Suppressed weapons for home defense.

[Joe13]

I like my Sks but wouldn't use it for the same reason as the concerns above about perception.

Hard to paint a revolver as an assault handgun.

 

[asiparks]

a suppressor does make pistols rather unwieldy. lot of mass swinging off the end of that barrel. plus most semiauto pistols have awful blowback. if you dont have time to put on eye protection you're going to get high velocity unburned powder in the eyes.

i'm thinking a pair of earmuffs next to the gun. no nfa issues and no blowback issues.

I would imagine that the possibility of an unknown number of people roaming as quietly as they can around your house, earmuffs might not be the best answer.
As regards to burnt powder blowback, never been an issue at all.
My Osprey adds length, but the weight is neglible, and a couple of onces of Warlock II hanging off my Ruger isn't even noticeable

 

[jbett98]

Of all the negative news stories that I have read over the past few years that involved a homeowner using a firearm to defend himself, it's the ones where the homeowner shoots someone outside his house while they're breaking into his car/shop and/or trying to run away, sometimes in the back.
Grand Juries take a dim view of claiming self defense in those circumstances.

 

[Sawdust]

Politics aside, Justifiable Homicide is 'justified' regardless of method. Period.

 

[Josh Wright]

Is there a link to the laws regarding suppressors in the state of Washington?

 

[Certaindeaf]

Yeabut they'll crap their freaking pants and run even if you miss with a 2" .357 Magnum! guaranteed.. lol

 

[1337BaldEagle]

In it's simplest form, the question during the trial is:

"Was the shooter justified?"

If you set up in a bedroom with a locked door, call 9-1-1, and shoot an invader who comes through that door after you, it would be extremely difficult to get convicted.

It's not all that simple for us folks who have families. My wife an I will sleep in separate rooms on a regular basis since our schedules are a lot of the time opposite (it's a graveyard thing). So, what I'm saying is I am unwilling to "set up in a bedroom" unless I am 100% sure that she is not in danger. It will further complicate things when we have a child.

This is the very reason why having home defense laws are so critically important. If there was a person in my home, especially when a person is most vulnerable (sleep time), there should be 100% legal justification for a shooting. That is not how it sits on the books right now. But in my opinion it should be. I should not be forced to act a certain way as a result of someones gross crimes.

Furthermore, let's articulate on a home invasion for one second. If we assume that the person is not stupid then we can also assume that he/she knows one possible outcome for home intrusion is death. If they have noted that and still broke in we can also assume that that person (granted they want to stay alive) has come ready to deal with the risks that come with invading a home. This is why I will always assume an uninvited person is armed and willing to do me harm if they are in my home. I think that is a very reasonable assumption.

If you follow the very basic rules about after shooting protocol there should be VERY little for a prosecutor to go on outside of "he defended himself" suppressor or no suppressor.



Eagle

 

[RBid]

Bald,

We're in agreement. I used bunkering in a bedroom as an easy example, but there are other ways to achieve the same legal position. I have kids, as well. Accordingly, I can demonstrate necessity to interpose myself and my weapon between an invader and a path to the kids. As an example, if I take the landing at the top of the stairs and an invader is shot trying to come up, I am clearly making a defensive shoot. Morally, I would have zero guilt or second guessing with this decision.

Were I to venture downstairs and shoot an invader in a bathroom, the question of whether I was on the hunt may be posed. This is also a version of events that leaves open the possibility of conflicted feelings after the fact, depending on specifics.

Thinking about these kinds of things in advance is obviously a very good thing. Creating clear black & white helps everybody.

 

[jbett98]

Would this be a good example on how to deal with an intruder in your bathroom.

 

[mcathcart]

...if you dont have time to put on eye protection you're going to get high velocity unburned powder in the eyes.

no it wont.
you should shoot one before you make statements like that.

 

[usagi]

no it wont.
you should shoot one before you make statements like that.

yes it will.

been there done that.

the silencerco osprey on an FNP-45 has severe blowback. one of the best ways to show people why you always wear eye protection at the range.

if you really think it doesnt, come up and shoot it without eye protection. it's the last thing you will ever see.

seriously, suggesting it is safe for people to shoot a suppressed pistol host without eye protection is unbelievably irresponsible.

 

[CoastRange57]

Bald,

We're in agreement. I used bunkering in a bedroom as an easy example, but there are other ways to achieve the same legal position. I have kids, as well. Accordingly, I can demonstrate necessity to interpose myself and my weapon between an invader and a path to the kids. As an example, if I take the landing at the top of the stairs and an invader is shot trying to come up, I am clearly making a defensive shoot. Morally, I would have zero guilt or second guessing with this decision.

Were I to venture downstairs and shoot an invader in a bathroom, the question of whether I was on the hunt may be posed. This is also a version of events that leaves open the possibility of conflicted feelings after the fact, depending on specifics.

Thinking about these kinds of things in advance is obviously a very good thing. Creating clear black & white helps everybody.

Good thoughts. I will say that in my opinion, acting against someone in my bathroom in an offensive manner is still going to be a good shoot. ANYBODY in your house engaged in a criminal act is subject to lethal interdiction, you have no idea what the intents are and capabilities are as well. Waiting for them to bring the fight or situation to you, is going to give them a tactical advantage you should not be letting them have.If you have training, and the criminal likely is going to have less, being offensive is always going to be to your advantage.

I find the question of a suppressor on a handgun for home defense a non issue. My training simply does not allow for the added inputs that a suppressor brings, nor do I feel the need to protect my hearing in that situation. I have experience with suppressors on high caliber rifles, my son has several, all legal, and has combat experience with it. I probably have 100 rounds on that piece in the last year.

Suppressors are great for the long distance shot, the medium range shots where revealing your location is key. On handguns for a self defense tactical purpose, I think they are useless. Just my own opinion.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Dogs are pretty quiet.. until the screaming starts. lol

 

[misplacedtexan]

My SBR'd 9mm AR sits with a can on it in the corner...waiting


...on a real note, I'm going to shoot my weapon suppressed. I don't care to disturb the neighbors, and I would wonder how long the ATF would let the local PD hang onto said items being that it's a felony for anyone other than the designated person on the form 1/4 to possess them.

 

[Mark-60]

yes it will.

been there done that.

the silencerco osprey on an FNP-45 has severe blowback. one of the best ways to show people why you always wear eye protection at the range.

if you really think it doesnt, come up and shoot it without eye protection. it's the last thing you will ever see.

seriously, suggesting it is safe for people to shoot a suppressed pistol host without eye protection is unbelievably irresponsible.

I have a Osprey 45 and HK USP 45 T and I would shoot it w/o eye pro if I had too. I haven't experienced any severe "blow back" at all. Is there more stuff coming back at the shooter? Sure. Is it a problem? Nope.

 

[misplacedtexan]

^^ I think it may vary a bit depending on firearm, lock-up times, can volume, etc. I imagine certain cans on the USP may cause more blowback, while certain cans on a FNP-45 would cause none.

Also, I have shot a few firearms that would cover you in carbon, lubricant, brass shavings, etc and not worn eye pro (I know), and I still see fairly fine.

 

[jbett98]

There's more coming out the front then the rear.

 

[Mark-60]

There's more coming out the front then the rear.

I meant more than un-suppressed. I sure do like shooting suppressed. I don't have any problems with "blow back" when I shoot my Glock 23 suppressed either. When I get the threaded barrel for my G19, I'll let you know how that goes, but I don't see it being any different.

 

[RBid]

I will say that in my opinion, acting against someone in my bathroom in an offensive manner is still going to be a good shoot. ANYBODY in your house engaged in a criminal act is subject to lethal interdiction, you have no idea what the intents are and capabilities are as well. Waiting for them to bring the fight or situation to you, is going to give them a tactical advantage you should not be letting them have.If you have training, and the criminal likely is going to have less, being offensive is always going to be to your advantage.

We differ in thought on some of this.

If a defender ventures out to clear the house, an aggressive prosecutor will have a solid foundation for demonstrating that the defender did not fear for his/her life. In some states, laws are crafted in such a way where this may be a non-issue. In other states, it can be a critical consideration. In my state, a shoot is (legally) good if and only if the defender believes that lethal force is being used or is about to be used against him or her. While we have no stated duty to retreat, a case could easily be made that a defender who tried to clear the house was not in fear (as they obviously sought out contact), and did not believe that lethal force was an imminent threat.

As far as tactical advantage of offense vs defense goes...

I have no formal training with structure clearing. I've had hours of conversation with guys I know about it, more than a few of whom have done it many times professionally. The consensus is, "no way. Don't do it. I wouldn't [except to collect kids]."

 

[Oklahomie]

All this suppressor talks has me wanting one.