Why Every Lawful Gun Owner Needs a Suppressor – Content Contest

(This post is an entry in our spring content contest. The grand prize is a Beretta APX pistol. Entries have closed and we will announce the winner one we have run the best entries received.)

By Ed Rogers

For some reason, we seem forget one of the most hazardous side effects of using a firearm to protect ourselves in our home – hearing loss. I cannot recall a single instance where a news story has mentioned a victim’s hearing damage. Maybe because it doesn’t promote their message or advertising.

Regardless, if you discharge your firearm in your home, hearing loss is a distinct possibility. When I first started my journey with firearms ownership I didn’t consider collateral damage, other than those pertaining to the basics of gun safety. I just wanted to be able to stop a home invader. So I chose my Smith & Wesson 686-6, “The only gun I will ever need.”

As I explored my new-found ownership and learned more about home defense, I started joining internet forums. Eventually, I came across posts where some of the old hands recommended against using a .357 magnum in the home. They cited the muzzle blast damaging hearing and the accompanying blinding flash.

That led me on an ongoing quest, to protect my home while preventing collateral damage. Long story short, I now own one suppressor and two firearms capable of using it. I’m waiting for my Form 4, on my PS90 SBR to be approved. I am reduced to conjugal visits at my local gun store. My FN Five-seveN currently sports my Dead Air Mask, albeit with supersonic SS198 ammo. It won’t cycle with subsonic ammunition like the PS90 will.

I try to contribute some of my hard-earned experience. One of them is linked here:

For public safety alone, suppressors need to be removed from the NFA. This is the only case where a SAFETY device has been made into a restricted item.

If you’re wondering where we stand on the HPA, here’s an entertaining video:

However, at least one entity doesn’t have too much confidence that it will pass. Nonetheless, you and your family’s safety is more important than a $200.00 tax stamp fee. I recommend each of you reconsider waiting to purchase a suppressor until after the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) passes. You may even be entitled to a refund, depending when your paperwork was submitted.


  1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    There are those who don’t buy NFA restricted items out of principle. I don’t think we can convince them otherwise. I assume they still begrudgingly pay their income/sales tax, jump through the hoops for CCW and driver’s license, and have bought guns at an FFL. I say why not get a suppressor, despite the restrictions it still brings a smile to my face every time I use it!

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Some live in the few states where we can’t buy NFA items. I’d like to see how the “HPA ” is going to address that.

  2. avatar James in MO says:

    My first suppressor is still in NFA jail, but I’m already plotting my second. Gotta hunt quiet and hear the sounds of the woods. And plinking sans earpro would be rad too.

  3. avatar Stepcof says:

    I bought a “New” Silencerco Octane. It came with used, scratched, corrroded, baffles with old caked on residue, and an end cap with severely pitted threads. After repeated attempts to contact Silencerco via email about this issue, there has still been no response from them. I’m very disappointed with this company and their customer service. If you purchase a Silencerco silencer be sure to take it apart and inspect it before you purchase it. Once you get your tax stamp (11 months later) and take possession of your Silencerco silencer, you may be ignored as I have. I’m still trying to resolve this. ?

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Silencerco shipped a used suppressor, or a NFA dealer had some fun while waiting for clearance to transfer it to you?
      Or, thirdly, Silencerco test fires all suppressors before shipment?

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      That sounds like an unscrupulous dealer to me. I’ve never had a problem with SiCo like this and I’m dead-sure they didn’t ship a product in that condition.

      That said, I’m not really sure what SiCo can do to help you. However, if you want to find out, I’d call them at 801 417 5384.

      1. avatar Stepcof says:

        Thank you. I Am friends with the dealer. He never used the silencer. What has me baffled is the fact that Silencerco will not respond to my emails. I’ll definitely call them.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I suppose it’s possible you accidentally bought a demo model. I could see how that might innocently happen.

          Either way, give them a call, (they’re on Mountain Time) and see if they can (legally) help you out.

        2. avatar Step says:

          Thank you. I’ll give them a call and report back to this post.

        3. avatar Step says:

          I gave SilencerCo a call today since they would not reply to my multiple emails. They tried to get me to go through the dealer at first (pass the buck?). I asked if they could have accidentally sent out a demo and they said no. They said it might have been a dealer demo. I know it wasn’t my dealer’s demo as he is a friend of mine and a man of integrity. He would have confirmed this. Also, he would have purchased a barrel adapter for the particular caliber since you have to pay for one in addition to the $899.99 price tag for the silencer. Finally SilencerCo asked me to send it back to them. I Sent it back today. I’ll advise how it turns out and in what condition it returns.

    3. avatar Turd Ferguson says:

      This is so far from every other experience I have read about SilencerCo, I question the legitimacy of your claim.

      1. avatar Step says:

        It’s a free world Turd.

        1. avatar Turd Ferguson says:

          Free to lie and make shit up. Yes, yes it is.

        2. avatar Step says:

          Don’t know why I bother, but:

          It’s quite common to project ones own lack of integrity by claiming others have that quality or lack thereof. Psychological projection (Wikipedia)

  4. avatar binder says:

    A subsonic 55 grain 22 projectile for home defense??? What are you thinking?

    1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

      My tests in ballistic gel indicates they’re viable. Look, it’s a compromise all the way around. I don’t want over penetration. I don’t own a .45(and suppressor), which would be an alternative. I’ve already gone down the 5.7 rabbit hole…

      1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

        My suppressed CZ Scorpion SBR is loaded with 30 rounds of 147 grain Federal HST. It’s just this side of subsonic and is crazy quiet with this setup.

        Lots of people doing subsonic 300 BLK, too. There are more and more rounds designed to expand reliably at that velocity now. Plus you can quickly switch to supersonic, full power rounds by switching mags.

        P90 is cool! But I’d imagine shooting subs from that would make the same depth and diameter wound as stabbing someone with an ice pick haha

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      I don’t pretend to know the author but I imagine having 30 rounds of that subsonic 5.7 makes up for any loss of power and a homeowner coming after you with a suppressed PS90 should scare the shit out of just about any housebreaker.

      Personally, I’d be thinking “I bet these hurt like the dickins when they punch holes in you and if they don’t hurt enough, well that’s why I have 29 more.”

      1. avatar Cdotson says:

        I’m pretty sure PS90s have 50 round magazines. Not sure how many you could send down the hall in a DGU, but death by 50 ice pick holes seems more likely than by 1000 paper cuts.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I thought it was 50 as well but FN currently lists the PS90 Standard as coming with 10 or 30 round mags. It’s the P90 that they list as a 50 rounder.


          I haven’t handled anything from this part of FN’s lineup in years though, so there may be some crossover where you can use a 50 round mag. I simply haven’t had my hands on one in a long time.

        2. avatar Will in Oregon says:

          the 30 round mag is the standard 50 round mag with a spacer. it takes about 90 seconds to remove it and reassemble the mag.


        3. avatar strych9 says:


          Good to know. Thanks.

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I just bought another one. This one will be dedicated for my 22/45 lite.

    1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

      Yeah baby, I just got my Mark IV!

  6. avatar BLoving says:

    I can think of only one reason not to suppress your house gun and it is extremely hypothetical…
    An overzealous prosecution tries to spin the use of a suppressor to mean that you meant to quietly assassinate the dindu nuffin in your living room.
    Actually, that might be a fun and enlightening discussion to have with the jury as they hear in great detail exactly why the prosecution hasn’t got a clue what they’re talking about.

  7. avatar Logan says:

    Has a date been set on when the content contest winner will be announced?

  8. avatar JasonM says:

    The 5.7 is a poor choice for home defense; they designed it to penetrate. Having it fire a supersonic round won’t help protect your hearing much. And having it fire subsonic rounds won’t provide much stopping power.
    I have a suppressed 300BLK SBR AR and a pair of suppressed 9mm SBRs (scorpion and MPX), and even those are loud enough to cause hearing damage in an enclosed area.

    1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

      Here’s the link to my ballistic experiment with SB193: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1PlCSTK520

      Admittedly, even that is louder than I would like, using a suppressor:


      50 rounds should be enough to discourage a small group of attackers.

  9. avatar Ed says:

    We should give congress until the end of the year and if the HPA isn’t passed, we should lock the doors with them in session and burn the place to the ground! DOWN WITH THE NFA!

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      That might be a good idea even if they pass it.

  10. avatar NJDOC says:

    Even if the HPA is eventually passed, unfortunately suppressors will never be legal in New Jersey, thanks to the Democratic legislature.

  11. avatar Rebecca says:

    At nineteen years of age , I had the opportunity to shoot a twenty-two magnum revolver for the first time. I had no idea the damage it would cause because I was not yet an NRA member nor had I ever heard of tinnitus.. After the sixth round, I noticed a slight ringing in my left ear and thought nothing of it. After the twenty-fourth round, it was in both ears and I stopped shooting for the day. Only a few weeks later did I read about ear protection and the various types of ear muffs that were available. Live and learn. R|Right. Well, that was Forty five years ago.

    Today the ears still ring but I have grown accustomed to it and have purchased countless ear muffs over that time. While it has helped stop further loss during firearms practice it can never restore what once was perfect hearing. I have had the opportunity to practice several scenarios over the years and fully understand the acoustics of many various home designs and confined spaces. Believe me wen I tell you that there is NO confined space which is acceptable as a firing location for any type of firearm. One would never think to put on hearing suppressors when something goes “bump”” in the night nor would one want to. I will tell you now that should the worst happen, you will be in a position to forfeit you hearing ability for the safety of yourself and/or your family. Not to mention the hearing ability of your spouse or children when it is not necessary at all.

    A sound suppressor should be required by law on any home defense weapon and quite probably every handgun , rifle, shotgun manufactured for the express purpose of mitigating unnecessary sound within the home or neighborhood where neighbors might become unduly alarmed and call the police who will possibly shoot you for protecting your own family before you yourself have had the time to call them yourself and provide accurate information. Far too many people are being shot by cops who do not have a full understanding of the situation. This injures the public trust in law enforcement and in lawful gun ownership. The unnecessary confiscatory taxes on these items are usurious and should be abolished thus allowing more lawful citizens the ability to purchase these items for personal use. I rest my case.

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