As far as the weight on the end of the barrel goes they make suppressors with an inertia device in the back sometimes called a nelson device. It makes the suppressor weightless (for all intents and purposes) for the split second the gun is cycling. However getting it on the gun would probably be more difficult that getting it to cycle. Since no one makes extended or threaded barrels for the P3AT you would need to have the tip of your barrel turned down and threaded. It’s very thin so you will have to take whatever thread size you can get (if it can even be done). Then you will need to have a thread adapter made that is internally threaded to go over the end of the barrel and is shaped to the proper barrel contours but protrudes past the end of the slide and is externally threaded on the other end for the suppressor. It sounds like an elaborate setup but it’s actually a relatively common process. I think it’s a matter of whether or not there is enough meat on the end of the barrel to work with. If you’re serious about it contact Chris at Aquila Precision Firearms and get his take on the setup. He does similar work for Glock .22 conversion kits. http://www.aquilafirearms.com/ContactUs.htm
My question is WHY? The P3AT is designed for ease in concealment and personal defense. The addition of a silencer will only negate the concealment feature, and the noise from an unsilenced weapon can be to your advantage. So why would you want a silencer? It doesn't seem reasonable as to why someone who is legally licensed to carry concealed would want or need a silencer for legal personal defense actions.!
I can understand wanting a suppressed weapon for several reasons; home defense, range toy, pest control are all good reasons. I just don't think it would be worth the effort for a P3. A larger weapon like a Glock 9mm/45acp would be a better choice IMO because the threaded barrel is a drop in part. CJ
It really upsets me when I hear this kind of talk from fellow gun owners. So, you see no reason for it. Why does that mean someone else should not be able to do it? What about when congress sees no reasonable need for law abiding citizens who can legally carry a handgun for self defense to have more than a 10 round capacity in their self defense gun? What about if congress sees no reasonable need for a law abiding citizen to carry a gun at all? This is the exact train of "logic" that erodes our 2nd amendment rights all the time. If you see no need or advantage in doing something then don't do it, but your perceived need or your perceived lack of need has no bearing on someone else right to do something that is perfectly legal in the first place.
It really upsets me when I hear this kind of talk from fellow gun owners. So, you see no reason for it. Why does that mean someone else should not be able to do it? What about when congress sees no reasonable need for law abiding citizens who can legally carry a handgun for self defense to have more than a 10 round capacity in their self defense gun? What about if congress sees no reasonable need for a law abiding citizen to carry a gun at all? This is the exact train of "logic" that erodes our 2nd amendment rights all the time. If you see no need or advantage in doing something then don't do it, but your perceived need or your perceived lack of need has no bearing on someone else right to do something that is perfectly legal in the first place.[/quote] Excuse me but my "perceived need" as you put it has a lot to do with what others may do with a handgun. One piece of bad press concerning the reckless use of weapons hurts the millions of law abiding citizens who have weapons for legitimate and practical purposes. So if someone is caught with a silencer how would that ever positively contribute towards the rights of the legal gun owner. Its far different than the magazine issue you refer to. High cap mags are now legal, and it is being considered to make them illegal, and I don't like that any better than the next guy. For the most part it is now legal to own firearms and to carry them concealed in most states. Take that right away and you better believe I will be furious. Silencers however are not legal without a license, and in that case your second amendment rights are not being violated. You legally can't have it in the first place so how do you consider your being denied your rights. You need to do your homework before stating that it is perfectly legal to have a silencer. Legal if you go through the federal permit process, but the process for obtaining and owning a silencer is far more expensive than the cost of a P3AT. If you are making one yourself then that is illegal, and it is actions like that which have helped erode the second amendment. Besides, show me in the second amendment where it states "the right to bear silencers". If you want to be a rersponsible gun owner, do it legally!
Don’t tell me I need to do my homework. I am well aware of what it takes to purchase a NFA weapon like a silencer and what it takes to "make" an NFA weapon. How do I know? I've done both. Neither require a "license." Neither are all that complicated. Both can be done perfectly legally. And the cost is less than the cost of a P3AT. There is no federal law prohibiting the possession of a silencer (some states do restrict them), but generally speaking it's not illegal. Saying it's illegal to own a silencer is like saying that's it's illegal to carry a concealed handgun. It can be, but it is legal for me and I do it every day. It can be illegal to drive a car if you don't have a license but that doesn't make driving a car, generally speaking, illegal either. As far as "rights" go, If the law provides for the ability to own a silencer regardless of paperwork (by the way, it's just one piece of paper, in duplicate) then you have every right to exercise that right by filling out that paperwork and purchasing one. He has every right to do whatever the law permits, and the law makes provision for owning a silencer in most states. As far as the second amendment goes, it protects the right to bear “arms” as in firearms, and I hate to break it to you but the ATF considers silencers to be firearms. There is no reason to think that this guy can’t have a silencer and still be a legal and responsible gun owner.
Don’t tell me I need to do my homework. I am well aware of what it takes to purchase a NFA weapon like a silencer and what it takes to "make" an NFA weapon. How do I know? I've done both. Neither require a "license." Neither are all that complicated. Both can be done perfectly legally. And the cost is less than the cost of a P3AT. There is no federal law prohibiting the possession of a silencer (some states do restrict them), but generally speaking it's not illegal. Saying it's illegal to own a silencer is like saying that's it's illegal to carry a concealed handgun. It can be, but it is legal for me and I do it every day. It can be illegal to drive a car if you don't have a license but that doesn't make driving a car, generally speaking, illegal either. As far as "rights" go, If the law provides for the ability to own a silencer regardless of paperwork (by the way, it's just one piece of paper, in duplicate) then you have every right to exercise that right by filling out that paperwork and purchasing one. He has every right to do whatever the law permits, and the law makes provision for owning a silencer in most states. As far as the second amendment goes, it protects the right to bear “arms” as in firearms, and I hate to break it to you but the ATF considers silencers to be firearms. There is no reason to think that this guy can’t have a silencer and still be a legal and responsible gun owner.[/quote] Don't worry about breaking any news to me. If you will get off your "the governments out to get me" mentality and screw your head back on, you may realize my point. The P3AT is primarily designed for easy concealment and personal protection , that's it! If you think otherwise then you need to attend a class in weapons 101. Installing a silencer takes away the concealment feature and who cares about the sound in a self defense situation. Argue that if you want but if you are able to think reasonably you should see what I mean. It sounds to me that you just wanted to jump in with lip service without engaging your brain beforehand! Get a grip!
If you two want to fight over the legal issues of owning a suppressor maybe you should start your own thread. The huge quotes of quotes of quotes are really getting annoying. CJ
CJ, you are correct. It is pointless to continue a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I will respect your request. This was in no way intended to be annoying to any of the other members of this forum, and if it was my apologies.
