Gemtech Aurora, c Nick Leghorn

For military and law enforcement operations, making a gun completely silent isn’t necessarily a high priority. Still, for pistol silencers especially, making the gun a little quieter and reducing the noise signature is important. And especially for super secret special ops guys, since pulling your handgun out in a fight is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong (and is a rare occurrence), making sure that the overall package of the can and gun is as small as possible is paramount. That’s the impetus behind Gemtech’s new suppressor for the 9mm platform, the Aurora. And while it looks really nice, there’s very little chance you’ll ever get to own one: this can is designated “Law Enforcement / Military Use Only.” Nevertheless, pretty nifty.

81 Responses to New From Gemtech: “Aurora” Super-Short 9mm Silencer

    • Looks awesome. Probably only really works wet (full of wire pulling lube or whatever), and then only for a few shots. It’s just too small to be good for a decent dB reduction otherwise.

      • you cant shoot these wet, they use a series of plastic disks and spacers, they are actually quieter than most others suppressors i have shot, you can get about 30-40 rounds out of each set of disks and then it soundsabout the same as any other suppressor out there, then the suppression detreiates from there, it will run you around 65 dollars for a set of plastic baffles

    • Because it’s not ok to freak out a whole neighborhood just because you have to take out some scumbag?

      I’m pretty anti-cop, but everyone that carries a gun for self defense should have this option.

        • Exactly. It’s hard to serve a no knock warrent with the muzzle report of a .40 cal taking out your dog in the yard.

        • You laugh, but that’s actually the only reason my local PD ever uses a suppressor: When they’re called out to shoot a raccoon or fox suspected to be rabid, they use a suppressed AR. The other use is by the USDA culling team. Hunting is forbidden in my township, so the deer population grows very quickly. Once a year the USDA comes and, using corn for bait, hunts a few hundred deer at two or three a.m., using night vision and suppressed .308’s. To me it’s a fairly sick concept. The meat, though, is carefully prepared and given to local charities.

        • @Ropingdown

          I can’t see why they don’t just have the locals do their own hunting on public / private lands for a nominal licensing fee. John Q. Public makes a pretty good deer hunter, and wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime.

      • @Accur81 -I agree it would seem better to allow residents to hunt the deer. The problem is that discharge of a firearm outdoors is illegal, both in the township and in the county (Montgomery, PA). Yet there is tremendous foliage, gardens, shrubs, things deer like to eat. My backyard has deer in it several times a week, does with fawns, antlered stags. Denser with deer per acre than out on the farm, I would guess. Classic “gunfree zone,” until the USDA comes.

    • Why shouldn’t a cop have suppressor? They have ears like the rest of us.

      The “what do you need it for” criteria shouldn’t be applied to citizen gun owners and, for other than proper use of the tax dollar, should not be applied to cops either.

    • It really doesn’t matter what it’s called. Silencer, suppressor. By any name, it’s an NFA item. Nobody was confused by the reference.

      • Same type of Pavlov’s Dog asshattery that occurs when someone incorrectly uses magazine/clip. A large portion of gun owners just feel absolutely compelled to show off their brilliance and point out the absolute foolishness of calling a mag a clip. the HORROR. Some people just jump on opportunities to cut others down and make themselves feel bigger.

    • The term suppressor is actually incorrect technically. The National Firearms Act and the rest of the laws surrounding these items only mentions silencers and mufflers.

      • The NFA also defines a pistol with a stock as a short barreled rifle, and defines a stockless rifle as a pistol.

        ProTip: when looking for legal definitions, look to the law, but the law won’t give you technical definitions, or necessarily make sense.

        The legal term is silencer, but the correct technical term is usually suppressor, as silencers and suppressors are mechanically different, but treated the same under the law.

  1. What exactly makes this military/law enforcement only? Just the printing on it? Does that have the force of law, or does gemtech intend to only make first-sales to military/LEOs?

    • That’s a question I’ve always had. I’ve got a few mags for Beretta 96 that have the same thing stamped on them. It’s never stopped me from using them and I always get a chuckle out of it, but I’ve always wondered if there’s some little tiny loophole in one of the multitude of laws out there that could get me one of these days.

    • I was wondering that as well. Pretty much everything short of a Stinger can be NFA’d.

      Are they explicitly saying that mundani qui emit non desideretur, as ’twere?

      It would seem to me that this is bad PR.

    • All it means in this case like many body armor manufacturers, is that they will only sell this to military or LEO’s..

  2. How about this for a mandate to eliminate restrictions on supressors:

    The recent post regarding super-duper hearing devices that range in excess of $1K, we see that if supressors were say mandated, if their own recommendations for job safety standards were applied to civil liberties for sake of the publics well being and over-all quality of life, then that would make more fiscal sense to have open optioning for such devices readily available abundantly direct from manufacturers.

    I don’t believe in mandates, BTW, more over freedom of choice, but I was trying to make an illustratively reverse argument.

    • We could mandate that “shal not be infringed” means that any dumb fvck politician who tries to do so, loses their job. It would eliminate a lot more than just problems with hearing loss and noise ordinance.

    • This is one place in which much of Europe is our better. Suppressors are required in some countries, for the benefit of those nearby the shooter.

      And there’s nothing wrong with a mandate, any more than there’s something wrong with mandating headlights or all-wheel brakes in an automobile.

      Requirements that a product be safe in order to be sold are reasonable.

      If one wants to make a firearm for their own use that could double as a grenade with a 3 millisecond fuse, fine, but they may not take it to the range or otherwise use it where others are unwittingly at risk — and it cannot be sold commercially.

      THAT is a common sense law, and applies to all manufacturing — that a product will be reasonably safe when used as directed.

      A suppressor mandate — with grandfathering, of course — would be fine with me, although it’s unlikely to happen.

      • There’s entirety something wrong with mandatory suppressors. First off, it means destroying any old guns you may want to fire. Second, it drastically increases the cost of being a gun owner.

        • If they’re no longer NFA devices and demand soars, the price should drop like a dobie when someone shouts “Raid!” — especially with all the manufacturers getting OEM pricing.

          Also, I did say grandfathering. No mandatory butchering of old iron, and no need to buy a new gun to get a can.

        • Suppressors are dirt cheap in France. I assume they are also cheap in the UK, about 130 euros for a decent one. They don’t cost much to manufacture.

        • @WB: I know the term; my tablet helpfully “corrected” my spelling without my noticing.

      • The only nation I know of in which suppressors are mandatory is Finland. If you can tell me of any others, I would be appreciative.

        • Only in Finland are they required by most municipalities and rural districts. They are not mandated by national law, but there are of course no restrictions.

          In Norway anyone may buy one or a hundred, for whatever purpose; there are no restrictions whatever.

          In Sweden one needs a permit, but it’s shall issue.

          In Poland, there are no restrictions whatsoever. This was the source of my plural, by the way; I’d thought they were mandated there as well.

          In Germany, it’s considered part of a gun. If its legal to own a particular gun, it’s legal to suppress it. While gun permits are required, they are shall issue and the process is quite user friendly.

          For what it’s worth, New Zealand has no restrictions either.

        • Oh – the Czech Republic has very liberal gun laws. If you’ve no criminal history, the license is shall issue and noone licenses or monitors individual arms.

          No suppressors, though.

          Also, concealed carry is not restricted – if you own it legally, you may carry it however you wish. There are a high percentage of armed Czechs, and they keep the bad Czechs in Czech.

          Sorry; couldn’t resist.

          Violent crime is rare, but breakins (when the owners are out) and pick-pocketing are problems. There is virtually no “gun crime.”

        • Thanks, Russ. I have indeed considered a move to Praha or somewheres thereabout. Good people, excellent beer, quasi-legal weed.

        • +1 for Czech Republic being awesome. I went to school in Prague for two semesters. Good times.

  3. Why would a cop need a silencer when they are supposed to announce “police!” before kicking your door in?

    • I’ll treat your question as legit.

      They cannot wear earplugs, for reasons which shoud be obvious. So…

      • I agree, but what’s good for the goose should be good for that gander. If you can own a gun, you should be able to put your can of choice on it without involving the ATF, your local Chief LEO, or a trust.

      • Why not? There are plenty of electronic earplug options out there, which are probably also cheaper than this suppressor.

        • Not the same.

          While they’re great for conversation, they’re not so good for hearing slight noises like a perp panting on the other side of a fence, pinpointing distant footfalls, listening through a door et cetera.

          Not that they should have special access over and above us peones y campesinos, but I can see why they’d want one.

  4. On an unrelated note, I believe the Glock weapon light on that 19 above is the most hideous illumination tool I’ve ever seen.

  5. How will they limit this to law enforcement?

    Any specs available on how noise levels compare to their “standard” 9mm silencer?

    • Gemtech simply won’t sell to their distributors (RSR, accusport, m3) and do the form 5s directly to LEO/MIL.

      No data but I’d be willing to bet I’d it’s wet it compares nicely. The previously mentioned Thompson machine Poseidon did well in testing. Good for a mag or two at least.

      Wipes are suppressor parts but are user replaceable parts. Confuses the heck out of me too, but its legal.

      Oil cans on adapters are NOT wipes however.

  6. It’s my impression that one can’t own spare wipes for a supressor. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong please),
    If that’s the case, why would one want to own something that essentially has to be ‘rebuilt’ after a mag dump?

    • I believe that if you own the suppressor, you’re entitled to obtain spare parts — just not a replacement case or such needed to make a second one.

      Ablative surfaces are wear components, and are user-replaceable.

  7. LEO/MIL suppressors get tracked just like our suppressors and other title 2 firearms do. Every grenade, flash bang, 40mm, every title 2 thing the police use have a form. Those forms go in the same piles ours do in WV. That’s part of the reason everything takes awhile.

  8. This the same silencer they made 10 years ago as a downed pilot suppressor for the G26 air force program. This isnt anything new….the tube in the picture was made in 2001 afterall.

  9. Love to have one, but I’m not jumping through the hoops & paying excessive taxes for the priviledge of having my name on yet another government list indentifying me as a person of the gun.

  10. LOL, Leghorn loves statistics and science but hates calendars. This suppressor has been out of production for YEARS.

    • Did you not read the comments about this suppressor is out of production? Care to know the rulings back in the 90s regarding wipes as suppressor parts?

      Don’t write off gemtech simply because something they did 10 years ago pisses you off on a “moral” level.

  11. That is a 2001 production Aurora, as stated previously. The reason for the “Military and Law Enforcement only” is due to the wipes, as also previously stated. Gemtech is not legally allowed to sell replacement wipes to the end user unless they are a manufacturer or Mil/LE.
    The name “Aurora” was chosen in 1995 when this suppressor was first produced, it was discontinued later that year then produced again in 2001 for the Glock 26 to be issued in downed pilot e&e kits.
    The Aurora is a “wet” only suppressor with the ablative being grease. The wipes and grease combination was designed to be used for about one magazine or 8-10 rounds with the suppressor becoming increasingly louder with each shot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *