| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
 Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:36 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | MyFootHurts wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | Relaxing the 1934 restrictions on silencers, just means that the velocity of rounds striking unsuspecting other users will be increased and more risk of accidental deaths. |
Silencers are completely legal in WA and most other states. (I own two).
They have almost no effect on velocity and there has not been a single death attributed to them.
In other words, like most gun control supporters you have no idea what you`re talking about. |
Silencers reduce the sound emitted, so that the distance that other users are alerted to the plinkers presence is reduced.
I guess I need to be more direct and obvious with "huge members" like you. |
Even suppressed, rifle reports will outdistance the range of the projectile.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:38 pm |
|
|
| BigBrunyon wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | Silencers reduce the sound emitted, so that the distance that other users are alerted to the plinkers presence is reduced. |
What's the deal with velocity getting changed? |
The farther downrange you are the lower the velocity. Silencers mean you are closer to the shooter before you can hear them.
Basic physics seem lost on this crowd.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:39 pm |
|
|
| xrp wrote: | | Even suppressed, rifle reports will outdistance the range of the projectile. |
Got any facts to back that up?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:39 pm |
|
|
| cambajamba wrote: | | Oh thank goodness xrp decided to weigh in! I've been missing his proof of how very very smart he is and his trenchant analysis of the law. |
Does your post adhere to Tom's requirements?
| Quote: | | We'd really like to keep it that way so before hitting the reply or submit button I would like to ask everyone to think about whether their contribution adds value to this site. Is it positive? Is it helpful? Will it make people want to return to this site and be part of this community? Nothing wrong with healthy debate but let's keep it civil, refrain from personal attacks, and remember this site is what you choose to make it. Thank you! |
https://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8017231&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Or is more of a personal attack...something Tom asks people to refrain from doing?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:44 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | xrp wrote: | | Even suppressed, rifle reports will outdistance the range of the projectile. |
Got any facts to back that up? |
Suppressed rifle reports will be in the 125db range up to around 140db. That is akin to airliner jet engine noise.
Can you hear jet engines from > 2 miles?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBrunyon
Member
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!! |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Basic physics seem lost on this crowd. |
Then go post somewhere else. You make a WHOLE lot of assumptions, by the way. About:
1. The effect that silencers may or may not have on the behavior of shooters.
2. The intelligence (or lack thereof) of yourself and others.
3. The motives and thoughts (or lack thereof) behind others' quick and blunt posts in response to yours.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cambajamba
Member
Joined: 05 Nov 2011
Posts: 339 | TRs | Pics
|
I've taken complaints about hate speech to Tom before and been told to not worry about it. If he would like to ban me for making fun of you, xrp, I'd be happy to leave permanently.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:55 pm |
|
|
| DIYSteve wrote: | | xrp wrote: | | There are very few commonly used rifle calibers that would be able to reach you a mile from point of firing. |
Not true. See this chart from WA Hunter Education Course site:
| xrp wrote: | | If you're wandering where there are no trails, a bullet fired from 5,280 feet away is going to hit a tree, the ground or other obstacle long before reaching you. |
There are very few trees in the subject area of this thread.
And where are you going with this? It seems an attempt to justify rifle target shooting with no backstop. Every responsible firearm user knows that a backstop is absolutely required when target shooting. |
Thanks. That chart is pretty helpful. It is also indicative of maximum potential ranges of various calibers. To obtain the cited maximum potential range, someone would have to be aiming at something that is up in the air, making a backstop irrelevant. In other words, one wouldn't be target shooting unless your target is something like a drone or a bird.
No responsible person would use a rifle to hunt a bird, that is why there is birdshot for shotguns.
I do agree with you that any responsible firearm user would utilize a backdrop.
No one aiming at a target 2-5 feet off the ground (standard) will achieve a 5,280 of bullet travel due to drop off. For example, if I shoot a .243 95gr bullet at a target 3 feet off the ground and miss, I'm in the dirt at 1,500 feet maximum. If I shoot a .30-06 150gr bullet at that same target and miss, I'm in the dirt around 1,700 feet. Far short of a mile.
If I wanted to achieve the 3 miles with .30-06 that the chart illustrates, I'd need to be holding my rifle up at a high angle, probably 30-50 degrees off the ground. Again, in such a scenario, a backstop is rather meaningless as there's no way I am aiming at a target down range assuming a relatively flat area.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBrunyon
Member
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!! |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | What's the deal with velocity getting changed? |
The farther downrange you are the lower the velocity. Silencers mean you are closer to the shooter before you can hear them.[/quote]
So it sounds like without a silencer, by the time a hiker got hit with a stray bullet, the bullet would have slowed to a speed where it would more or less just bounce off of the hiker and the hiker would be fine? Is that the point being attempted here?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:04 pm |
|
|
| BigBrunyon wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | What's the deal with velocity getting changed? |
The farther downrange you are the lower the velocity. Silencers mean you are closer to the shooter before you can hear them.
So it sounds like without a silencer, by the time a hiker got hit with a stray bullet, the bullet would have slowed to a speed where it would more or less just bounce off of the hiker and the hiker would be fine? Is that the point being attempted here? |
That's the idea.
With any responsible target shooter it is a non-issue as they will always fire into a backstop.
However there are non-trivial numbers of idiot target shooters. (See post above for but one example)
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:05 pm |
|
|
| DIYSteve wrote: | | xrp wrote: | | Could you document those laws here please? |
No, not all of them. If you're sincerely interested, so some research. You might learn something. I'll provide one example: RCW Chapter 10.14, which authorizes the entry of a restraining order against someone who engages in conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to [the petitioner], and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose." Note the conjunctive or. This law is bottomed on the victim's right to feel safe and secure. |
That is interesting.
| Quote: | | RCW 10.14.010
Legislative finding, intent.
The legislature finds that serious, personal harassment through repeated invasions of a person's privacy by acts and words showing a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim is increasing. The legislature further finds that the prevention of such harassment is an important governmental objective. This chapter is intended to provide victims with a speedy and inexpensive method of obtaining civil antiharassment protection orders preventing all further unwanted contact between the victim and the perpetrator. |
However, I don't see how it would apply to this situation when the shooters communicated well with newcomers to the trailhead and (according to the OP) did not engage in threatening, coercive, intimidating or humiliating activity.
I also don't see how it guarantees a person's "right to feel safe" as there really is no right because it is impossible to discern what makes any one individual feel safe.
Speaking from personal experience, I don't feel safe around dogs that are off leash. There are laws for many places outdoors stating dogs must be kept on leash, but owners don't obey it. What should I do in that situation? This is particular relevant to this thread as it is common occurrence on trails we all hike on feel safe on.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant
Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
And another thread bites the dust 
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:16 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | BigBrunyon wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | What's the deal with velocity getting changed? |
The farther downrange you are the lower the velocity. Silencers mean you are closer to the shooter before you can hear them.
So it sounds like without a silencer, by the time a hiker got hit with a stray bullet, the bullet would have slowed to a speed where it would more or less just bounce off of the hiker and the hiker would be fine? Is that the point being attempted here? |
That's the idea.
With any responsible target shooter it is a non-issue as they will always fire into a backstop.
However there are non-trivial numbers of idiot target shooters. (See post above for but one example) |
I don't know about that...
Most cartridges firing send their bullets supersonic. For example, .223/5.56 generally will leave the barrel around 3,250 feet per second. Sound travels at around 1,100 feet per second. Suppressed or unsuppressed, a stray bullet will strike you before you would hear it. But a shooter would REALLY have to not even be aiming anywhere at a target 2-5 feet off the ground in order to achieve hitting you, along the same path as his/her target is set up. In other words, backdrop/no backdrop, suppressor/no suppressor is really irrelevant here.
Now, shooters firing off continuous, suppressed rounds in your vicinity (within a mile)? Yes, you are likely to hear that because of the repeated supersonic "cracks in the air" of the bullets.
Subsonic ammunition being fired while suppressed will be quieter, but will also have less maximum range as the bullets are heavier than and/or have less powder to propel them than their supersonic bullets.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MyFootHurts
Huge Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 912 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kekistan |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Got any facts to back that up? |
Again you have no idea what youre talking about. Do have any experiene shooting with supressors other than seeing it in Hollywood movies?
Anyway your opinion doesnt matter. Supressors are legal to own and use in WA.
So just add it to the long list of things that frighten you because you dont understand it so you want the government to ban it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBrunyon
Member
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!! |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | So it sounds like without a silencer, by the time a hiker got hit with a stray bullet, the bullet would have slowed to a speed where it would more or less just bounce off of the hiker and the hiker would be fine? Is that the point being attempted here?
That's the idea. |
Yeah, I don't buy that at all. Show me someone who has had bullets "bounce off of them" without injury occurring and maybe I'll come around.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
