I agree with the first part of this post but I have never understood Ayoob to hold any such belief. He simply cautions against potential legal complications. Besides how a nutjob DA may choose to handle a case, Ayoob cautions that if gunshot residue were to be an issue for any reason, that you could not use evidence based on testing your handloads, only factory ammo.rm9792 wrote:IMO if you intend to shoot then why would it be an issue? If you go claiming accident or "it just went off" then I can see that being a big issue. Same with removing Swartz safeties and FPB's. If you intend for it to fire then why would another safety matter? Reloads are another mythical court nono. I reload cause it is cheaper, not to make some +P+++ mega hot death round. Yet Ayoob would have you believe all reloaders are closet serial killers just waiting to cap a bad guy.
This is just my own thoughts for whatever they are worth. As long as the firearm proves reliable and the supressor doesn't cause any issues with manuverability in your particular situation, I think a supressor makes a lot of sense. The law makes no distinction between a single shot rifle and a full auto Thompson as far as whether use of force was justified but depending on where you are politics could easily come into play. I personally don't think a SBR, SBS, or a supressor would be as likely to be an issue as something that is full auto, though.Scott in Houston wrote:You guys are validating what I already believe, but those guys with Ayoob (sp?) on a podcast I heard had me questioning myself.
Personally, I would rather avoid NFA items for self defense and not have that as a potential complication later on just as I use factory ammo for self defense even though I have full faith in my reloads. If, however, the laws ever change making supressors more common, I would definitely consider one on a home defense gun.