. Jack.

Bendersquint wrote:

Toxarch wrote: And aren't modular parts considered extra suppressor parts? If so, wouldn't that be illegal according to the ATF?

Yes, they are considered extra suppressor parts, and therefore illegal.

I assume Silencerco figured a legal way to do it, I have a request into FTB to find out how they did it as we have been denied on multiple times for a similar design just in a centerfire rifle can.

Being "modular" in design does not necessarily mean that they are user-modifiable. From the video, it looks like the design makes it cost less to manufacture different lengths using the same parts. The length of the rods would be specific to the number of baffles being used, right? If so, the user would need a different set of rods for each length for it to be modifiable.

one-eyed Jack wrote:A suppressed shotgun is just a toy. To be cheap to make and very effective, integral is the way to go. Ask me how I know. Jack.

How do you know?

Serious question.

And, for the record I agree. An integral barrel for a shotgun would be the way to go for a lot of different reasons.

I made a suppressed 20 ga single almost 20 yrs ago. Heavily ported barrel with various st st and aluminum screening between the barrel and the 2.5 in aluminum tube. Amazingly quiet and cheap to build. It's here on the forum somewhere. Jack.

I'll fax you the details if you want to give me a number. Jack.

Johnny Dronehunter: Defender of Privacy - Official Trailer feat. Salvo 12 Shotgun Silencer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXwQVFt8Ho

Armorer-at-Law wrote:

Bendersquint wrote:

Toxarch wrote: And aren't modular parts considered extra suppressor parts? If so, wouldn't that be illegal according to the ATF?

Yes, they are considered extra suppressor parts, and therefore illegal.

I assume Silencerco figured a legal way to do it, I have a request into FTB to find out how they did it as we have been denied on multiple times for a similar design just in a centerfire rifle can.

Being "modular" in design does not necessarily mean that they are user-modifiable. From the video, it looks like the design makes it cost less to manufacture different lengths using the same parts. The length of the rods would be specific to the number of baffles being used, right? If so, the user would need a different set of rods for each length for it to be modifiable.

Yes, to reduce the length you need the rod kit for the size you want. Original can is 12". Specific rod kits are purchased in size. 6, 8 or 10". They run $50 per.

AirCavBob wrote:Yes, to reduce the length you need the rod kit for the size you want. Original can is 12". Specific rod kits are purchased in size. 6, 8 or 10". They run $50 per.

Well that answers the physical question, but seems to further open the can of worms that is the legal question; are these shorter rods not then 'silencer parts' according to the ATF rules? Would that not preclude their purchase without extra tax stamps for each rod or set of rods, or even eliminate the possibility of purchase for mere civilians altogether?

a_canadian wrote:

AirCavBob wrote:Yes, to reduce the length you need the rod kit for the size you want. Original can is 12". Specific rod kits are purchased in size. 6, 8 or 10". They run $50 per.

Well that answers the physical question, but seems to further open the can of worms that is the legal question; are these shorter rods not then 'silencer parts' according to the ATF rules? Would that not preclude their purchase without extra tax stamps for each rod or set of rods, or even eliminate the possibility of purchase for mere civilians altogether?

Interesting. I understand it's ok since the caliber doesn't change, but the overall length is listed on form 4. I'm sure "multi" won't pass, just like for the caliber. Can you put 6" on the F4 and adding length to that is considered legal? Or vice versa by writing down 12" and subtracting length is legal?

rimshaker wrote:

a_canadian wrote:

AirCavBob wrote:Yes, to reduce the length you need the rod kit for the size you want. Original can is 12". Specific rod kits are purchased in size. 6, 8 or 10". They run $50 per.

Well that answers the physical question, but seems to further open the can of worms that is the legal question; are these shorter rods not then 'silencer parts' according to the ATF rules? Would that not preclude their purchase without extra tax stamps for each rod or set of rods, or even eliminate the possibility of purchase for mere civilians altogether?

Interesting. I understand it's ok since the caliber doesn't change, but the overall length is listed on form 4. I'm sure "multi" won't pass, just like for the caliber. Can you put 6" on the F4 and adding length to that is considered legal? Or vice versa by writing down 12" and subtracting length is legal?

ATF only allows shortening of the silencer to accommodate rethreading.

ATF does not allow the increase in length of a silencer as they consider it an improvement of performance and warrants a new stamp.

Well that answers the physical question, but seems to further open the can of worms that is the legal question; are these shorter rods not then 'silencer parts' according to the ATF rules? Would that not preclude their purchase without extra tax stamps for each rod or set of rods, or even eliminate the possibility of purchase for mere civilians altogether?

More specifically, aren't these "silencer parts" under the statute? I wish the answer was "no," but a logical reading of the law would suggest "yes." ATF does allow pistons to be swapped, considering them to be more of a mounting adapter. I think that one is a gray area that ATF could change its position on at any time, since ported pistons actually contribute to the sound suppressing effect. Maybe the rods will be something ATF chooses to ignore for now. I don't know.

Armorer-at-Law wrote:

Well that answers the physical question, but seems to further open the can of worms that is the legal question; are these shorter rods not then 'silencer parts' according to the ATF rules? Would that not preclude their purchase without extra tax stamps for each rod or set of rods, or even eliminate the possibility of purchase for mere civilians altogether?

More specifically, aren't these "silencer parts" under the statute? I wish the answer was "no," but a logical reading of the law would suggest "yes." ATF does allow pistons to be swapped, considering them to be more of a mounting adapter. I think that one is a gray area that ATF could change its position on at any time, since ported pistons actually contribute to the sound suppressing effect. Maybe the rods will be something ATF chooses to ignore for now. I don't know.

ATF won't be going after pistons anytime soon and its certainly not grey area.

Makes no difference if they help or hinder sound reduction, clearly meets the guidance and requirements given to licensed manufacturers that was set by the FTB/NFA.

Extra sets of rods to change the OAL of a silencer.........thats another story.

Bendersquint wrote:

Armorer-at-Law wrote:

Well that answers the physical question, but seems to further open the can of worms that is the legal question; are these shorter rods not then 'silencer parts' according to the ATF rules? Would that not preclude their purchase without extra tax stamps for each rod or set of rods, or even eliminate the possibility of purchase for mere civilians altogether?

More specifically, aren't these "silencer parts" under the statute? I wish the answer was "no," but a logical reading of the law would suggest "yes." ATF does allow pistons to be swapped, considering them to be more of a mounting adapter. I think that one is a gray area that ATF could change its position on at any time, since ported pistons actually contribute to the sound suppressing effect. Maybe the rods will be something ATF chooses to ignore for now. I don't know.

ATF won't be going after pistons anytime soon and its certainly not grey area.

Makes no difference if they help or hinder sound reduction, clearly meets the guidance and requirements given to licensed manufacturers that was set by the FTB/NFA.

Extra sets of rods to change the OAL of a silencer.........thats another story.

But what if the rods are an everyday off the shelf item that just happen to work with the Salvo? How can they regulate the rods if they have other, non-silencer related, purposes?

cpatterson86 wrote:But what if the rods are an everyday off the shelf item that just happen to work with the Salvo? How can they regulate the rods if they have other, non-silencer related, purposes?

They can regulate it because those everyday rods are now intended for use in a silencer, so if you have a Salvo and you buy those rods that will work in the silencer then that would make them extra silencer parts.

ATF says...... "The definition of a silencer also includes any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler."(emphasis added by me).

Redesigned has been clarified by the ATF in the past to include the repurposing of an item.

There is also no such animal as "just happens to work" in this industry, if they "just happen to work" then it was part of the design.

Bendersquint wrote:There is also no such animal as "just happens to work" in this industry, if they "just happen to work" then it was part of the design.

Which is the biggest part of why the 'solvent trap' Mag-lite kit is so hilarious. So much of the promotional material revolves around the rationale that until you drill a hole, it's not a silencer. What a load of BS. Right from the start the threaded endcap is pretty much the same thing as those serialised threaded caps they sell for use in turning oil filters into suppressors.

My prediction is that this goes to market as a full-size 12" can. The multiple sizes will require multiple stamps and anything under 12" is pointless when it comes to sound reduction on a shotgun can. The multi-size concept is also not feasible due to US law.

Bendersquint wrote:

Toxarch wrote: And aren't modular parts considered extra suppressor parts? If so, wouldn't that be illegal according to the ATF?

Yes, they are considered extra suppressor parts, and therefore illegal.

I assume Silencerco figured a legal way to do it, I have a request into FTB to find out how they did it as we have been denied on multiple times for a similar design just in a centerfire rifle can.

I'm anxious to hear what the answer is

DarkStar wrote: I really just don't see an active market for these... Sure, I know plenty of people who might be interested in owning one because of the "cool" factor... but after the novelty wears off, my guess is the suppressor will be packed alongside the old Remington or Mossberg pump under a bed somewhere, labeled as a self-defense tool, collecting dust and never seeing the light of day. But then, I know I'm wrong. Because people who stash a Remington or Mossberg pump under the bed probably purchased that firearm on the basis of its affordability, et al. Spending $1200+ on an accessory for a $400 gun that rarely gets used probably won't happen.

I see plenty of arfcom members buying it so they can keep up with firearm fashion accessories. I doubt it will ever become Silencerco's big seller but I am sure they will move quite a few to the "building skills through accessorization" crowd. Now if they pay the money to get this featured in a video game, they'll get a bunch of the gamers turned gun people (read: arfcommers that joined in the last six years) to buy it as well.

My hat is off to Silencerco for producing this item.I'm a bit mystified why they even mention that their company developed the rail system to contain the shot wad.Its a old patent re-purposed for use in a shotgun suppressor and they did not think that use first!

Capt. Link. wrote:I'm a bit mystified why they even mention that their company developed the rail system to contain the shot wad.Its a old patent re-purposed for use in a shotgun suppressor and they did not think that use first!

I don't doubt you, but I'm curious as to where that configuration was used before. Got a link?

Armorer-at-Law wrote:

Capt. Link. wrote:I'm a bit mystified why they even mention that their company developed the rail system to contain the shot wad.Its a old patent re-purposed for use in a shotgun suppressor and they did not think that use first!

I don't doubt you, but I'm curious as to where that configuration was used before. Got a link?

#2,780,962 Blast suppressor 1957 re-purposed in 2009 for a 12 gauge suppressor.