Suppressors

[buglum]

nhy, I guess I stand corrected. Kinda. Still ain't enough for me to spend a ton of money to get one of them ugly suckers on any of my rifles. mtmuley

Like I said it isn't much but a caliber specific can will increase MV slightly. I'm not claiming huge leaps or honestly anything that would increase real world performance but my rifle shoots 2675fps without the can and shoots 2,730fps with it on. Its not enough to matter out to 800 yds +/- 1/4 MOA but for the nit-picky it does change point of impact about 14" at 1500yds.

The accuracy B.S. is not why I got it, its simply because of the shootabily after I damn near blew my ears out being careless on a wolf.

EDIT: MtMuley: The caliber is a .338 Lapua, shooting a 300 gr. Berger Hybrid 0.015thou off the lands with 88.5gr. of H-1000, Lapua brass neck sized and CCI mag primers.

 

[mtmuley]

buglmn, thanks for the info. Pretty interesting. Hey fairchase, naive? I'm learning about suppressors on this thread from those that have them. I couldn't give a rat's butt if they are legalized for hunting or not. Nope, not for me. I see no real gains to them. mtmuley

 

[sbhooper]

The subject came up at a meeting with MFWP's Sam Shepard and he said the gunshot noise is very helpful in detecting poaching. I know they listen for gunshots after hours. Without the noise it will be difficult to catch people sneaking in a kill so I wouldn't expect the stats to show an obvious increase. Sam also said that the bigger poaching busts they have had involved suppressors; they just flat out make it easier to do, so making them more available will increase the people shooting after hours, etc.

I don't worry much about such things though... what I see coming is that in 10-20 years they will be saying "All states except California and New York - you know that will be the case - allow hunting with suppressors. It is time we remove the federal tax and paperwork on them so little low-income Johnny can protect his tender ears using only his allowance money. Silencers don't poach deer, people do.. yada, yada..."

After the tax is gone economies of scale will kick in making them affordable and everyone will have them (another hole in the arguments justifying these things). Then we will find out why it was a bad idea to have one in every gun case... What that bad idea is I can't tell you, but when I weigh the advantages versus the risk of unintended consequences I don't see a compelling reason to allow them. Buy ear plugs and use them. But again I really don't care much either way.

I tend to agree with this statement and its outcomes, but I doubt that it will make any difference in the end. It looks like they are here to stay. Gizmo technology seems to rule the roost now.

What kind of longevity is there on supressors? I know the old ones would wear out after x amount of shooting. For the expense, they should last forever.

They would be great for shooting stray cats and squirrels in town!

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

Sbhooper,

Suppressors come in three types: Dry Baffle (most common today), Wipe, and Wet Baffle.

Longevity on most current dry suppressors is probably close to the same as the barrel of the rifle, what you are most likely recalling is the reletively short service life of a "wipe" suppressor; which needed to have its internals rebuilt in order to restore its effectiveness, as the bullet actually travels through a series of "Wipes" made of various materails that after a certain number of rounds will begin to break down. Some of the more famous suppressed weapons of the past MAC-11s and H&K MP5SD (of Navy SEAL fame) also required routine maintenance by the manufacturer or an approved armorer as they used a dry baffle suppressor whose internals were sealed by the manufacturer and as is common with all dry suppressors need to be cleaned to maintain their effectiveness. If I remember correctly the MP5 SD needed to be cleaned every 1500 rnds or so; which ended up making the MP5N outfitted with the Knight Armament suppressor (user cleanable) more attractive to most units.

I don't have any realy experience with suppressors on magnum rifles, but I would think they would need to be cleaned fairly regularly as they would be catching alot of powder residue.

I also see very little use for a suppressor while hunting, I think they are great for police, swat, military use, or to go out plinking at the range. If they were legal to own in MN I would put one on my M4, because they are nice to shoot, and would make popping coyotes and racoons in my backyard less conspicuous.

 

[RobG]

I remember seeing a TV show where they were using suppressors on shotguns so they could take care of problem geese in some city. The suppressors were surprisingly long.

The Bozeman Chronicle had a story today that better explained what happened. This is more interesting than I realized. HB 250, which allowed suppressors for vermin only, was given to Governor Bullock to sign. Instead of signing it he sent it back and said to add big game animals to the list of animals that can be hunted with them. This was a big U-turn for him as he vetoed similar bills last session.

 

[JASON LEE]

I testified in the committee hearing here in Indiana to get them passed for hunting. One of the dumbest questions that I was asked was how would a landowner know if someone was poaching on their land. I pointed out how would he know if they were using a bow. It was a moot point anyway, at that time we could not find any record of anyone using a legally owned suppressor to commit a crime with it.

I like them on my SBR's and my 300wm. It makes the 300 more shootable than just a few rounds until my shoulder hurt. My SBR's are fairly balanced with a 10" barrel and a 7" titanium can.

 

[MTClacka]

Well, it's official. Gov. Bullock signed House Bill 250 yesterday to legalize the use of suppressors for all hunting in Montana.

http://americansuppressorassociation.com/montana-full-game-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/

 

[jryoung]

Bumping this back up as I noticed that suppressors were in the glass case this past week at Bob Wards in Missoula. I thought it was pretty cool to see them available on the shelves. My brother is a supressor manufacturer and with the Hearing Protection Act likely to pass it would seem that we could likely be seeing a lot more supressors on the market. I'll never be able to buy one here on the shores of the Pacific, but I'd sure love to have one, especially with volume shooting on the range, or waterfowl hunting. They'd be nice for big game hunting as I hate the post shot ringing, but I guess I can use ear plugs in a pinch if I have time.

 

[MThuntr]

Bumping this back up as I noticed that suppressors were in the glass case this past week at Bob Wards in Missoula. I thought it was pretty cool to see them available on the shelves. My brother is a supressor manufacturer and with the Hearing Protection Act likely to pass it would seem that we could likely be seeing a lot more supressors on the market. I'll never be able to buy one here on the shores of the Pacific, but I'd sure love to have one, especially with volume shooting on the range, or waterfowl hunting. They'd be nice for big game hunting as I hate the post shot ringing, but I guess I can use ear plugs in a pinch if I have time.

One would think if the Hearing Protection Act is passed the prices of these would drop...hopefully significantly.

 

[1_pointer]

One would think if the Hearing Protection Act is passed the prices of these would drop...hopefully significantly.

Just removing the stamp requirement would knock $200 off the price. That alone would put a lot of current models in to my "will to pay" price range. Especially for shooting with my two sons.

That said, IIRC didn't the HPA hit a road bump on being passed a while back?