Home Main Category Clubhouse

How do you do!

124

Replies

  • GunNutGunNut Posts: 7,642 Senior Member
    edited May 2020 #92
    So a condom over the barrel is an effective suppressor for a 10/22.  I’ll have to take note of that... 🤔
  • AlleyCatAlleyCat Posts: 484 Member
    GunNut said:
    So a condo over the barrel is an effective suppressor for a 10/22.  I’ll have to take note of that... 🤔

    If you use ribbed, does that make it tactical?






  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    I guess they are made to supress.........
  • 10canyon5310canyon53 Member Posts: 2,122 Senior Member
    Good thing it was a .22 not a .270.....bullet would have never made it through the condom.
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    edited May 2020 #96
    AlleyCat said:

    Your first reply to sakodude did not go away just because you deleted it, you do know this right?



    ...... on some farmer's or rancher's private spread to attack his livestock or pester them. He might be within his legal rights to dispatch the hound. 



    RIP Sam.








    I thought there was an issue with my browser cache or something. I don't know why my former reply attempts weren't sticking to this board otherwise. Maybe that link I was trying to post about peacocks was rejected by one of Jay's tools. 

    I still believe in typing with apostrophes. 

    (') is not dead yet in my English punctuation vocabulary. 

    Who was Sam? 
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    edited May 2020 #97
    AlleyCat said:
    GunNut said:
    So a condo over the barrel is an effective suppressor for a 10/22.  I’ll have to take note of that... 🤔

    If you use ribbed, does that make it tactical?






    I think that guy who suggested that a condom makes a .22 quieter had some rum in his morning coffee at that time. I can't say my ears heard the difference one way or another. I no longer believe in condom use to try to quiet guns after that trial just for fun. I never knew for a fact that that gallinaceous domestic fowl was my neighbor's. My brother said he thought it might have belonged to the neighbor. The guy owned several different farm animals (beef and sheep) and different domestic birds like emu. My brother used to chat with the man sometimes. He said he had an Italian-sounding last name. I didn't want to draw his attention in case that was his bird. I didn't want to get cement-shoed at the bottom of the drink just in case he did have connections with "Vito", "Sonny" or "Tony".  :o
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    edited May 2020 #98
    I guess they are made to supress.........
    Well, they might be able to suppress the production of human babies but some claim they have been known to fail at that even. I'm no longer buying into that they "quiet down gunshots". I tried that once and it appears now to be a bunch of hot air. The man who told me that one had a father who was a SFPD officer. He acted as if he we some guru of weapons knowledge. He had a lot of guns in his private stash including a pre-ban Colt AR-15, he bought new in 1979. He was a shooting range buddy of mine. I used to shoot a lot at the range for fun. When I said I'm new to the shooting sports that means I've never gone hunting or done any competition target shooting. 
  • DrawbarFlatsDrawbarFlats Posts: 788 Senior Member
    edited May 2020 #99
    Not sure if I'd be say'n the words "behind end" and "condom" in the same paragraph.


  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    edited May 2020 #100
    Not sure if I'd be say'n the words "behind end" and "condom" in the same paragraph.
    Well, I was trying to be modest about the former bird's posterior anatomy. That's the only presentation he gave me. I figured a .22 LR out of a rifle barrel at close range would be strong enough to penetrate to his vitals which it did. It might be tough to try for a head shot on a large ground-borne fowl with iron sights even at about 5 yards. He ran about 50 feet after the POP! then decided that he was dead. No, the condom theory to quiet guns is false. It now seems to be an old wives tale. I'm not sure if that term is supposed to be spelled with an apostrophe or not. 
  • Jeff in TXJeff in TX Senior Member Posts: 2,412 Senior Member
    AlleyCat said:
    GunNut said:
    So a condo over the barrel is an effective suppressor for a 10/22.  I’ll have to take note of that... 🤔

    If you use ribbed, does that make it tactical?






    Way to go, now ribbed condoms will be considered tactical and an assault weapons and should be banned! 

    Sponsored by Planned Parenthood!   :D 
    Distance is not an issue, but the wind can make it interesting!

    John 3: 1-21
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
    I know guys who have used condoms over a rifle's muzzle to keep water, snow and debris out.  I've never used condoms for this, but I have used balloons for the same reason.  I also know of folks who put a strip of tape over the muzzle for that reason.

    As for the peacock, I recall reading somewhere that they're quite tasty.  I think they're fairly prevalent in New Zealand, and considered a pest.  Maybe one of our true southerners can offer an opinion.

    D_I, do you know what's really great about living in Austin?  You can drive 20 miles in any direction and be in Texas.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member


    As for the peacock, I recall reading somewhere that they're quite tasty.  I think they're fairly prevalent in New Zealand, and considered a pest.  Maybe one of our true southerners can offer an opinion.

    I don't live in New Zealand, but I have eaten peafowl, and they are quite tasty for sure. Dairy farmer friend of mine had a huge flock. His wife bought a couple pairs of them, and they were fruitful and multiplied prodigiously. :D
    They disturbed the dairy cows with their squawking, and roosted on the dairy milking barn roof, crapped on the roof, and caused major rusting problems in the galvanized steel roof. He hired me, on the sly, to reduce the number of birds a few at a time to make it look like it was foxes or dogs taking them out. Since his wife was a school teacher, she was gone all day, and I worked swing shift, so it worked out well. I'd shoot three or four about twice a week and no suspicion fell on the farmer or me.
    Those birds were really tasty whether cut up and chikkin fried or roasted in the oven. And I had lots of feathers for fly tying, too. Win-win! :)

    Back to original subject. I don't know if it's state by state or nationwide, but doves are under federal migratory bird regulation. Here in TN on state owned shooting areas you have to use non lead non toxic shot, which is obscenely expensive. That doesn't apply to private lands, so that's where I hunt. A 25# bag of non toxic shot is expensive, and dove hunting being high volume shooting, I can't justify buying it to reload with under any pretense. And steel shot sucks swamp muck as to penetration.
    And hunting over a baited field is a whole nother can of worms on private property. But in TN the TWRA will plant fields of corn and grain, and then bush hog it right before dove season. "Do as we say, not as we do." :D
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member

    So you killed a neighbors domesticated pet with an illegally suppressed firearm and disposed of the evidence. Gotcha....
    Texas is one of 42 states 'silencers' are legal to own and hunt with. There are no ATF background checks to purchase Trojans at a pharmacy. In all honesty, I don't know if the rubber on the barrel reduces the sound of the report at all. I can't tell the difference. If a stray animal is on private property and causes destruction or nuisance, it's the property owner's right to dispose of that animal. It's like the right of farmers or ranchers to shoot cougars or wild dogs on their land that molest livestock. 

    The notion of using a rubber to reduce firearms noise came from a fellow I knew. I think it was an old wives tale. 

    My nuisance bird was taken outside of a city limits and in Tx, domestic fowl have no state legal protection. It might be unlawful to discharge a firearm in city ,limits so I would recommend calling animal control if one lives inside a city and there is a bothersome creature on your property. Now, a person might have legal justification to shoot a dangerous animal as a dog that is  attacking. 

    https://www.mrt.com/news/article/Without-help-roaming-peacocks-now-residents-7412673.php
    Whether a suppressor is legal to possess and/or hunt with in any given state is immaterial...it must be legal on the Federal level...meaning you have to have a BATF tax stamp........trying to side step that bunch, even a little, can get you in more trouble than you want...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    Jayhawker said:

    So you killed a neighbors domesticated pet with an illegally suppressed firearm and disposed of the evidence. Gotcha....
    Texas is one of 42 states 'silencers' are legal to own and hunt with. There are no ATF background checks to purchase Trojans at a pharmacy. In all honesty, I don't know if the rubber on the barrel reduces the sound of the report at all. I can't tell the difference. If a stray animal is on private property and causes destruction or nuisance, it's the property owner's right to dispose of that animal. It's like the right of farmers or ranchers to shoot cougars or wild dogs on their land that molest livestock. 

    The notion of using a rubber to reduce firearms noise came from a fellow I knew. I think it was an old wives tale. 

    My nuisance bird was taken outside of a city limits and in Tx, domestic fowl have no state legal protection. It might be unlawful to discharge a firearm in city ,limits so I would recommend calling animal control if one lives inside a city and there is a bothersome creature on your property. Now, a person might have legal justification to shoot a dangerous animal as a dog that is  attacking. 

    https://www.mrt.com/news/article/Without-help-roaming-peacocks-now-residents-7412673.php
    Whether a suppressor is legal to possess and/or hunt with in any given state is immaterial...it must be legal on the Federal level...meaning you have to have a BATF tax stamp........trying to side step that bunch, even a little, can get you in more trouble than you want...
    So, one could get in trouble for even using a condom or balloon to protect a rifle's muzzle from mud or dust? Most people are ignorant of that kind of federal law. 
  • GunNutGunNut Posts: 7,642 Senior Member
    Jayhawker said:

    So you killed a neighbors domesticated pet with an illegally suppressed firearm and disposed of the evidence. Gotcha....
    Texas is one of 42 states 'silencers' are legal to own and hunt with. There are no ATF background checks to purchase Trojans at a pharmacy. In all honesty, I don't know if the rubber on the barrel reduces the sound of the report at all. I can't tell the difference. If a stray animal is on private property and causes destruction or nuisance, it's the property owner's right to dispose of that animal. It's like the right of farmers or ranchers to shoot cougars or wild dogs on their land that molest livestock. 

    The notion of using a rubber to reduce firearms noise came from a fellow I knew. I think it was an old wives tale. 

    My nuisance bird was taken outside of a city limits and in Tx, domestic fowl have no state legal protection. It might be unlawful to discharge a firearm in city ,limits so I would recommend calling animal control if one lives inside a city and there is a bothersome creature on your property. Now, a person might have legal justification to shoot a dangerous animal as a dog that is  attacking. 

    https://www.mrt.com/news/article/Without-help-roaming-peacocks-now-residents-7412673.php
    Whether a suppressor is legal to possess and/or hunt with in any given state is immaterial...it must be legal on the Federal level...meaning you have to have a BATF tax stamp........trying to side step that bunch, even a little, can get you in more trouble than you want...
    So, one could get in trouble for even using a condom or balloon to protect a rifle's muzzle from mud or dust? Most people are ignorant of that kind of federal law. 
    No, because it is impossible to suppress the sound of a gunshot using a condom.  It can be used as stated above to keep debris out of the barrel but even for that there are better alternatives.
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    GunNut said:
    Jayhawker said:

    So you killed a neighbors domesticated pet with an illegally suppressed firearm and disposed of the evidence. Gotcha....
    Texas is one of 42 states 'silencers' are legal to own and hunt with. There are no ATF background checks to purchase Trojans at a pharmacy. In all honesty, I don't know if the rubber on the barrel reduces the sound of the report at all. I can't tell the difference. If a stray animal is on private property and causes destruction or nuisance, it's the property owner's right to dispose of that animal. It's like the right of farmers or ranchers to shoot cougars or wild dogs on their land that molest livestock. 

    The notion of using a rubber to reduce firearms noise came from a fellow I knew. I think it was an old wives tale. 

    My nuisance bird was taken outside of a city limits and in Tx, domestic fowl have no state legal protection. It might be unlawful to discharge a firearm in city ,limits so I would recommend calling animal control if one lives inside a city and there is a bothersome creature on your property. Now, a person might have legal justification to shoot a dangerous animal as a dog that is  attacking. 

    https://www.mrt.com/news/article/Without-help-roaming-peacocks-now-residents-7412673.php
    Whether a suppressor is legal to possess and/or hunt with in any given state is immaterial...it must be legal on the Federal level...meaning you have to have a BATF tax stamp........trying to side step that bunch, even a little, can get you in more trouble than you want...
    So, one could get in trouble for even using a condom or balloon to protect a rifle's muzzle from mud or dust? Most people are ignorant of that kind of federal law. 
    No, because it is impossible to suppress the sound of a gunshot using a condom.  It can be used as stated above to keep debris out of the barrel but even for that there are better alternatives.
    I found this definition:

    Firearms Verification

    Gun Control Act Definitions
    Silencer

    18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24)

    The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

    Image of cut-away and expanded views of a firearms silencer

    Note: Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls of the National Firearms Act 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53.


    It appears as the fed. govt. would have to prove a condom, balloon, shoe box, etc. actually silences, muffles, or diminishes the report of a portable firearm to deem it to be a “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler”.  It seems like there might be gray area here. 

  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    People have been jailed by the BATFE for having bobby pins and shoe laces...so being popped for an inappropriately used rubber certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility...all the agent has to prove is "intent"

    Since you like to read...I suggest you find a copy of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross


    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    edited May 2020 #109
    Jayhawker said:
    People have been jailed by the BATFE for having bobby pins and shoe laces...so being popped for an inappropriately used rubber certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility...all the agent has to prove is "intent"

    Since you like to read...I suggest you find a copy of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross


    Then in that case, one should not even add a sling to one's rifle if one "intends" somehow to reduce its noise in that fashion. They may have heard an old wives tale that a sling made from goat hide as opposed to cowhide reduces gunshot noise. People probably "innocently" do many things afoul of the law not realizing it. 
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Bless your heart...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • sakodudesakodude Senior Member Posts: 4,551 Senior Member
    Well since you have stated on a public forum that you “had a condom on the barrel to suppress the noise” I don’t think you can claim innocence.
  • GunNutGunNut Posts: 7,642 Senior Member
    Jayhawker said:
    Bless your heart...
    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
  • DrawbarFlatsDrawbarFlats Posts: 788 Senior Member
    Jayhawker said:

    Since you like to read...I suggest you find a copy of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross


    That book should be required reading for all Second Amendment supporters. 
  • GunNutGunNut Posts: 7,642 Senior Member
    Jayhawker said:

    Since you like to read...I suggest you find a copy of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross


    That book should be required reading for all Second Amendment supporters. 
    Agreed!
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    edited May 2020 #115
    sakodude said:
    Well since you have stated on a public forum that you “had a condom on the barrel to suppress the noise” I don’t think you can claim innocence.
    Well, innocence in the sense of "not intending to do something evil" or just not knowing any better, or amounting to being young and stupid. To err is human. I had no absolute knowledge as to whether the condom would actually reduce any noise. It was only an experiment out of curiosity. I did not truly expect it to reduce noise but it was something I had to get out of my system. It was 35 years ago anyway. I have gotten much more mature and sensible since then. I was just ignorant when I was much younger. Am I forgiven? Federal statute of limitations for alleged NFA 1934 violations: 3 years I just read. I certainly would never attempt to reduce the noise of a firearm ever again, even as casual experiment based upon hearsay, after what has been revealed here lately. That might then amount to violating the law "knowingly and willingly". 
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,955 Senior Member
    sakodude said:
    Well since you have stated on a public forum that you “had a condom on the barrel to suppress the noise” I don’t think you can claim innocence.
    Well, innocence in the sense of "not intending to do something evil" or just not knowing any better, or amounting to being young and stupid. To err is human. I had no absolute knowledge as to whether the condom would actually reduce any noise. It was only an experiment out of curiosity. I did not truly expect it to reduce noise but it was something I had to get out of my system. It was 35 years ago anyway. I have gotten much more mature and sensible since then. I was just ignorant when I was much younger. Am I forgiven? Federal statute of limitations for alleged NFA 1934 violations: 3 years I just read. I certainly would never attempt to reduce the noise of a firearm ever again, even as casual experiment based upon hearsay, after what has been revealed here lately. That might then amount to violating the law "knowingly and willingly". 

    Did you miss my post? You did dumb.
    let
    it
    go
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
    Repeat after me.

    This is my rifle
    This is my gun
    One is for killing
    One is for fun

    Now can we talk about something other than putting condoms on guns?
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Guys like a bulldog...gets his teeth into something and just won't let it go...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    Repeat after me.

    This is my rifle
    This is my gun
    One is for killing
    One is for fun

    Now can we talk about something other than putting condoms on guns?
    Anything to oblige, sir.

    How's the weather in your parts, Bob? It's sunny and the humidity is below 40 in Austin now. Nice weather here!  B)
  • Doves_IndefinitelyDoves_Indefinitely Posts: 126 Member
    edited May 2020 #121
    sakodude said:
    Well since you have stated on a public forum that you “had a condom on the barrel to suppress the noise” I don’t think you can claim innocence.
    Well, innocence in the sense of "not intending to do something evil" or just not knowing any better, or amounting to being young and stupid. To err is human. I had no absolute knowledge as to whether the condom would actually reduce any noise. It was only an experiment out of curiosity. I did not truly expect it to reduce noise but it was something I had to get out of my system. It was 35 years ago anyway. I have gotten much more mature and sensible since then. I was just ignorant when I was much younger. Am I forgiven? Federal statute of limitations for alleged NFA 1934 violations: 3 years I just read. I certainly would never attempt to reduce the noise of a firearm ever again, even as casual experiment based upon hearsay, after what has been revealed here lately. That might then amount to violating the law "knowingly and willingly". 

    Did you miss my post? You did dumb.
    let
    it
    go
    I'm dumb maybe but not stupid. Let what go? I must have missed a post somewhere, indeed. I've long forgotten about whatever IT was formerly about. Just don't do whatever dumb things you've read about here, please. 

    Anyway, V, I hope the weather is nice where you are now. Happy weekend. TGIF. 
This discussion has been closed.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement