NSSF’s Suppressor Study [Infographic]

I'm a media member of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). They do a lot of good for the outdoor community and the shooting sports at large. One of the things I've continuously reported on whenever they do one is an infographic study. Their studies drop so many truth bombs that their accuracy cannot be disputed even by the most delusional of anti-gunners.

The latest set of truth bombs to be dropped in an infographic put out by the NSSF is their “Hear the Truth about Suppressors” study.

This study points out, very truthfully according to many reports I've read as well, that limiting the usage of suppressors doesn't do anything but hurt ears.

While I think the whole graphic is great, my favorite part is the very bottom where it states just how often a suppressor is used in crime. Which, by the way, is less than 1% of all homicides. When you consider that there is more than 1 million suppressors registered with the ATF, those are peanuts.

This study (indirectly) does double duty in proving that gun owners don't want to commit crimes with our guns, because if we did the number of crimes would be much higher. There are millions of gun owners across the country, and this report shows that there are 101.6 million hunters alone (granted not all of them use guns, but most do).

Again, I say, if we were a problem, you'd know. Here is the graphic in question:

Credit: https://www.nssf.org/hear-the-truth-about-suppressors-infographic/

I personally do not own a suppressor of any kind. However, if they were easier to get without an 8 month wait time I'd go out and buy a couple. Why? Because I've shot guns before without hearing protection, and I've now got permanently damaged ears with constant high pitched ringing sounds that NEVER go away.

I would love to save any of the hearing that I've got left by being able to shoot suppressed. I'm not jumping through hoops to attain something that should be a right. A suppressor has uses all the way from proper home defense, to hunting, to target practice and everywhere in between.

Sadly, the Hearing Protection Act seems to have fallen flat on its face. So for now, it's either the hoop jumping or continue using regular hearing protection. Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

About Joshua Gillem

Josh is a lifelong practitioner and student of the gun. He grew up shooting/hunting with his dad, and was given his first gun, a 12 gauge shotgun, when just a small boy. After high school, he joined the Marines where his love for firearms blossomed as he qualified with an M16A2, an M9, and a 240G. Josh has been writing about firearms and tactics for several years, owns the blog Gunners Den, is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and believes that each individual person has the right to self-defense by any means necessary. Currently residing in gun-friendly NC, he carries a concealed gun on a daily basis, even in his own house.


  1. Chad on February 12, 2019 at 9:10 pm

    Great article with surprising facts. I would like to own a suppressor someday, and I agree with what the author is saying about jumping through hoops to get one. I understand the background checking and such. I just feel the extra fees and wait time is a bit ridiculous.

    • Kenneth Ernst on February 15, 2019 at 9:28 pm

      I totally agree with i also think it sucks

  2. Lynn on February 14, 2019 at 5:26 pm

    When I was in the service, I shot on rifle teams for much of my enlistment, we did not use hearing protection. I also have tinnitus, it is very loud and continuous. I also have a disability from the VA for my hearing loss. I would love to have a suppressor but all the hoops and fees make it to difficult. The fees put it out of reach.

  3. Gareth Williams on February 14, 2019 at 5:50 pm

    Good article,. Here in New Zealand, anyone that has a gun licence can buy a suppressor and many do. There are a number of different manufacturers and no legislation. I hunt and shoot at a club for target practice. My main rifles all have suppressors.

    On the flip side of course, owning a hand gun is difficult over here 8=((

  4. Larry D Price on February 14, 2019 at 6:17 pm

    If you own any pistols, you’ve already been checked through the system. I don’t agree with any of their stupid rules about silencers. Looking at all the pros versus cons, and all the stats on the subject, there’s no reason to have any rules on them. It would be a win-win deal for everyone, except the a-holes wanting to make money by taxing us.

    • DEBORAH CIESLEWSKI on February 14, 2019 at 10:24 pm

      I think you should be able to own a suppressor without the loop holes and the stamped tax that was put on them. i am still going to purchase one, i’m very interested in the Maxim 9 suppessor ready handgun and i do intend to purchase one ,i only need about $500 more than i’ll be ready to buy on. I don’t think that’s taxable. The goverment wants to take away all weapons but as i said before guns don’t kill it’s the people who have one illegally.

  5. WILLIAM MARTIN on February 14, 2019 at 6:29 pm


    • Jacob Paulsen on February 14, 2019 at 6:53 pm

      Call your local gun store.

  6. Mitchell Schmitz on February 14, 2019 at 6:33 pm

    I agree with Chad it is a great article. This is my take on gun laws. They only work if you’re going to abide by them. The criminals obviously don’t follow the laws. That’s how they got the name criminal. I don’t disagree with having some type of background check. But here’s the thing with background checks. Every one this day and time knows that if you buy a firearm from a dealer or a sporting goods store they are going to do a check on you. Does anyone really think a criminal or someone that has a felony on their record is actually going to walk in and try to purchase a gun from a legal dealer. We have a 2nd amendment for a reason just like all the rest of the amendments that make up our constitution. If a person can pass a background check to purchase a firearm what difference does it make about the items added to it as long as they are legal to start with. At the time they passed that law background checks probably were not being done at all. Seems like a big waste of taxpayers dollars to me. I wish someone would do a study to see how many people are killed and injured by the use of cellphones while driving every year. Then compare that number to the number of people with guns. With the nuts we have in DC right now their going to try to get more gun control passed. I feel like this if they can dictate to me as to what gun I can own then no one else should have access to them except the military. It’s time our wonderful law makers and enforcement to have the same protection as we do. They would drop a lot of the gun control. Why do they think their family is anymore important than yours. I was always taught the laws applied to everyone. They’ve forgotten that part in Washington.

  7. Andie on February 14, 2019 at 6:54 pm

    The purpose of the 8 months to do a background check that takes more like 30 minutes of actual work is so that fewer people get them. The purpose of the $200 “tax” is to make it prohibitively expensive so fewer people get them. That $200 when this was enacted was the equivalent buying power of $2,500 in today’s dollars. That would deter me from getting one, however practical or necessary. I’m starting to see a pattern here.

  8. Charles Schillinsky on February 14, 2019 at 7:10 pm

    I also have severe hearing loss from over 20 years in the military. I am currently waiting for my stamp for my suppressor, 10 months now. I disagree that what is being conducted is a Background Investigation. What they are conducting is merely a National Agency Check which is done electronically. I have conducted hundreds of Background Investigations, both in the military and for Homeland Security. If BI’s were being done the cost of a stamp would be in the thousands, not 200.

  9. DEBORAH CIESLEWSKI on February 14, 2019 at 10:36 pm

    I want to purchase a silencer for my handgun, but these loopholes and stamped taxed fees are crazy in my opion. i intend to purchase the Maxim 9 which has a built in suppressor, the gun alone costs about $ 1450 and they don’t say anything about a taxed stamp on that handgun. Guns don’t kill it’s the people who own them,that kill. why should we suffer the price for individuals who shouldn’t own a weapon. But i still intend to purchase a suppressor one way or another and waiting 8 months isn’t fair.

    • Andy on February 15, 2019 at 10:33 am

      Maxim 9 still requires the $200 tax stamp and the 8-12 month waiting period. It’s integrally suppressed, but it still has a suppressor. The down side to this firearm is that you pay the tax and wait the time but then you can only use this suppressor on the one firearm.

  10. John Isbell on February 15, 2019 at 5:08 pm

    What we really need is Muzzle Brakes that aren’t so loud. Suppresors heat up a rifle barrel and can change the point of impact. Muzzle brakes are too loud. We need something the gives us the best of both worlds.

  11. samcolt on February 15, 2019 at 6:37 pm

    I would like to add to the information that was presented in this article from the NSSF.
    I believe the 30-35 dB drop because of a suppressor they have listed here isn’t the total facts.
    One of the main causes for noise with a gunshot is caused by the velocity the projectile is traveling. Where velocity is concerned, there are two categories. Supersonic & Subsonic. There are quite a few factors that affect this, so some research is recommended.
    To correctly suppress a projectile, said bullet’s velocity MUST be Subsonic or less. This eliminates the crack as the sound barrier is broken after the bullet leaves the barrel/suppressor.
    That said, with the correct velocity & suppressor combination the results can be far better than 30-35 dB!

  12. Kenneth Ernst on February 15, 2019 at 9:29 pm

    I totally agree with i also think it sucks

Leave a Comment