SilencerCo Muzzleloader Sparks Legal Challenge, Change In Company Plans

SilencerCo built a unique piece of equipment when it developed it’s suppressed muzzleloader, the Maxim 50. All over the country, gun enthusiasts were looking at their budgets and making plans for securing one of these guns.


Anti-gunners, however, had other plans. Bearing Arms received the following statement via email from SilencerCo:

Upon launching the Maxim 50, SilencerCo received several immediate legal challenges from authorities and lawyers in the states of New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. Since we have no desire to place any consumer in a situation where they may get arrested and charged with a felony because their state defines a firearm differently than the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), we have placed orders from those states on hold and are refunding customers pending conversations amongst lawyers. These three states have rules that are not entirely clear with respect to firearms and silencers and antique firearms, and it is relevant to point out that no states contemplated a product of this sort in their laws.
SilencerCo asked for and received a determination from the BATFE on behalf of the federal government prior to launch but could not do so officially from each state government or risk specific state-level legislation being passed prohibiting the product before it was even launched. We will refund orders to customers from these states and update consumers as soon as feasible as to the ultimate determination in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
We believe that law abiding citizens should have the ability to purchase and own silencers, regardless of what state they live in. We will continue our efforts in advocacy and encourage all who share our desire to take action and contact their elected representatives by visiting

I’m sorry, but this just proves that anti-gun measures have nothing to do with being against crime.

After all, how many crimes are committed each year with muzzleloaders? I cursory Google search found precisely zero, though I’ll admit that a more detailed search might net a couple.


No, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts are more focused on keeping their citizens disarmed on general principle. They don’t believe in the Second Amendment and they don’t believe in an armed citizenry. Period.

Muzzleloaders are terrible for anything these days except hunting. The Maxim 50 has a permanently attached suppressor, making the loud, heavy-recoiling muzzleloader more pleasant to shoot and hunt with. The reloading process alone makes it impractical for crime, with or without a suppressor.

Either these brainiac anti-gunners know this, and simply think citizens shouldn’t own guns of any kind, or they don’t. If that’s the case, then where do they get off trying to create laws about things they don’t understand?

Remember this the next time some anti-gun knob tries to tell you that no one will come for your hunting rifle. That’s all the Maxim 50 is, for crying out loud.


Frankly, this is all the more reason to push for Congress to pass the SHARE Act and the Hearing Protection Act embodied within it, quickly. Then we can focus our efforts on helping our brothers and sisters in these states take back their constitutional rights. It’s clear that they can’t trust their politicians to look out for them.

Granted, it was already clear, but this should take the cake.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member