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

[DJ Fergus]

Sooner or later something better than cans, Sherman cartridges, and hammer bullets will come along. For now, we'll have to make do with what we've got.

 

[Treeslug]

Prove you wrong? Your rant made no sense to begin with. Nobody argued that an animal is "jumping the bullet". Of course the bullet gets there before the sound. If it's a kill shot you could shoot it then announce it with a megaphone. On missed/wounded game a suppressor will likely give you an additional shot where a non suppressed rifle won't.


As far as ballistics, I hunt deer and elk, apparently some of us hunt armored vehicles? The loss of 100-150fps in MV has absolutely zero impact to my killing ability out to 700-1000 yards, so another moot point.


What about recoil mitigation? Another nonissue? A suppressor is going to tame recoil somewhere in the 25-40% range. That is a huge benefit! It allows the shooter to practice more at the range, therefore becoming more proficient in the field, as well as get back on target and spot shots in the field.


Oh, and how about those little things sticking off your head. If your hearing isn't important to you then maybe suppressors are a waste of money. If you like to be able to hear, they make the gun hearing safe.


Plenty of logical arguments against suppressors on this thread, but this isn't one of those!

I beg to differ with you, sir, as to your statement "It allows the shooter to practice more at the range." Though one may sit around the campfire and ponder this possibility while studying the coals, the truth is that even though I can afford to go to the range and practice more, I can NOT practice more because I cannot replace my components. And as we are almost all figuring out, without components to reload those practice shots, going to the range is almost unbearable. Or am I the only one that feels this way?

 

[DPSTX]

Suppressors just make your gun ugly, Life's too short to hunt with an ugly rifle.....

 

[JMW67]

I truly cant believe you people are still arguing this Its very simple personal choice and most of these posts have zero to do with the original question must be bad weather or hunting season is over and nothing else to do

 

[Dragon Fly]

I've read that article and it substantiates my point. I could shoot a 16-18" 300 win mag suppressed with all the benefits thereof or I could shoot a 26-28" 30-06. Hands down, I'd choose to buy an extra barrel when I burn out the 300 win.

Nobody is talking about shooting 1000 yard benchrest with a suppressor. This is a long range hunting website. The objectives and volumes of fire are totally different. That's why people run 30" straight 1.25" diameter barrels on .308 so that they can get excellent barrel life and take advantage of the weight. For most people who hunt, a 30" 1.25" barrel is impractical and unwieldy. It's not relevant to the conversation.

If you'd rather shoot a 30-06 with a 26-28" barrel in the wild over an 18-20" suppressed 300 win mag for the sake of barrel life go for it. Even if they were ballistically equivalent one is going to be way more enjoyable to shoot. There's a ton of people on here who have shared their preference based on experience. Take it for what it's worth and do whatever floats your boat to achieve whatever you want your rifle to do and whatever shooting experience you want to have.

I totally agree with Chase723. I guess if you're intended use of a silencer/suppressor is to not get caught by the game warder, or the land owner that doesn't know you're on his property, then I guess they make some sense. I've heard others say that it helps not to spook other game in the area? Once again, after 58 years of hunting, I've seen those 'scared' animals come right back after a short time. So, why spend your dollars there when you could be buying ammo, or a better scope etc. Just my thoughts...

 

[DJ Fergus]

I'll never go hunting again without a can, hammer bullets, and either a Sherman or Hornady based cartridge that's name ends in PRC. When they come out with a can, muzzle brake and tuner all built into one component, I will never hunt again without one of those. Whenever they come out with a bullet better than a hammer, I will never go hunting again with anything other than them.

 

[JAYgs8163]

I have certain bolt rifles that I run cans on. I have certain rifles I hunt specific game with that have short barrels. I run cans on those rifles. So to answer the OPs question. NO, I desire to have a can for certain hunting rifles I use in certain situations.

 

[Gone Ballistic]

When you suffer from a 50+% loss in your ability to hear, you will change your mind.

Haven't you heard of ear plugs or muffs? I never shoot without using one or the other! You should even use them with a suppressor. I can't believe that some of you folks are using the Hollywood term of "silencer". Are you also calling an AR15 a "Weapon of Mass Destruction?"

 

[DJ Fergus]

I'll never go hunting again without a can, hammer bullets, and either a Sherman or Hornady based cartridge that's name ends in PRC. When they come out with a can, muzzle brake and tuner all built into one component, I will never hunt again without one of those. Whenever they come out with a bullet better than a hammer, I will never go hunting again with anything other than them.

Forgot to mention that I will never go hunting again without a carbon Fiber wrapped barrel, bix n Andy trigger, and a tangent theta...... Unless something better than all of that is introduced. Then I will never go hunting again without what ever else comes out that's better.

 

[Tom Wright]

Maybe it's just me but just about every animal in excess of 300yards away will give you an opportunity to put hearing pro. I can slip in those cheap plugs in the rigid neck hanger in second while in a buddy stand or box in two seconds. Generally it has more to do with are eyes on me than the time it takes. I would assume the same would be true in the west in many situations. If it's far enough you need wind and drop correction we are talking what 3 seconds for hearing pro? Yes sometimes things happen fast but

That being said I want a silencer for hunting I but there are rifles I am not sticking one on like my 336 or my lightweight Kimber. I am merely on the side of plugs because that's what my budget allows

I don't want to start an argument, but part of this discussion centers around hearing loss. We are able to hear because of "hair-like" projections which are located in the inner ear. Sound waves cause these projections to move and signal the brain. Prolonged noise of 70 db can cause hearing problems and possible hearing loss. Quick loud noises above 120 db. Can cause immediate hearing loss. Permanent hearing loss occurs when the projections have been repeatedly injured/damaged, and they become brittle. Continual loud noises can cause damaged projections to break off. They DON'T grow back. It's like slowly cutting the wires from an amp to your speakers. Posts that talk about 140db as being ok are wrong. A real test would to have the meter by your ear/ears. Since the ear shape channels noise it may be more intense than a meter reading. If cans give off 140 db, then you are at risk of damaging your hearing. If you already have loss it's really risky. Maybe those you don't believe it should ask why most noise protective earmuffs/aids cut off noises above 100db.

 

[Parkerized]

There are so few of us we can't afford the typical prejudice so common in Democrat quarters. All guns--and accessories--are good enough for patriots. Whatever your position, just don't forget to call your representatives next year and remind them to support

H.R.95 - Hearing Protection Act

.

 

[jbob223]

Haven't you heard of ear plugs or muffs? I never shoot without using one or the other! You should even use them with a suppressor. I can't believe that some of you folks are using the Hollywood term of "silencer". Are you also calling an AR15 a "Weapon of Mass Destruction?"

I have used both for decades. Electronic muffs since about '93, ear plugs prior to that and now.
There are times though, using plugs in the field are not optimal, and muffs of any type completely impractical.
Some of us are also prone to hearing loss by what is called bone conduction, where the plugs and muffs don't stop the damage.
No matter what, the cans are very effective in reducing the noise, and I have several rifles (bolt & Ar pattern) set up to use them now.
But when I started in the late 70's, cans were not overly effective, or affordable.
However, it is a personal choice as to using one, and each individual must sort out what is best for them.
Pro's and con's just like anything else.
Oh by the way, "silencer" is the term that must be used on a 4473 when doing the final transfer of a suppressor to the new owner. Archaic term, but is what has to be used per Uncle Sam.

 

[Chase723]

Haven't you heard of ear plugs or muffs? I never shoot without using one or the other! You should even use them with a suppressor. I can't believe that some of you folks are using the Hollywood term of "silencer". Are you also calling an AR15 a "Weapon of Mass Destruction?"

According to the ATF, silencer is actually the correct term. You file a Form 1 to make a silencer. You file a Form 4 to buy a silencer. Nowhere in the ATF language are they referred to as suppressors. We use the term suppressor because it's more descriptive of what they actually do, but silencer is the official term.

 

[Dragon Fly]

There are so few of us we can't afford the typical prejudice so common in Democrat quarters. All guns--and accessories--are good enough for patriots. Whatever your position, just don't forget to call your representatives next year and remind them to support

H.R.95 - Hearing Protection Act

.

I don't know what the HR 95 bill says, but why do we need the Government telling us how to protect our own hearing???