Actually, a suppressor will increase the velocity of the bullet. It's typically a negligible percentage, but an increase nonetheless. I can't speak of the older technology, but with a baffle design the bullets velocity is not slowed down by the trapped gasses.
Suppressors
- Thread starter JMG
- Start date
Actually, a suppressor will increase the velocity of the bullet. It's typically a negligible percentage, but an increase nonetheless. I can't speak of the older technology, but with a baffle design the bullets velocity is not slowed down by the trapped gasses.
MKotur325
New member
From my understanding, the increase tends to be about 50fps for current generation suppressors.
MKotur325
New member
Quick question...
If you have a suppressor that attached to a break do you know if the recoil reduction of the break still plays in? I've been wondering about getting a Surefire that will QD onto one of their breaks, and wonder if the Break will still reduce recoil while inside the can. Thoughts?
WV Hunter
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,763
Man a couple of years ago this site was flipped out crazy against suppressors lol
RobG
Well-known member
Sounds like it is all but done. When I go up Hyalite it would be nice not to be reminded of the idiocy of youth by the youthful idiots sawing trees in half with their guns, but the expense will probably prevent them from using one. I would also love for them to be used at gun ranges (The Greenway is a nightmare), but they are already legal and I've never seen one. Plus everyone would have to use them for it to matter.
A few random thoughts.
If it reduces the sound to the level of a balloon popping that is effectively silenced for the purposes of poaching. Of course sub-sonic bullets won't be heard... if I can believe James and the Anarchist Cookbook, read in my idiotic youth.
If they become more readily available it will be harder to know when people are poaching or sneaking onto your property to hunt.
I've shot about 50 elk, deer, and antelope in the last dozen years while wearing earplugs. It isn't a big deal to use one. I've never missed an opportunity because of them and I really wish ear protection in the field was promoted more. Likely, the sound with a suppressor will still be damaging to hearing, just like a .22.
If any Bozeman area folks have one I wouldn't mind seeing one in action as long as you aren't cutting down Mr. Doug Fir with it.
A few random thoughts.
If it reduces the sound to the level of a balloon popping that is effectively silenced for the purposes of poaching. Of course sub-sonic bullets won't be heard... if I can believe James and the Anarchist Cookbook, read in my idiotic youth.
If they become more readily available it will be harder to know when people are poaching or sneaking onto your property to hunt. I've shot about 50 elk, deer, and antelope in the last dozen years while wearing earplugs. It isn't a big deal to use one. I've never missed an opportunity because of them and I really wish ear protection in the field was promoted more. Likely, the sound with a suppressor will still be damaging to hearing, just like a .22.
If any Bozeman area folks have one I wouldn't mind seeing one in action as long as you aren't cutting down Mr. Doug Fir with it
.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
I've often wondered if there is a way sound could be lessened at gun ranges, both for the users and the people living close by. Would specially constructed walls between the benches muffle the sound? You could put fins on the walls like the fins in a suppressor.
I once went into a room where they tested radar and it had all these foam cones on the wall - it looked like a midevil torture chamber - but iin addition to removing radar reflections it very effectively reduced the sound of people talking. It was strange being in there.
I once went into a room where they tested radar and it had all these foam cones on the wall - it looked like a midevil torture chamber - but iin addition to removing radar reflections it very effectively reduced the sound of people talking. It was strange being in there.
Last edited:
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
There are systems that can do this, one range that I am aware of in MN has them, but they are also only 1/2 a mile from residential neighborhoods.
MKotur325
New member
Most suppressors will reduce the SPL by 27-33 dB. As a comparison, most over ear hearing protection muffs will reduce sound by 27-33 dB, and most ear ear plugs are between 25-30dB. A suppressor is absolutely as effective as high quality over ear muffs at reducing the SPL of a rifle blast. I've been around a couple.308's and .338 Lapua's with Suppressors. With a Suppressor, a .338 Lapua is Pleasant without any ear protection. Were I in an all day shoot around .338 Lapua's with suppressors I'd leave my ear plugs in the car. Honestly, I wouldn't even worry about hearing loss. In an open environment any spikes over 85dB would be so brief that there's no issues.
I really don't believe passing this bill is going to lead to increased poaching, and here's why...
-Silencers have been perfectly legal to purchase and own for a lot of years
-A poacher that's already breaking the law isn't going to drop $600-$1500 dollars on a silencer, $200 on a tax stamp, and wait 8 months to be able to pick it up. I would assume 99% of poached animals are shot with unsuppressed guns, and probably 90% of those are by punk kids with .22's.
Here's a good example... Most level 3 muffs, and typical foam style plugs have a noise reduction rating of 30DB's. My SWR Specwar has a NRR of 32-34DB's. Not saying they're completely hearing safe as I don't know all that science, but they do reduce the report more than heavy muffs or plugs will. If you ever make it out to Billings let me know. Would be happy to let you shoot some of my stuff
-Silencers have been perfectly legal to purchase and own for a lot of years
-A poacher that's already breaking the law isn't going to drop $600-$1500 dollars on a silencer, $200 on a tax stamp, and wait 8 months to be able to pick it up. I would assume 99% of poached animals are shot with unsuppressed guns, and probably 90% of those are by punk kids with .22's.
Here's a good example... Most level 3 muffs, and typical foam style plugs have a noise reduction rating of 30DB's. My SWR Specwar has a NRR of 32-34DB's. Not saying they're completely hearing safe as I don't know all that science, but they do reduce the report more than heavy muffs or plugs will. If you ever make it out to Billings let me know. Would be happy to let you shoot some of my stuff
RobG
Well-known member
Thanks... I can't help but notice the promoters are trying to have it both ways. That is, when poaching is brought up they say it doesn't silence the sound, but when hearing protection is brought up they say it reduces the sound to a level comparable with ear muffs. Anyway, the whole issue doesn't matter to much to me but I worry about unintended consequences as the laws are relaxed and also note that they probably won't be accessible to the people I wish would use them.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
What are the weights of the more popular suppressors used on a 30 caliber rifle? If I use the suppressor at the range, then remove it for my mountain hunt, will I need to re-zero when take the suppressor off?
(found answers here: http://www.silencerresearch.com/sound_suppressors_on_high_powered_rifles.htm )
Impacts zero when remove. Collects water during shooting so should store muzzle down. 4 to 5 pounds of weight. Adds 6" to rifle.
(found answers here: http://www.silencerresearch.com/sound_suppressors_on_high_powered_rifles.htm )
Impacts zero when remove. Collects water during shooting so should store muzzle down. 4 to 5 pounds of weight. Adds 6" to rifle.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
Again, I don't care much about the issue but can't help but observe the holes in the arguments. Likely the barriers will be reduced in the future and they will become readily available - that is just the way the momentum is going right now. A person who might not take the chance of being heard will now be more likely to poach that animal if he already has a suppressor. The legality of using them will definitely serve as a reason to reduce the barriers, and the pessimist in me can only see the reason for all this is for the gun folks to sell more products. If the present barriers continue to exist this loosening of the regs makes no sense.
roadhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 719
This^^ LOL. Some people don't handle change well, specifically those in MT. Things like suppressors, crossbows, lighted knocks, etc.. get them all lathered up.
I've hunted p-dogs with a suppressed AR and it was sweet. I'm sure the anti change folks will make up some stores about how terrible this is but I personally have no problem with them, even for hunting.
MKotur325
New member
16-24 OZ for most .30 Cal suppressors. Plan on 18 oz plus for something that will handle .30 Magnums. Attaching a suppressor will change your zero. Try shooting the rifle with the suppressor on and off. Most will show a repeatable change between shooting with the suppressor on and off. I.E. it *should* change the same amount each time. Know what it is, and adjust your optic accordingly.
For obvious reasons I think we could all agree that they would make poaching quieter. How would making them legal for big game hunting cause them to be used more for poaching? They've been perfectly legal to buy and own for a long time. You can walk into Bob Wards and buy one today if you wanted. A poacher is going to poach regardless. I truly don't believe a poacher is going to jump through all the hoops and pay the premium cost just to go do what they've been doing already. If I want to do 100mph on the interstate, I'm not going to go buy a ferrari to do it.
Here's how the process of buying a suppressor works. You go into X retailer and pay for the suppressor. You then fill out a Form 4 which is similar to a 4473 for buying a gun. Then you have to supply 2 passport size photo's of yourself, and 2 copies of fingerprints. Then you get to take all of that to your local LE office and have the chief of police/sheriff sign off on it. When that's all said and done, you mail all of that in duplicate to the ATF NFA branch along with a check for $200. After 8-10 months the ATF will send your approved or denied paperwork back to retailer X, and you can finally go pick up your suppressor, ie. bail it out of jail. I really don't think a poacher is going to go through the hassle and cost when they are going to poach anyway.
Here's how the process of buying a suppressor works. You go into X retailer and pay for the suppressor. You then fill out a Form 4 which is similar to a 4473 for buying a gun. Then you have to supply 2 passport size photo's of yourself, and 2 copies of fingerprints. Then you get to take all of that to your local LE office and have the chief of police/sheriff sign off on it. When that's all said and done, you mail all of that in duplicate to the ATF NFA branch along with a check for $200. After 8-10 months the ATF will send your approved or denied paperwork back to retailer X, and you can finally go pick up your suppressor, ie. bail it out of jail. I really don't think a poacher is going to go through the hassle and cost when they are going to poach anyway.
MKotur325
New member
To my understanding, No.
RobG
Well-known member
Sorry, I'm a very technical person and these types of arguments drive me nuts. Why? Because they defy science and are as bullsh*t as perpetual motion machines so they can be dismissed outright
. Any time you reduce the barriers to something you increase the use. Suppressors make poaching easier/safer so making them more available will increase poaching. As an example, you will now be able to walk around with one on your gun, and if you see an animal after hours the risk of getting caught shooting it is low. Previously you wouldn't be able to even possess one while hunting so you wouldn't be tempted to use it illegally. If people would say it won't increase poaching "very much" it would be hard to argue. Now you have reduced it to a religious argument where you are faced with quantifying the unmeasurable to disprove it
. However the incidence of poaching *will* increase because of the risk/reward changes; not increasing somewhat would defy natural law.
Last edited:
Similar threads
