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

[Rich Coyle]

Everyone should be shooting suppressed. They should cost a third of what they do now and you should be able to buy them without any of the BS you have to go through now!

Another Democrat? Looks like it.

 

[Rich Coyle]

to all posters pro and con, you are not going to change anyone's mind on either to have or have not. I am like everyone else who think we are being taken with this 200.00 tax stamp and having to wait a year or more or sometimes less. I finally jumped in and bought mine last year and received it in March 7 months, today I will buy my second one and I to have lost so much of my hearing but I could not believe how quiet the can makes my rifles no more muffs or ear plugs just no more 26 inch barrels they will be all 20-21 to be handier to carry around except ones that will be shot from a bench or prone, in fact my 30.06 is going to be cut from 26 to 21 so to each their own but don't try to change any ones mind, that is what the antis want keep every one arguing be safe and protect your hearing one way or the other

You cut off the barrel add back the same or more length. And then call it handier.

 

[chav0_12]

Well excuse me for litterally not taking those 5 seconds to search, but I was busy doing something else! But thanks for the link.

I'm just saying, your comment about the government regulating what we do to protect our hearing was made in complete ignorance. Those seconds you took to write that reply, and I'm assuming read other posts on this, could've been used to educate yourself on what it was. Then maybe your comment would've been different.

I assume based on your comment that you don't think the government should be regulating suppressors. So, instead of saying what you did, you probably could've taken the time to search and read the summary of the bill, maybe instead of coming back here, you could've spent that time to write your senators in support of the bill. Like Parkerized said, this is something we should fight for, I think so anyway. Then maybe if we can get that portion of the NFA repealed we can also have other portions of it repealed too because the whole **** thing is an infringement on our rights.

 

[Niko65]

Another Democrat? Looks like it.

Excuse me? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I should know better than to post anything in these forums.

 

[Parkerized]

It seems many of the pro can folks are emotionally envested like first focal plane scope users.

I didn't see any "emotional" responses. Though one could take your statement as an insult, thus "emotional". In fact the OP's question was a challenge for sure. Again, we can't afford to fight.

 

[Gone Ballistic]

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.

That's because the ATF follows what is driven by the liberal news media. If you look at what the difference between suppress and silence in any dictionary a can doesn't silence anything. It just suppresses the sound to a lower level.

 

[Dskiper]

It seems to me everything has its place.I think the word "silencer very bad for gun owners. many people relate to that name as a means of the assassin as you see in movies.! now suppessor sounds better.back when AR rifles became popular I said to myself this going to hurt the public opinion on firearms & it did!! always the weapon of choice down graded by media. I saw a hunting show this season where a hunter had rifle with a "suppessor"which looked unweilding with that added length on longrange rifle.now it was a mountain hunt . I say I would like a a AR in varmint model w/longer barrel. a suppessor would be excellent choice for enclosed game hunting stand to save your ears! thank god for NRA saving our choices.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Excuse me? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I should know better than to post anything in these forums.

You posted, "We should....", as in mandatory.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I didn't see any "emotional" responses. Though one could take your statement as an insult, thus "emotional". In fact the OP's question was a challenge for sure. Again, we can't afford to fight.

He didn't ask who likes or uses them. He asked if there are others like him who don't use them.

 

[Chase723]

Almost all the threads that deal with "opinions" end up the same—like asking which shade of blue is prettier. It's all personal preference. I am thankful we still have folks who can talk/argue about guns and shooting. But the "right" answer is always the one that works for you or meets your needs. Please knock off the personal attacks or those regarding legal weapons!

Concur about personal preference and sharing real world experience. However, no one is talking about illegal weapons. Everything discussed has been about things that are completely legal.

 

[R. Cram]

Disagree with you on the comment about very detrimental. The whole post has brought out a lot of opinion and preferences. Basically in a way you are saying that no matter what cartridge and bullet a guy chooses to use he must maximize that given combo. In the 300 vs 3006 comparison you state a shorter barrel 300 has same performance as the longer 3006. Does that mean you'd scoff at the 300 and praise the 3006 simply due to one being restricted? In the end, in this example, they should both net the same terminal performance and my guess is that is no one is going to bash the 3006 performance so there is zero need to bash the 300. People do not always choose the maximum performance for long range hunting by virtue of the term. People choose a cartridge they can manage and shoot well that provides the terminal performance they need and expect. People disagree daily on what those minimums are but in the end you can always argue there is something better in one category or another. The fact is that shortening a barrel reduces velocity and yes it increases drop and drift....... so what. Running X vs Y cartridge does the same thing, 3006 vs 300, 284 vs 7mag, 6.5 creed vs 6.5 PRC. For me, hunting predators I could run a super long barrel creed with hot loads to keep pace with a short barrel prc with a can. In the end they both perform about the same but I'll choose the can all day vs non, especially since I hunt with my dog most of the time. With a no can and brake my dog hates the db level. With a can he will lay or sit next to me and not flinch. I thoroughly enjoy not having to pack or put on ear pro for hunting situations and if wind is an issue, get closer, or get better.

I would agree the best choice is to get closer but the wind is fickle rarely exactly the same ,if people want to shoot very long ranges once again the objective is to get every advantage they can get , I also shoot a lot and do not like buying barrels so shooting a 300 mag at 1000 rnd barrel life and only getting 30-06 preformance does not make any sense. Reading the wind is not an exact science as it very often switches or speeds up and slows down so every advantage helps. I am not advocating 300 mags I am just using them as an example ,I hunt with an old pre 64 30-06 with a 26 inch brl. I shoot 1000 yd matches with a 6.5x284, another barrel burner

 

[greenejc]

I only spent 4 years AD, if I done 20 like you, I probably would be deaf.

Yeah, there are probably good engineering reasons and physics reasons why trying to silence tanks and artillery is a non starter.....Lost velocity and range maybe one of them. Dont wanna be outgunned in war.... Maintainence, and backpressure at the breach etc probably too. I do think muzzle brakes were 1st invented for artillery or tanks though.....

At least with dynamite, C-4, Shape charges, and explosives in general, I was far enough away, it wasn't that bad, more concussion wave than sound sometimes....One of the worst was the CEV, combat engineer vehicle, Basically a tank with a real fat short barrel that shot a 600 mm HEP round. (high explosive plastic)

It was fir taking out concrete and steel bunker emplacements. short, fat, big diameter barrel almost like a mortar, but a cross between mortar and rifled bbl. Just louder than Hades....If it was within 600 meters of a target you had to be "buttonedup" cause the blast radius of that 600 mm HEP round was 600 meters.

Really ugly when there is a misfire on the range and the round is rotated after 30 min. and refire is tried, and wait another time period
for "cookoff" and then the gunner has to hand the round down to you to carry to the dud pit.......

If one goes off, there aint even a watch to send home to momma....

At least when I went to airborne school, the blackhats always told us that if your reserve chute dont open, raise your left hand!

Why?

So they can send your watch home to momma.....

That way it don't get busted. Yep, the muzzle brake was invented for tanks and 155's. So was the bore evacuater.

 

[greenejc]

He didn't ask who likes or uses them. He asked if there are others like him who don't use them.

That would be me. I don't use them. I haven't seen a need that justified the cost. Still don't. But if you do, that's good for you. Its a personal preference.

 

[Rich Coyle]

@greenejc,

Congratulations on a very fun thread. I am surprised at all the responses that have nothing to do with your question.