Talk:Suppressor

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force

re regulation,

why are suppressors regulated in some places? the article should explain that (if it's known why) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.177.100 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

They're regulated in the US over the thought that a law officer could use the report he hears, and any possible muzzle flash, to locate a shooter in a crime, and or protect him/herself from being shot. That is the theory behind it, but where the explanation is listed on the net, by a credible source, is beyond me, or in a book. This is what was explained to me by an BATFE officer one time.Craxd (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

P226 to Mosquito correction

The first picture's caption incorrectly referred to the last handgun in the photograph as the SIG P226 R. The handgun is actually a SIG Mosquito, which is smaller, has an external safety, and is chambered for .22lr. Zenmastervex (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be right, the caption by the uploader said it's a Mosquito... Annoying that nobody else noticed the goof earlier. Good catch. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Surpressors and shotguns

Do they exist?

Oh, yeah, they do, read about Suppressors here and Shotguns here. Suppressors and shotguns both exist, if Wikipedia can be believed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.29.51 (talk • contribs)

Not only that, but suppressors for shotguns do exist, they're just tricky to do because of the risk of the shot hitting the baffles. This means you need an integral suppressor or a reflex design, such as this: http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/rifles.html (bottom of page). scot 19:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't shotguns discussed in the article? I mean, lets face it, most of us didn't even know they existed for shotguns till we saw No Country For Old Men. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't they mentioned and pictured in the article? Also, the article could use an In Popular Culture section. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiram Stevens Maxim

In the 3rd paragraph, I added that Hiram Stevens Maxim, was Hiram Percy's father, in order to clarify the names for those reading.

Craxd (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

William Joseph "Wild Bill" Donovan and the Pres

The last bit of the lead currently reads as "Donovan (an old and trusted friend of the President) was waved into the Oval Office, where Roosevelt was dictating a letter. While Roosevelt finished his message, Donovan turned his back and fired ten shots into a sandbag he had brought with him, announced what he had done and handed the smoking gun to the astonished president."
There is a supporting citation and I don't doubt that we've accurately represented what's there... it's just that there doesn't seem to be any way for it to be true. Don't get me wrong - I'm no expert - but it seems odd to have an article that goes on at length about how suppressors only deaden the total dB by so much and then have something in the lead that heavily implies that the gun was fired completely silently. Should that even be there? I'm tempted to remove it; it seems misleading and also sounds apocryphal. Thoughts? Matt Deres (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)