Talk:Baza/@comment-83.23.131.97-20171124005306/@comment-2605:6000:6DC0:D000:91AE:DC4E:EA52:182C-20171126111645

No, silencer is still incorrect. Common usage does not dictate meaning when such meaning is obviously contrary to reality. It just means that common usage is stupid, MPAI.

They're "legally" called that the same way we legally define terms like "assault weapon" that in reality are absurdly ambiguous. Legalese doesn't even speak Latin literately, you'll have to excuse me for not accepting their faux-technical terms in areas where they are not experts, particularly when those terms are intentionally twisted by certain political actors.

As for modern silencers not using the wipe method anymore... you're "not even wrong". Wipe method? Good one. Baffles? You don't know what that word means, do you? Even the original patent models from 1909 had baffles. The modern ones certainly do. As for them being machined -- it's actually rather funny that you think soft materials are machined. I'll give you that regular suppressors are sometimes machined though -- the extremely low-suppression ones designed for almost pure flash-suppression rather than sound suppression.

The highest suppression grades (to which I am permitting your use of "silencer") still use soft materials internally, period. The pinnacle of that class are soft enough that they still wear out within a handful of shots. There's no way to make them with current materials science so that they are both the most quiet and still last well. Lower suppression-grades and/or ones desigend toward prolonged use rather than best-suppression -- several different levels of which you are referring to -- do not necessarily use soft materials.

''Here's what it boils down to. You're insisting on using a technically incorrect term to refer to objects that are not even the best fit for that term within the class that the technically correct term encompasses. You're just wrong, and you're wrong in two different and mutually contradictory ways.''