The way gun suppressors work in movies and TV is complete fiction, in real life suppressors can attenuate gun shots by maybe 15-35 dB SPL at best. 140 dB SPL is the threshold at which sound causes pain, 120 dB SPL is the threshold that risks instantaneous noise-induced hearing loss, and most rifles and handguns using standard ammunition are in the 140-170 dB SPL range. Even with a suppressor the volume a typical gun produces is enough to be painful and to cause permanent hearing loss if no additional hearing protection is used. In the typical best case scenario using an extremely underpowered subsonic .22LR round with a suppressor a gun shot will still be in the 120 dB SPL range, and for reference, hunting even small muntjac deer with a .22LR would be considered inhumane and in many parts of the world (including many American states) it is illegal to do so. It is a round intended to shoot rodents and birds.
I realise this comment is a nitpick but it's something that needs to be brought up any time suppressors are brought up. The only relevance suppressors have on the gun control argument is that their use and sale means that gun operators have less risk of suffering from hearing loss (especially when shooting indoors in a range) and people living near shooting ranges are less likely to complain about noise, i.e., there's no public safety argument here, it's purely ideological, and that's fine if it's what you're going for but it's not a compelling argument or one that holds up to scrutiny. As a point of comparison, there's very little controversy over suppressors in Europe and typically no additional regulations are placed on their ownership beyond the regulations necessary to own the guns that they're used with.
No, you can get literal Hollywood quiet with suppressors. If you’ve never gotten to experience that, sorry I guess haha.
A Kel-Tec CP33 or Ruger MKIV with various forms of attached suppressors or integrated suppressors shooting CCI subsonic .22 is Hollywood quiet. Less noise than a BB gun.
There are various other calibers that can get pretty damn close to as quiet as those as well.
For your traditional military calibers across the globe - yes, they’re still pretty damn loud suppressed. I think .50 bmg or Lapua suppressed is still as loud as 7.62x39 unsuppressed.
But to say you can’t get Hollywood quiet is simply incorrect, and there’s still a factor of louder calibers pitch being changed to something that a person not in the immediate vicinity could confuse as construction instead of gunfire.
As much as I personally enjoy suppressors… I do have issue with the fact anybody can get their hands on one next day. Just work for a gun range in any mid sized town for two weeks and your honest thoughts about just about literally anybody being able to obtain a firearm will likely change. People are fucking dumb man.
Having seen videos of a suppressed MP-5, they make a rapid clicking noise on full auto. It’s still loud by my estimation but it doesn’t sound like a gun.
What you're hearing is camera attenuation. They are still very loud, they just won't outright blow your ears out. It might not sound like a gun if you don't know what a suppressor sounds like, but you will still be able to hear it unless the noise of the environment is hearing-damaging loud. Just about the only things that are Hollywood-quiet are subsonic suppressed .22s and .45s, but the former is incredibly anemic and the latter is not cheap.
You should be able to easily find on YouTube/Reddit or other parts of the internet- actual decibel testing.
For the CP33, with some of the higher quality suppressors, the action of the gun is actually louder than the fired munitions. I haven’t checked on things in a bit, but people were trying to work on the action to reduce noise created by it.
It’s essentially slightly louder than a handheld staple gun irl (there’s videos of this comparison on YouTube) - and I’ve saw somewhat reputably claimed, but not actually demonstrated - there are now some integral aftermarket barrels for the Ruger MKIV that are quieter than the CP33.
As you’ve stated though - these rounds definitely don’t have much power behind them and will do practically nothing to anything that isn’t human flesh like. They can quite literally bounce off of an obese person or get caught in a modest cold weather coat.
I realise this comment is a nitpick but it's something that needs to be brought up any time suppressors are brought up. The only relevance suppressors have on the gun control argument is that their use and sale means that gun operators have less risk of suffering from hearing loss (especially when shooting indoors in a range) and people living near shooting ranges are less likely to complain about noise, i.e., there's no public safety argument here, it's purely ideological, and that's fine if it's what you're going for but it's not a compelling argument or one that holds up to scrutiny. As a point of comparison, there's very little controversy over suppressors in Europe and typically no additional regulations are placed on their ownership beyond the regulations necessary to own the guns that they're used with.