SilencerCo’s Maxim 9 Integrally Suppressed 9mm Pistol. Want One?

unnamed-1-900x500

“Never before has a company successfully managed to produce a handgun with an integral silencer that is holsterable and hearing safe with any factory ammunition,” SilencerCo’s press release boasts [after the jump]. “This product is primed to take the industry by storm.” Yes, well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? “While this isn’t a huge surprise,” TTAG’s Nick Leghorn opined at its intro, “it’s certainly intriguing.” There’s a big gap between “intriguing” and “best seller.” A lot of that depends on . . .

the amount of noise generated (I have tinnitus thanks to a “hearing safe” suppressed Remington 700), consumer willingness to jump through the hoops to get an NFA tax stamp and the firearm’s price (which remains unspecified). There’s also the fact that the SilencerCo Maxim 9 is maximum ugly. And minimally compatible with discreet open carry – despite the company’s claims of holsterability. So, over to you, our Armed Intelligentsia. Would you buy one of these? At what price?

——

The biggest announcement at SilencerCo’s recent Maxim Vice event was the reveal of the Maxim 9 – an integrally suppressed 9mm pistol.

Never before has a company successfully managed to produce a handgun with an integral silencer that is holsterable and hearing safe with any factory ammunition.

This product is primed to take the industry by storm, and we’re proud to to show it to you – our loyal SilencerCo supporters – first.

We’re keeping exact product details under wraps since it is still in the final design stages, but one thing is certain – the Maxim 9 will forever change the way people think about firearms when they realize that there is no longer any reason guns have to be loud.

About SilencerCo

Founded in West Valley, Utah in 2008, SilencerCo started with a belief in the fundamental premise that firearms don’t have to be loud and has now become the market leader in sound suppressors, muzzle devices and related products. By investing in innovation, customer service, organic manufacturing, advocacy, education and talent, SilencerCo is now focused on making firearms hearing-safe for all hunting and shooting applications, introducing products that have never been made before, and making the buying experience a better one.

For more information, please visit WWW.SILENCERCO.COM

 

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Meh… If suppressors were unregulated everywhere in the nation, it’s be a hot seller. As it is, it’s a novelty gun. Interesting part is how they got the sight alignment to work when the rear and front sight appear to move independently from each other.

    1. avatar CLShifter says:

      To be fair, there are other handguns where that’s the case. The Desert Eagle and the Beretta Bobcats and Tomcats with the popup barrels come to mind.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Not sure about the Berettas, but the Desert Eagle uses a rotating bolt design that keeps the slide / barrel motion to a single axis. Did they do something similar here? That’s a neat trick for a 9mm.

        1. avatar Darren O'Connor says:

          The sights will still move in a single axis. The slide only moves back and forth, not up and down. The barrel tilts, but the suppressor is clearly fixed to the frame on this pistol. Doubtless the barrel tilts inside it. So the sights will stay in the same plane. This should also eliminate the need for a Neilsen device.

    2. avatar BDub says:

      Its precisely products like this that will do much of the work to highlight the unreasonable senselessness of the NFA.

    3. avatar Ben says:

      It seems to big and bulky for my tastes.

      If silencers were not damn near taboo in the US this gun might have a chance. I don’t see too many people spending an extra $200 to get this monstrosity.

  2. avatar TravisP says:

    No probably not, the biggest factor being the price. I’m betting I can buy a suppressor and two comparable handguns for the price of this somewhat novelty design.

  3. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Would I buy one? Yes. Would I wait a year and pay $200 extra for the gov to keep a(nother) file on me? Hell no.

    1. avatar Matt in TX says:

      I agree with this. The wait and the tax stamp are too much.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Exactly as the government intended.

  4. avatar Geoff PR says:

    I would defiantly consider it for home defense, at maybe $1500 or so.

    (I’m figuring $750 gun, $750 suppressor.)

    Is TTAG considering buying one for promotional use or contest prize?

    1. avatar Desert Ranger Tycho says:

      Agreed. This is a perfect choice for home defense. Here’s the selling points:
      1. No need for hearing pro (to deafen the sounds of an intruder).
      2. Since it’s a Home Defense weapon, the gun doesn’t leave the property (negating the NFA item across state lines requirement)

      1. avatar BillC says:

        You don’t have to inform the ATF about suppressors leaving the state like you do for SBRs.

        1. avatar rosignol says:

          Are you 100% sure about that? I’ve heard about people getting in trouble for that, but it’s always been ‘I know a guy’, not someone I know directly.

  5. Like others have said, the price would be a killer. If the atf didn’t get involved the price would be a lot less. Also I think cleaning the silencer on this would be a pain.

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    I kind of like the way it looks. I have a thing for sci-fi looking guns. The more ridiculous the better.

    Would I get one? No. I already don’t find silencers to worth the cost and time. It is my understanding that silencers wear overtime at a rate faster than other firearm components. Wouldn’t an integrally suppressed firearm have a shortened lifespan compared to a non-integrally suppressed firearm? If so, how would you service it or replace parts without incurring another $200 fee and wait?

    1. avatar Rob C says:

      I like the way it looks too. But I think you may need to do some more reading on suppressors. I used to think they were too much trouble, but after over 10 years of shooting suppressed, I am really a big fan now. Kids love shooting without all the noise. And it’s easy. And you only pay the $200 once. You can send your can back to a mfg and have them clean/rebuild/fix no probs. In fact, the SilencerCo can I own has removable everything and the SN is on the outer shell, away from harm. So if I have a baffle strike or some other failure, I can get those parts and be good to go. Education is key. Take the plunge. If you are dead set against Big Brother having more info on you, I can’t help you.

      This is a good start from SilencerCo. Now how about one in a Glock please.

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        I’ve shot more than a few suppressed firearms. I really don’t see/hear a big enough difference. Cutting 30 or so decibels off of 150-180 total doesn’t justify $200 +whatever the cost of the aluminum tube filled with a half dozen washers ($500-$1500). Just my opinion of course.

        The servicing question is with regards to integrally suppressed firearms. I know cans can be user serviceable. What about integrally suppressed firearms?

        If we had rational legislation and I could pick up a silencer off the shelf for a hundred bucks like in some other countries I’d have a couple on hand. To me the current cost/benefit of suppressors just isn’t appealing.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You can thank the NFA for the cost / benefit ratio. If you dig in to the pricing, you’ll find that the majority of the cost you pay for an entry level can is to recoup the SOT and transfer taxes to get the can to you.

  7. avatar fulltanghalo says:

    Ugly is a matter of opinion, also it’s not even a pre-producton model, it’s at best a proof of concept prototype. They’ve said they are going to have a Silencerco made gun and the M&P chop-up was just for POC. I want one, with a rumored price of $2500 it’ll be fun to have such a rare gun in 10 years time.

  8. avatar jwtaylor says:

    No. For home defense I’ll just leave the can on. It’s not a sufficient caliber for hunting. So that leaves daily carry, and the negatives of a larger imprint and a longer draw don’t outweigh quieter for that purpose. Screwing the can on and off isn’t so difficult and it gives me options, and more than one gun per can.

    1. avatar WedelJ says:

      Swapping between weapons is a feature of a stand alone suppressor, not an integrally suppressed weapon. Don’t think of it as a can and a gun, think of it as a gun.

  9. avatar Chris says:

    I don’t own a suppressor, have no desire to own a suppressor and won’t purchase this pistol.

    I refuse to give the government money for an arbitrary tax stamp to own something I really don’t care about.

  10. avatar Jim Jones says:

    Probably not. I would prefer to spend my money on a can, and then purchasing threaded barrels for my various handguns. If suppressors could be sold over the counter, probably. But if that was the case, a lot more firearms might come with this option.

  11. avatar pres stone says:

    no. just not worth it. i imagine it will be $2k and up and i cant imagine what that thing weighs. then again im not a show off, which alot of people are so…

  12. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    It’s pretty low on the list. Cool concept though.

  13. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

    “Where’s the ka-boom? There’s supposed to be a ka-boom.” Or so says Marvin the Martian.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Are you getting very angry, Marvin?

      (You know, in between Loony Tunes Marvin the Martian and Douglas Adam’s Marvin the Paranoid Android there getting to be too many damn Marvins to keep up with…)

  14. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    How many states are there like Illinois, that still ban silencers outright?
    That’s bound to limit the market.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Massachusetts for one. There was a hearing recently as SilencerCo and others are trying to legalize them here. I’m not holding my breath.

      1. avatar Joel says:

        “A hearing” LOL!

  15. avatar John L. says:

    Well, looking at the above comments … this sounds like it’s going to be a hard sell. Cost (unknown but probably high) and government bureaucracy being the big ones, followed by service concerns and appearance.

    For me … Nope. Not until it comes in .45 ACP, as that’s what we’ve standardized on for semiauto pistols in our household. And even then we’d probably go for cans for guns we already own and really like.

  16. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Not really my cup of tea. Neat concept, but it looks too bulky, heavy, and awkward. Add in what’s sure to be a $2000+ price tag, and I’ll have to give it a pass.

  17. avatar pod says:

    I’ve been beating this to death on many a-forum.

    It’s a great concept. I like the idea that someone is working on an integrally-suppressed pistol. I would fathom the final version will be a little more refined, and future iterations will be smaller, within the bounds of physics.

    Also, this could highlight the pointlessness of having suppressors on the NFA. If LE takes to this sort of gun, and I imagine they might, from what I do know that LE can’t just tell Silencerco to ship over 500 of these things next week. Since they are NFA items, there’s a few hoops, even for LE. And yes, the civilians wanting these will scream about waiting for the transfer.

    I’m hoping Silencerco is stepping up the campaign to get cans off the NFA, otherwise this will just be a novelty.

    Further legal concerns for civilians would also include the fact that some jurisdictions ban the carrying (as in EDC) of suppressed firearms, even if you have a CWP and your NFA paperwork. Florida may or may not let this fly, for example, but I’d hate to be the test case.

    Under current laws, this is a pistol for LE/military exclusively, and an HD gun/range toy for the civilian market.

  18. avatar US Air Base Coffin Express says:

    >giving $200 to the mortal enemy of 2A

    Hahahahahahaha

  19. avatar KMONtang says:

    I’ve contacted SilencerCo about ordering a couple for the range I work at as rental/training guns. I think for a straight up first time shooter, this could be a solid “intro to handguns” tool that is a step up from a .22. plus, I could rent the sh*t out of this thing…

    1. avatar SpeleoFool says:

      Buying one is a hard sell thanks to the stamp process, but I could see renting one for the novelty factor.

  20. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    For home defense sure-can’t see carrying that. Put one on a shotgun,SBR or AR i cool. I can’t afford any of it so it’s a moot point(the mootest)…

  21. avatar Rabbi says:

    I would definitely use one for home defense. No point in blowing out the ears with indoor gunfire. Might even carry one, but will have to see and shoot it first

  22. avatar Other Tony says:

    I do want one. Looks cool with the chopped M&P (I was already an M&P guy). But probably too difficult to get necessary approvals where I live, and probably too expensive.

  23. avatar dean wormer says:

    Should do this with a subcompact like a G26 and shorten the can part down a bit. Doesn’t have to be 100% “hearing” safe, just “wont deafen you completely and ruin your situational awareness on the first shot” safe. 135-140 dB is LOUD and can cause you hearing damage, but it sure beats 155-165 unsuppressed!

  24. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “…the Maxim 9 will forever change the way people think about firearms when they realize that there is no longer any reason guns have to be loud.”

    Concealability. There’s one reason.

    Affordability. There’s another.

  25. avatar RetroG says:

    If it isn’t stupid expensive, then yeah, I’d buy one to carry if it wasn’t significantly bigger than a normal pistol. Why destroy your hearing when defending your life?

  26. avatar Shwiggie says:

    No, because the only advantage over a discrete silencer is the ability to carry in a holster. I wouldn’t be willing to carry that big honking thing around with enough regularity to justify the cost. Since I’d only be using one for the range, in the backyard, and on my nightstand, I’ll just stick with the can that I’m still waiting on BATFE to approve. And that one will work just fine, be easy to clean, and be portable between weapons.

  27. avatar J. Tiesto says:

    No. Pistols with threaded barrels are now very common and quality 9mm cans run from $500 – $700. It’s too big to carry and size isn’t an issue with home defense. I forsee very few people actually using it except for chuckles.

    1. avatar tsbhoA.P.jr says:

      chuckles doesn’t want one either.

  28. avatar Roy says:

    This gun is going to pop-up in at least 5 different sci-fi movies in the next three years. Kind of like how Rhino revolvers and Berretta CX4 Storms, Kriss Vectors, etc all showed up in sci-fi movies. If this thing makes it into one or two video games… all the better.

    This would make a great bedside gun or under the car dash gun. That $200 tax stamp is a huge hurdle though.

  29. avatar Hoplopfheil says:

    I’ll be honest, this thing looks kickass. It’s going to be in the next John Wick movie for sure.

    But I can’t afford it.

  30. avatar mike says:

    No, not really. There’s just something spiritual and cool about threading on a silencer the old fashion way.

  31. I guess if they can’t stop the guns they will stop the accessories. Some of the disarmed people murdered by the governments of the world, Christians Rome, Jews Nazi Germany, Aztecs Spanish, Maori of NZ and Aboriginals Australia, Scottish William Wallace, the Irish, Welsh by English and the Native America by the US government. THIS is why we need guns to protect ourselves from those who would subject us to their whim and if this is not enough just google dictators.
    There are over 400 gun laws on the books and they have done nothing to stop the violence. Because of the winey few we are chastised for wanting to protect ourselves. We NEED guns to protect ourselves from criminals in and out of the government. I deserve the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough shit. mrpresident2016.com

  32. avatar CA.Ben says:

    I’d be interested if they made it in .45. I’m assuming that the barrel is ported MP5-SD style, to keep factory ammunition subsonic. I’d rather they use a .45 because 230 grain rounds are subsonic anyways, so you aren’t losing velocity.

  33. avatar Special K says:

    As others have mentioned, this would be ok for home defense, however having a full-sized M&P with a detachable can opens up more options. In the dead of winter I can carry my M&P 9L under a coat. It would be more of a stretch with a suppressor.

    One additional point: that’s a lot of bulk to manage in CQB. I would much rather have a more maneuverable option that would better allow me to keep my pistol out of a bad guy’s grip if we went to the ground.

  34. avatar madtrader says:

    I would buy one at or below $1500. I have several suppressors in 9mm and .45 and this seems much shorter than my suppressed HD pistols.

    For folks concerned about the NFA paperwork headache — I was in the same boat at one point. I put off NFA items for a decade despite interest because I didn’t want to do the hoop jumping or the $200 tax. I’ve got 25 stamps now for a mix of SBRs and suppressors. It’s easy. Dot your i’s and cross your t’s for sure, but it’s not difficult. You just have to have patience to wait on the stamp to come in. Heck even the $200 isn’t really that bad. Compare it to how much it’ll cost in ammo over the life of the device.

  35. avatar Jojo says:

    I was super excited when I first saw it, but…no. I don’t think I would ever actually carry it, and for HD, if I’m going to spend the money and time on the tax stamp, I might as well use a suppressed rifle of some kind.

  36. avatar Paelorian says:

    I hope they’re not porting the barrel, but I expect they will be in order to reduce velocity enough to make 115gr ammo subsonic. 147gr ammunition is widely available and subsonic from handgun length barrels. It not military surplus, but it can be inexpensive. Winchester’s Train & Defend 9mm ammunition is 147gr subsonic. Why would they port the barrel to reduce velocity instead of just making it shorter? This handgun is already longer than it should be. It should be a short barrel with a relatively short suppressor, especially considering the high-volume off-center design. I’m concerned that design and details released so far suggest a range toy rather than a serious weapon.

  37. avatar Jon says:

    Makes so much sense. The effects of a gun shot in a confined space could leave the householder’s hearing so impaired that if he lost sight of the intruder he would not be able to locate him by the sounds of motion. Also any innocent bystanders could have their hearing permanently damaged. It’s not intended for a range gun or concealed carry.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email