Thread: The Cons of Suppressors .........?

Originally Posted by bully

I felt it upset the balance and I had a short barrel with an over barrel suppressor. standing shots were horrible.
in 7mm08 I felt I still wanted to use ear muffs.
it held in heat which heats up the barrel faster, and seemed a lot more dirty from chamber to muzzle.

kiwi greg has a video of suppressor vs muzzle brake vs nothing. the suppressor in his video had bugger all recoil reduction over nothing.

I got rid of mine. they just were not for me.

Sorry, not personal but I would have to say I disagree with everything you've brought up

I've had a few rifles with suppressors now. Currently only one, the others sold for make way for better toys! Haha.

My 7-08, was chopped to 16 inches, with DPT suppressor. It had slightly more weight up front, but the overall balance of the rifle was improved as it was butt heavy anyway. It was an excellent 0-400m hunting rifle.

I personally find that more weight upfront is better for off-hand standing shots, they are steadier and swing better. Similar to a longer barrelled shotgun. A light fronted rifle can be a bitch to hold steady off hand freestanding.

How many shots are you firing to heat up the barrel to the point its causing issues? Obviously on the range it might be an issue, but in a hunting situation maybe 4-5 max?

Any of the decent suppressors on the market today WILL reduce recoil and bang.

Cleaning not a problem, two or three extra passes with a copper brush and oily rag is hardly time consuming. Most suppressors are low maintenance, 0-clean and work better with a bit of residue in them anyway.

My .223 chopped and suppressed is 100gms heavier than the factory rifle but is 2 inches shorter than factory length, so its a great carrying rifle.

Fair enough if they weren't for you, everyone's different, but I would be confident in saying you're probably in the minority.