please delete

please delete

Joined: November 5th, 2008, 8:23 pm

December 14th, 2010, 9:44 pm #1


please delete

Thanks
Ray
Last edited by ray1377 on December 15th, 2010, 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 3:18 am

December 15th, 2010, 12:17 am #2

...the shroud works the same way a moderator, or silencer works on a real firearm. Allow enough [trap]room for expanding gasses, which is the cause of report (sound), and you get pfffftt. In the case of a PCP, the gas is air. Although not expanding like combustable gasses or Co2, the rapid discharge of air creates a sonic signature.

Imagine dropping a Black Cat firecracker in a pipe one inch in diamter three feet long versus an open air detonation. If the firecraker blows up in the bottom (for the sake of the experiment)of the tube you barely hear it.

"Well, I thought it was a rabbit but it turned out to be Bear Grylls in a rabbit hide."

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: November 5th, 2008, 8:23 pm

December 15th, 2010, 4:14 am #3

please delete

Thanks
Ray
I posted this same question on 2 "other forums" and both of them screamed something about a rule #11 and discussing how to build something other than a shroud or a moderator if you know what I mean? You know, the "S" word.
Well I don't want to ruffle anyones feathers, or get booted off any forum for asking the wrong question.
So before this gets into the "nitty gritty" or steps over the line just please delete it.
Thanks
Ray
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: September 6th, 2006, 3:27 am

December 15th, 2010, 5:28 am #4

why would anyone get their feathers ruffled in regards to shrouds on air guns ?

Seems most of the higher end guns have a shroud or moderator right from the factory.
Even Crosman, and American company, puts a shroud ( with baffles in it, and it is threaded and removable ) on at least two of their current models.

You don't see the B.A.T.F. raiding their corporate headquarters, do you ?

I have not heard of even one instance where someone was prosecuted for having a moderator,shroud,LDC, etc on their air gun.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 27th, 2007, 11:09 pm

December 15th, 2010, 5:36 am #5

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 3:18 am

December 15th, 2010, 2:43 pm #6

I posted this same question on 2 "other forums" and both of them screamed something about a rule #11 and discussing how to build something other than a shroud or a moderator if you know what I mean? You know, the "S" word.
Well I don't want to ruffle anyones feathers, or get booted off any forum for asking the wrong question.
So before this gets into the "nitty gritty" or steps over the line just please delete it.
Thanks
Ray
Really, I mean really!? It was an honest question you presented, it was. If people (on here or abroad) don't like "pffftt" sounds, well... Seriously, I explained it...

I see no reason to delete the thread, as the methods U.S. manufacturers sre using to SILENCE-SILENCE-SILENCE-SILENCE (I said it four more times) their air guns is within BATFE guidelines people. NO RULES OR REGULATIONS ARE BEING VIOLATED.

Now, when folks talk LDC, which is a term meant to be elusive, I could go on for a few minutes and win the debate in the end...

"Well, I thought it was a rabbit but it turned out to be Bear Grylls in a rabbit hide."

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 3:18 am

December 15th, 2010, 3:03 pm #7

The defendant would have been up for retrial had evidence and argument been presented properly - not an aquital. Aquitals, like in this case, happen when the prosecution fails to meet the required arrangments or conduct in the trial process (criminal proceeding). In criminal cases three elements need to be met in order to establish full guilt: (1)mens rea, (2)causation, (3)concurrence

You see, in a criminal proceeding only two of the three acting parties in the court need to comply to strick conduct rules; the judge and prosecutor. The defense is not required to be coherent, accurate, nor is the defense required to be factual.

This case sets a precedent indeed, but not the way many may think it does.

"Well, I thought it was a rabbit but it turned out to be Bear Grylls in a rabbit hide."

Reply
Like
Share

Joined: September 6th, 2006, 3:27 am

December 15th, 2010, 7:11 pm #8

I take it that the government failed to prove that a crime had been committed in the first place, let alone the question of guilt.

In any case, O.K..........now I know of an instance where someone was prosecuted on the basis of an air gun silencer.....taken slightly out of context as it is, due to the nature of the individual charged and what he was up to....as in "no good" .
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 27th, 2007, 11:09 pm

December 15th, 2010, 7:30 pm #9

The defendant would have been up for retrial had evidence and argument been presented properly - not an aquital. Aquitals, like in this case, happen when the prosecution fails to meet the required arrangments or conduct in the trial process (criminal proceeding). In criminal cases three elements need to be met in order to establish full guilt: (1)mens rea, (2)causation, (3)concurrence

You see, in a criminal proceeding only two of the three acting parties in the court need to comply to strick conduct rules; the judge and prosecutor. The defense is not required to be coherent, accurate, nor is the defense required to be factual.

This case sets a precedent indeed, but not the way many may think it does.

"Well, I thought it was a rabbit but it turned out to be Bear Grylls in a rabbit hide."

I tried to read it carefully and fully, but my mind wanders when the legalese
gets thick. it was not my intention to start an argument, words on a screen with
no tone is a bad way to convey information. I merely intended to inform
someone who didn't know.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 27th, 2007, 11:09 pm

December 15th, 2010, 7:33 pm #10

I take it that the government failed to prove that a crime had been committed in the first place, let alone the question of guilt.

In any case, O.K..........now I know of an instance where someone was prosecuted on the basis of an air gun silencer.....taken slightly out of context as it is, due to the nature of the individual charged and what he was up to....as in "no good" .
he was a bad egg, and wouldn't be welcome here I think
Reply
Like
Share