Sound mod rejected

Beretta man

Hi Lads was rejected for a mod on my Ruger .204 by the super in Midleton,had a letter from the Doc but no good,he said I should use ear protectors and other people should be able to hear my shot for there own safety......
Totally Disgusted

maglite

"and other people should be able to hear my shot for there own safety"


Explain its not a silencer, just try and ease his concerns...

Cass

Tell him that even with a "silencer" (i hate that word, its not accurate) a sonic boom can still be heard as the bullet/projectile breaks the sound barrier. Any others walking/hunting in the same area will still hear the shot from a distance and know you are shooting. It will, however not startle any other game/livestock in the immediate area.

If you wear ear defenders, this dampens your sense of hearing meaning you cannot stalk quarry or hear others approach. It is better to reduce the sound of the shot as much as possible than the shooters ability to hear all the goings on around him.

On the other side, as i have asked others before, do you really need a moderator. Not implying anything, but i have seen a few lads getting a mod when they never use it.

Either way best of luck.

bunny shooter

Beretta man wrote: »

Hi Lads was rejected for a mod on my Ruger .204 by the super in Midleton,had a letter from the Doc but no good,he said I should use ear protectors and other people should be able to hear my shot for there own safety......
Totally Disgusted

I was refused for a .22lr and the same excuse was used :rolleyes:

NARGC were no use either :rolleyes:

elius

I requested one and was told buy the fo that it should be ok. Wrote up a letter saying my land permission was close to livestock and elderly people also lived in the locality and i didn't want the bang frighting them if i was shooting at night. If you didn't know what it was it would frighten you. He said it was as good a reason as any. The only reason i want one is to respect other people its really of no benefit to me is a hell of a lot cheaper to buy ear protection. Might be a little late to go with that approach though.

Beretta man

Jeffers in Bandon wrote a letter offering the super the chance to hear the gun without the mod and with it on,not even had the decency to replie.

kay 9

I'm in the same boat unfortunately, gave my application with the box ticked and a little cover letter as to why I require mod/silencer:rolleyes:. Got the licence back without that valuable little s in the bottom corner tho. Will have to enquire about it again.:(

jap gt

i didnt need a mod for my 22 wmr, but talking to a gaurd when handing in my application he said its easier to get the gun then apply for a mod after, said nothing about having to pay a second 80 euros

elius

jap gt wrote: »

i didnt need a mod for my 22 wmr, but talking to a gaurd when handing in my application he said its easier to get the gun then apply for a mod after, said nothing about having to pay a second 80 euros

Either do i but i'm hoping if i get one now. When i change to a 223 it will make it an easier process.

jwshooter

some facts on mods .

24m in front of the barrel ,there is very little difference in the noise of a full bore rifle with or with out a mod on.

did you get your refusal in weighting with a reason.

we have the most ignorant police force in europe ,i put in my licences in mid sep to date noting .

jwshooter

bunny shooter wrote: »

I was refused for a .22lr and the same excuse was used :rolleyes:

NARGC were no use either :rolleyes:

that was a while ago bunny , the gloves are off again

SpringerF

jwshooter wrote: »

i put in my licences in mid sep to date noting .

A liitle earlier maybe but the same here...............not even a thank you from the Super for filling out all those forms.... all by myself.

He didn't invite me to the wedding either so I must have done something wrong

kay 9

jwshooter wrote: »

some facts on mods .

24m in front of the barrel ,there is very little difference in the noise of a full bore rifle with or with out a mod on.

did you get your refusal in weighting with a reason.

we have the most ignorant police force in europe ,i put in my licences in mid sep to date noting .

Mid September:eek::eek: Jes man, that's so serious it's funny. Ireland god help us. Dirty little country.:mad:

ormondprop

myself and the father sent ours in around the end of january and we both applied for moderators, him for a .22lr and me for the hornet, he got a letter back a few weeks ago saying that they recieved his two applications and are processing them and i've heard nothing, we know the seargeant in our local station and he helped us fill out the forms and told us if we were applying for "silencers" to put down that we shoot on land where there are valuable horses and that we cant be making noise near them incase we scare themor stress them and a few other white lies aswell, he said if you just put down on the form that your only reason for needing a moderator is for protecting your hearing you will be denied and you will just be told to use hearing protection, he also said that the father will probably be granted a moderator but the chances are that i wont be due to the fact that i'm only 21 and that its a centrefire rifle, some country we live in, they just make up the laws as they go along

Jonty

ormondprop wrote: »

myself and the father sent ours in around the end of january and we both applied for moderators, him for a .22lr and me for the hornet, he got a letter back a few weeks ago saying that they recieved his two applications and are processing them and i've heard nothing, we know the seargeant in our local station and he helped us fill out the forms and told us if we were applying for "silencers" to put down that we shoot on land where there are valuable horses and that we cant be making noise near them incase we scare themor stress them and a few other white lies aswell, he said if you just put down on the form that your only reason for needing a moderator is for protecting your hearing you will be denied and you will just be told to use hearing protection, he also said that the father will probably be granted a moderator but the chances are that i wont be due to the fact that i'm only 21 and that its a centrefire rifle, some country we live in, they just make up the laws as they go along

Sure yer only a young lad, therefore you must be dangerous??

crowsnightmare

,I put in my licences in mid sep to date noting .[/QUOTE]

same here! had a visit a month ago to check security, & nothing since.

buckshotbrolan

Beretta man wrote: »

Hi Lads was rejected for a mod on my Ruger .204 by the super in Midleton,had a letter from the Doc but no good,he said I should use ear protectors and other people should be able to hear my shot for there own safety......
Totally Disgusted

Can i ask you if you already had a permit for said sound moderator? Just handed in my forms for my rifle with two land permissions and my sound moderator permit, but was told to write on a separate bit of paper explaining why i still need one! Have the same super and never had a prob getting permits so have to wait to see if i get the same reply as you. Sorry you got that responce thought she was very understanding.

Norwayviking

Beretta man wrote: »

Hi Lads was rejected for a mod on my Ruger .204 by the super in Midleton,had a letter from the Doc but no good,he said I should use ear protectors and other people should be able to hear my shot for there own safety......
Totally Disgusted

We had similar case over i Norway few years back,but had to change the law because of the EU legislation about noise reduction to enviroment.
Also in Finland they have made a study about the effiency to use surpressors to reduce noise from shooting ranges.have a few links here.

http://guns.connect.fi/rs/summary.html
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/suppress.html
http://intellagence.eu.com/acoustics2008/acoustics2008/cd1/data/articles/001015.pdf

sidneyreilly

Hi all, perhaps you should bring this to their attention: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:042:0038:0044:EN:PDF it is the regulations regarding noise, now it is only applicable really to the workplace however that is anywhere were a person works which will include farmers, farm workers, forestry workers etc.. in fact practically anywhere in the country one can shoot which may make the refusal of the moderator illegal under E.U.

Again, the uneven approach of this poxy system, all I did was tick the box and got my little S. Not a peep. Lads are living a couple of miles apart and one is getting refused a liscence and the other gets it, now the moderators as well, Its mad stone mad and needs to be changed:mad:

The licensing authority is like the Marx Brothers!

BornToKill

Might be an argument if you work for NPWS but it's a real stretch to recreational shooting. Voluntary assumption of risk, alternative protections for hearing.

sidneyreilly

BornToKill wrote: »

Might be an argument if you work for NPWS but it's a real stretch to recreational shooting. Voluntary assumption of risk, alternative protections for hearing.

Hi BTK, I didnt mean for the shooter but for those who may be working in the vicinity who may be at risk. Wherever there are or may be workers.

Norwayviking

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Hi BTK, I didnt mean for the shooter but for those who may be working in the vicinity who may be at risk. Wherever there are or may be workers.

Thats right its for the surroundings around the shooting range the regulations are covering.
I think its
60-70 dB,depending on no. of shots and dwellings.
http://www.akustisk-selskap.com/nas_nytt_2_2002/ince_questionnaire/answer_to_i.htm
But its not only the fact that its a health issue,its also the fact that it costs thousands of euro to get a shooting range sound insulated.
If a private owner of a shooting grounds/range is to comply with these regulations it means he has to pay a gigantic bill for it,and this will effect the members with higher memberfees to use the grounds.
Thats why its cheaper to buy a supressor for noise reduction,than to "soundproof" an entire range.
For the military shooting ranges its no problem cause there paid for by the taxpayers money.

BornToKill

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Hi BTK, I didnt mean for the shooter but for those who may be working in the vicinity who may be at risk. Wherever there are or may be workers.

Hi Sidneyreilly, but tell me who is the farmers' employer who has responsibility under the Directive you linked?

Jonty

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Hi BTK, I didnt mean for the shooter but for those who may be working in the vicinity who may be at risk. Wherever there are or may be workers.

Then the cops will say you are not being careful enough