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

[SSgt G Cody]

Hmmmm! Nuzzle Brakes, Suppressors, Silencers! Three very different things! Muzzle Brakes are to counteract recoil Muzzle Lift, and are Very Loud, especially to either side of barrel! Suppressors (Mufflers) reduce firing report (Noise) by about a third, plus help reduce felt recoil! Silencers (Super Mufflers) are meant to be used with sub-sonic ammo (under 940 fps at muzzle), so as to greatly reduce muzzle blast (by at least 2/3), eliminating Sonic Boom, and is so quiet used as designed that no ear plugs or ear cups are usually needed. Personally, I use plugs and cups at most ranges! Recently I've noticed that many ranges no longer allow use of muzzle brakes on firing line, concerned about hearing damage! In Europe suppressors are used almost everywhere, but not mandatory. I'm glad to see more concern for hearing safety! In Europe several suppressors are commonly used that look a lot like lawn mower mufflers, and sell for less that $100 US. Probably we will soon follow suite here in the US! Be safe, and take care of your hearing!!!

 

[akmtnhnt]

Those last 2 sentences make no sense. Hearing loss happens instantly. I found this out the hard way.

I'm saying with the suppressor, you don't really need hearing protection for hunting. Normally they're right at the hearing safe threshold. There is a wild difference in the damage done at 135db and 175db. 175db is 10,000 times the energy than 135.

 

[xsn10s]

33 pages. Eeesh

What?

 

[treeman59]

It can be used for hunting but I don't feel the need to justify it as a hunting rifle. Mine isn't for hunting

Any rifle used for hunting is a hunting rifle. The style of the rifle is irrelavent

 

[treeman59]

In South Africa you can walk into a hardware store and buy a suppressor screw it on your rifle and go hunting. In some European countries you have to be suppressed to hunt.
Why not here...$$$

 

[BrentM]

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

The issue is that your choice in cartridge can also be viewed as a poor choice for long range hunting. You could definitely pick a much more effective cartridge for fighting wind. Just because it doesn't make sense to throttle back a 300 to you does not negate the argument that is a valid option. My only point is that arguing a suppressor is extremely detrimental to performance has little merit. I also have a 3006. Running numbers such as a 178 eld at 2850 vs 2700, the impact at 800 yards for reduction in fps is .5 moa for 10 mph wind. There is nothing extremely detrimental about that. Additionally, if you can't get a good read on the wind then don't take the shot. I've passed on plenty of shot ops just to make things go more in my favor. I see no honor in killing for bragging rights so I'll walk away if I have to. I will totally agree with your statement that every advantage helps. That may mean moving closer, picking a better cartridge and bullet, and train more. Good luck on your matches and hunting. I am thick into predator season myself.

 

[Rich Coyle]

In some European countries you have to be suppressed to hunt.
Why not here...$$$

Because we still have some freedom!

 

[greenejc]

@greenejc,

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

It was General Lee Nee's thread, but it has been fun. Lots of buttons seem to have been pushed to get 36 pages of response. I like suppressors, I just don't need and can't justify the expense of one, when I can spend the money upgrading my glass or re-barrelling rifles.

 

[xsn10s]

In South Africa you can walk into a hardware store and buy a suppressor screw it on your rifle and go hunting. In some European countries you have to be suppressed to hunt.
Why not here...$$$

My best guess is that the legislation incorrectly designates a suppressor as taking away almost all noise from the report. Too much Hollywood guiding our legislation.

 

[akmtnhnt]

My best guess is that the legislation incorrectly designates a suppressor as taking away almost all noise from the report. Too much Hollywood guiding our legislation.

No they were included in the original NFA of 1934. Hollywood might be why we can't get that repealed but it didn't have anything to do with it happening in the first place.

 

[CMP70306]

My best guess is that the legislation incorrectly designates a suppressor as taking away almost all noise from the report. Too much Hollywood guiding our legislation.

No they were included in the original NFA of 1934. Hollywood might be why we can't get that repealed but it didn't have anything to do with it happening in the first place.

Nobody really knows why they were added as there was zero discussion as to the reason for their inclusion, they were just listed on the bill without ever being mentioned in the official record.

 

[pupdistress]

After this topic I think I'll just sit the next couple years out. It was good.

 

[snox801]

Mandatory, absolutely not!!
Is it a good tool, definitely.
I hate gov mandates!!!!!

I think everyone was reading into that a bit to much I wasn't meaning to force everyone to to it. I was more thinking they should come with every rifle and be encouraged to be used not what we have now. And yes in some instances I think it should be mandatory. Similar to exhaust.
I have one rule of government to keep people from infringing on others rights . Now in the area I live and most others you must have muffler on your car. Why because if you decide to drive past my house at 4 am you could be seen as infringing on me. Same as if someone 100 yards touches off a rifle at crack of dawn.
so yes it could be seen as one of the few things the government could mandate but should be a local or state level. And be more encouraged than forced.

 

[snox801]

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

I believe you are correct sir. I'm really I. The both camp. Both a brake and a can have a purpose and depends on what I'm doing. I do find myself using the can more often. But I'm that way with ffp also. Have both like both for different reasons.
I find myself using a can more for the sake of people around me. One blind is closer to a home at our farm and I don't want to touch off a rifle at 7 am on a sat morning when they may be trying to sleep in or the kids need the sleep.