Never shot with a suppressor Ray. Other than no ear protection and less recoil not sure of the advantages. I generally consider a suppressor is used to cover something up, people that cover up are more often than not committing crimes. What's your take?
Brian-
The benefits start with what you note but are worth highlighting further-reduced need for hearing protection in particular. This has a direct impact on accuracy (as an example, take a shooter to a range and have them shoot with just foam earplugs, then with a nice peltor, and then with both-and see what is more accurate. More times than not the less acoustic signature, the more accurate you are). It also reduces noise pollution, i.e. on a Sun afternoon I could happily plink away with a .22 and nobody on neighboring property would ever know it is happening. There are, of course, benefits associated with signature reduction for hunters too.
The idea that a suppressor turns a weapon into something that nobody would hear though is a misnomer, unless we're talking shooting a bolt action, subsonic, round and even then you'd have a signature.
The amount of crime conducted with suppressors is negligible and changing the law would not likely change that, mostly because of simple economics. A decent suppressor costs $$$, when most gun owners don't even seem to ascribe to the reality that you should be willing to spend as much on the optic as the weapon itself I can't see a rash of crimes committed by folks with $1k worth of long gun + >$600 worth of suppressor (or $500 worth of pistol and at least the equivalent in suppressor costs) (both estimates used are anecdotal to illustrate the point).
Most firearm related crimes are committed with handguns, and most of those handguns are cheap because that's what the criminals can afford.
Apologies for thread tangent!
r-
Ray
