Hunting Rifle: Anyone Else Have No Desire for a Silencer?

[Benman73]

Well here we go again! I see the name of this blog as Long Range Hunting yet see all kinds of responses that belay the true intent of the title of the blog. Yes I will admit that to me 300 yards or less is all that I am comfortable taking a shot at big game at, an honestly much less. Much prefer between 50 and 200 yards but might stretch it to 300 yards if really warranted. I am one that loves to maximize ballistic performance as well as terminal performance on the rifles I use for hunting. Target shooting is entirely a different story. Here I see talk about wanting to shoot large animals out to 800 or 900 yards or more ,but want to have a short rifle 20 inch barrel and a suppressor to shoot as these ranges. OK Folks...I have been in this game for over 50 years and what is proposed here is not ballistic-ally feasible. You don't take a magnum cartridge designed for a 24 inch or longer barrel and shoot it in a 20 inch barrel to begin with is ludicrous. All that powder that exits the barrel burned in the atmosphere outside of the barrel causing a big eruption of muzzle flash is essentially wasted money. A suppressor on a hunting rifle is about as useless as tits on a boar hog. A supersonic bullet will hit the target before the sound of the shot will. Thus the comment in the military that you will never hear the shot that kills you rings true. The supersonic bullet will hit you and kill you before you will hear the sound of the shot from the rifle that it was fired from. Silencers on high power rifles are essentially useless. You may deaden the sound of the rifle going off in the distance but that will be negated by the supersonic bullet hitting the target, whatever that may be before the sound of the shot reaching them. By that time the animal you were shooting at is dead before the sound of the shot reaches them. Wake up people. If you want to chronograph ammo leaving the barrel of a test rifle, same ammo..from two different identical rifles one with a 20 inch barrel with or without your mystical suppressor as opposed to the design 24 inch barrel that the manufacturer's use as their proof rounds for each bullet design, and expect to get better performance than the factory does you are simply delusional. With this I will simply sit back and listen to your diatribe on the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about. Your challenge is to prove me wrong;.

There is so much bad information in this post it was actually painful to read it. I would expect to see something like this on FB, but not on a forum of experienced shooters.

 

[hseII]

I appreciate that. I've got friends who probably feel the same. The BS the ATF makes you go through is definitely a factor, by design. Registration is the biggest one IMO.

Suppressors are commonplace in Europe where it's ignorantly difficult to purchase the actual firearms. The ATF needs to remove Suppressors from their regulatory jurisdiction.

 

[Maol]

Suppressors are commonplace in Europe where it's ignorantly difficult to purchase the actual firearms. The ATF needs to remove Suppressors from their regulatory jurisdiction.

That will take legislation. Make it a requirement for a candidate to get your vote. I am going to stop there.

 

[Chase723]

If one of the fashionable crowd has a can they all have to have one, why would you have a 18 inch barrel and the poor preformance that produces then put 6 inches of can back on, to save your hearing on one shot in a great while. monkey see ,monkey doo

With all due respect 1) If you shoot your hunting rifle "one shot in a great while" you're on the wrong forum. 2) It only takes 1 shot to cause permanent hearing damage. So it matters a lot. 3) You clearly don't have much experience shooting with shorter barreled rifles. The "poor performance" a) can be mitigated and b) isn't actually poor. Typically that 18" barrel is more capable than the vast majority of people using it. Put some more bullets to flesh and you'll see what people are talking about

There's pros and cons to suppressors. Everybody on here saying that the pros outweigh the cons shot firearms without a suppressor before they got a suppressor. The pros are substantial. Like has been said, though, to each his own. However, the vast majority that use them love them and avoid shooting without them if at all possible.

 

[hydehunter]

I guess I have lost to much of my hearing that I can shoot with out muffs or ear plugs (suppressed) and can barely hear the shot, but last week I shot at a deer and was on my front porch 20 feet from our bed room and asked my wife whom was sleeping how loud was the shot and she said it was just a little pop not loud at all so I will keep my suppressor and get a couple more, one thing is I cannot wear ear muffs when shooting any of my rifles due to stock contact and ear plugs are terrible to wear when hunting

 

[Rich Coyle]

I have three. If you shoot subsonic ammo you don't need hearing protection. We wear simple earplugs when we shoot suppressed that is not subsonic. I used brakes for years with the best ear protection I could find and I still need hearing aids. I wish I had started using suppressors when I was young.

My mom never fired a gun and yet lost her hearing. It may have to do with genetics.

 

[milo-2]

I hate to say it but here goes. Bottom line, suppress all things. The anti-suppressor folks can neither afford them or cannot legally own them and or have no experience with them. I truly feel sorry for the posters that can't own in the few states that don't allow but you folks that live in free states and don't support the use or post misleading info should be ashamed.

Have you followed PRS shooting over the yrs, you know, guys that shoot 3-6K centerfire rds a yr? 5-6 yrs ago can usage was high, way high, today it is under 10%. I really doubt it is a money issue.
I have 6 cans sitting idle in my safe, I don't care for them, by all means use them if you desire, but don't use the word misleading because I don't share your opinion.

 

[Panhandle Pete]

I see a lot of folks are putting silencers on their hunting rifles, even sacrificing ballistic performance by shortening barrels.

Anyone else prefer their hunting rifle to not have a silencer? Maybe I'm old school but I don't have muzzle brakes or silencers on my hunting rifles.

I have several guns set up for my my Thunderbeast silencer , the threaded adapters are great for multiple guns, I enjoy being able to go into a praire dog town and shoot without blowing out the entire town going under ground on the first few shots. I also like to use them on my heavy hunting rifles where I can set up in a blind and not blow out my ears. They are also used on some of my lighter stalking/walking rifles. I have shot a lot of rounds over the last 55-60 years and find that anything I can do to mitigate the noise/flinch is certainly helpful.

 

[memtb]

I've read the majority of the comments.....no one will change their position on the topic as presented! As stated by someone, there are no right or wrong answers.....just opinions!

These are some of my positions!

When shooting steel or targets, where a multitude of rounds will be fired, "a can" makes total sense!

Beyond that....the term "hunting" needs to be clearly defined! Only the "hunter" can define his/her (or any of the dozens of gender variants) their hunting method!

If hunting means carrying the firearm in mixed terrain, up and down steep country, through brush and timber with the possibility of a long shot......many of the rifles promoted on this site are at the least impractical and at their worst ridiculous! Heavy, rifles, bipods/tripods, unnecessary barrel length are a huge hinderance! Wear ear plugs to protect your hearing or "if" you want to hear everything but the shot....go with electronic sound enhancing/shot damping ear buds. Muffs are usually impractical for proper cheek weld!

If hunting means positioning one's self where moderate to extreme hiking/stalking hunting conditions are out of the equation and long shots are likely to offer the highest probability for a shot.....it doesn't matter how extreme the hunting package ( rifle weight, barrel length, types of support system, ect.) you use! Use the rifle package/platform that is the best you can financially justify.....and enjoy the "can"!

It's all hunting......just in different forms! memtb

 

[Chase723]

Have you followed PRS shooting over the yrs, you know, guys that shoot 3-6K centerfire rds a yr? 5-6 yrs ago can usage was high, way high, today it is under 10%. I really doubt it is a money issue.
I have 6 cans sitting idle in my safe, I don't care for them, by all means use them if you desire, but don't use the word misleading because I don't share your opinion.

This is a niche demographic where experience has determined that in that setting a suppressor isn't advantageous. The PRS environment isn't comparable at all to long range hunting and other similar shooting styles.

I presume, since you brought it up, that you shoot PRS. For the folks that don't, one of the downsides of a suppressor is that they heat up. With high volume fire, they can create a lot of mirage. Furthermore, in PRS you are constantly pulling a rifle in and out of barricades and most people are shooting 26-28" barrels. Pulling another 8" through a barricade isn't inconsequential. Also, the benefit of not having to wear ear pro all the time isn't afforded by that environment. That said, how many PRS shooters get headaches during or after matches from muzzle blast and concussion? I know a few people who don't shoot matches anymore explicitly because of that reason. For hunting and casual target practice all of these things are non issues.

 

[Panhandle Pete]

Oh look, a 26" barrel with a suppressor... I must be violating the elmer fudd laws of the universe.

Cool looking set up if there ever was one. Thanks for sharing the picture.

 

[milo-2]

This is a niche demographic where experience has determined that in that setting a suppressor isn't advantageous. The PRS environment isn't comparable at all to long range hunting and other similar shooting styles.

I presume, since you brought it up, that you shoot PRS. For the folks that don't, one of the downsides of a suppressor is that they heat up. With high volume fire, they can create a lot of mirage. Furthermore, in PRS you are constantly pulling a rifle in and out of barricades and most people are shooting 26-28" barrels. Pulling another 8" through a barricade isn't inconsequential. Also, the benefit of not having to wear ear pro all the time isn't afforded by that environment. That said, how many PRS shooters get headaches during or after matches from muzzle blast and concussion? I know a few people who don't shoot matches anymore explicitly because of that reason. For hunting and casual target practice all of these things are non issues.

I agree 100% with what you've posted. I said earlier, hunting, varmints esp, a big plus. Too much I am right, you are wrong in this post.
Repealing the 200 bucks for a tax stamp was some foolish thinking on a lot of peoples part. Gov not losing revenue, 200 is cheap by today's standards. Heck, in the 30's, you could buy a Thompson subgun for 235 from Montgomery Ward, then pay the same 200 tax stamp.

 

[Benman73]

This is a niche demographic where experience has determined that in that setting a suppressor isn't advantageous. The PRS environment isn't comparable at all to long range hunting and other similar shooting styles.

I presume, since you brought it up, that you shoot PRS. For the folks that don't, one of the downsides of a suppressor is that they heat up. With high volume fire, they can create a lot of mirage. Furthermore, in PRS you are constantly pulling a rifle in and out of barricades and most people are shooting 26-28" barrels. Pulling another 8" through a barricade isn't inconsequential. Also, the benefit of not having to wear ear pro all the time isn't afforded by that environment. That said, how many PRS shooters get headaches during or after matches from muzzle blast and concussion? I know a few people who don't shoot matches anymore explicitly because of that reason. For hunting and casual target practice all of these things are non issues.

Agreed, the PRS comps have evolved into gamers shooting free recoil with 20+ lb 6mm cartridges. Any advantage to recoil mitigation is welcomed, as part of the game. It is a specialized environment (albeit a fun one) that no longer has much in common with hunting. I used my can in the one PRS event I have entered and didn't feel handicapped, but it was just a local match and the stages were fairly easy. If I ever get serious with it, I might look into one of the combo can/brakes that are starting to get traction. It is the concussion mitigation that draws me to cans, which in the end allows me to shoot better.

 

[orkan]

Have you followed PRS shooting over the yrs, you know, guys that shoot 3-6K centerfire rds a yr? 5-6 yrs ago can usage was high, way high, today it is under 10%. I really doubt it is a money issue.
I have 6 cans sitting idle in my safe, I don't care for them, by all means use them if you desire, but don't use the word misleading because I don't share your opinion.

Someone choosing not to shoot suppressed isn't misleading... it's fine. Everyone can make their own personal choices.

People trying to claim that there's some massive ballistic detriment to running one... that's a problem.