fburgtx said:

---

dmperch said:

---

FamousAgg said:

---

Suppressor thoughts…

Question, would this allow for individuals to manufacture their own?

I'm guessing demand would skyrocket short term. What would it do to prices long term?

I have heard some speculate firearms with integrated suppression could become a lot more common.

---

Thought I read that you would still need to file a 4473, so not sure on what that means for manufacturing your own.

If I had to guess, I bet supply dries up super quick should this be implemented. Don't think the manufacturers could initially keep up with increased demand in the short term. More suppliers enter market and increase competition/drive down prices long term.

I could be totally wrong though

---

I bet we'll see major firearm manufacturers quickly enter the market. No reason that Ruger (et al) couldn't produce them at $150-$200, each, if the volume is there…

---

If suppressors are not an NFA item then you should be able to manufacture your own. They would no longer have a say in suppressors. I just hope there is not still some loop hole where you have to pay a $200 tax to own something that is legal.

Ridgeback85 said:

---

fburgtx said:

---

dmperch said:

---

FamousAgg said:

---

Suppressor thoughts…

Question, would this allow for individuals to manufacture their own?

I'm guessing demand would skyrocket short term. What would it do to prices long term?

I have heard some speculate firearms with integrated suppression could become a lot more common.

---

Thought I read that you would still need to file a 4473, so not sure on what that means for manufacturing your own.

If I had to guess, I bet supply dries up super quick should this be implemented. Don't think the manufacturers could initially keep up with increased demand in the short term. More suppliers enter market and increase competition/drive down prices long term.

I could be totally wrong though

---

I bet we'll see major firearm manufacturers quickly enter the market. No reason that Ruger (et al) couldn't produce them at $150-$200, each, if the volume is there…

---

If suppressors are not an NFA item then you should be able to manufacture your own. They would no longer have a say in suppressors. I just hope there is not still some loop hole where you have to pay a $200 tax to own something that is legal.

---

If suppressors are removed from the NFA registry like the current version of the bill has, there is no legal argument for a $200 tax stamp. They would be the same as a trigger, scope, magazine, etc. - nothing more than an accessory. Like they should be.

If you don't think that deregulation of suppressors would do much for the shooting world, you don't really know much about the shooting world. Go to any gun range these days and you'll see that half the rifles have cans, if not more. A decent amount of the pistols I see at my range are shot with cans as well. People like less loud shooting. Who would have thought?

It will have far less of an impact on hunting, no doubt. I'll still hunt with my old school featherweights. But what you will end up seeing is a decrease in production of the longer sporter type barrels in hunting rifles and an increase in heavier shorter factory threaded barrels to accommodate the use of suppressors. You are already seeing that to some degree now, but it will absolutely ramp up the shift in bolt action style rifles from the older style to the newer more suppressor compatible styles. And rifles designed with the idea of a can on them shoot every bit as accurate as a 24" sporter barrel Rem 700.

Also, with the advent of 3d printed technology - really good suppressors are stupid light these days. The days of 2lb massive cans with inconel blast baffles used for a deer or elk rifle are quickly seeing their sunset. 3d printed Ti suppressors that have stupid good sound attenuation are taking their place and will be the dominant style can in the industry within a few years whether they are deregulated or not.

But for the shooting world in general this would be a massive boon in unchaining an industry that is currently artificially small because of stupid regulations.

I think the "newer more suppressor compatible styles" will rapidly become the new old school. Why spend money retrofitting a thread on can when I can buy a new, lightweight, purpose tuned, and integrally suppressed complete system?

If this passes, I bet integrally suppressed systems rapidly become the new normal. Except, of course, for state compliant models.

normaleagle05 said:

---

I think the "newer more suppressor compatible styles" will rapidly become the new old school. Why spend money retrofitting a thread on can when I can buy a new, lightweight, purpose tuned, and integrally suppressed complete system?

If this passes, I bet integrally suppressed systems rapidly become the new normal. Except, of course, for state compliant models.

---

I honestly don't see integrally suppressed being the norm. They are cool and definitely have a place in specific situations, but generally speaking they are more expensive and more complicated to fabricate, plus they are harder to maintain than a thread on can. Most people are looking for the easy/lazy route.

Additionally, with benchrest and F class style competitions, barrels actually do get shot out. Having a traditional thread on can that can be removed makes swapping barrels far cheaper and easier, not to mention faster. I just don't personally see integrally suppressed being the norm until some new technology is developed that eliminates most or all of the drawbacks. Just my opinion though.

If suppressors do get removed from the NFA, ya'll can thank me. I have bought 5 this year. $1,000 down the drain. Story of my life.

If this goes through and prices go down, I would expect the popularity of quick change systems to decrease. Why add the cost and weight when you can just get another suppressor instead?

QD systems are notoriously awful for accuracy, so I'd hope they dissolve

Three issues of integral suppressed rifles/pistols is the availability of being able to properly clean the suppressor itself. Some current designs of such don't allow for that.
The other is resale. If a I have a rifle I want to sell I might want to keep the suppressor. With integral, I'll have no choice.
I also like to pick my brand of suppressor… some are definitely better than others. On integral types I'm going to be forced to take whatever the gun manufacturer puts in the integral suppressor. That manufacturer may cut corners on the construction of the suppressor to hold cost down to make his rifle more competitive.

Quote:

---

1000% agree with your last sentence. Let's find out for sure.

---

Agree. I hope the hunting and shooting community get the opportunity to see what kind of innovation could come from removing suppressors off the NFA list

And then…what's next? Would like to keep chipping away at infringements

Senate added SBR, SBS and AOW to the removals!

🚨BREAKING🚨

The @SenFinance Cmte. has improved the One Big Beautiful Bill to FULLY REPEAL the National Firearms Act excise taxes on:

✅Suppressors
✅Short-Barreled Rifles
✅Short-Barreled Shotguns
✅Any other Weapons

This is a massive victory for the Second Amendment!

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) June 16, 2025

Nice gesture, but I'm not holding my breath for that to pass.

I'm all for this being in a bill but not sure the BBB is worth the price…

My understanding is it removes SBRs/SBSs/AOWs from the NFA by changing the definition of "firearm". The only items that would remain in he NFA would be machine guns and DDs. So the bill would eliminate both the tax and registration. Long way to go, but I'll take it.

The unelected Senate Parliamentarian decided it didn't meet the Byrd Rule and therefore couldn't be part of bill. They (Senate) changed the language and did eliminate the tax as part of the Senate version, but registration remains. House still trying to amend and reinsert the language removing suppressors and short barreled firearms entirely from the NFA. Not real optimistic they get it done.