Thread: Educate me on bushpigs

Originally Posted by ChrisW

Yes you can do it but it does not make it ideal. Its good practice to keep the thread as larger dia as possible as not to reduce the wall thickness too much. If you make the thread as small as the the flutes are deep then the wall thickness remaining will be quite thin. If you thread it so that the flutes are still present then gas will escape backwards through the flutes.
.

When a fluted tikka barrel in 308 get the bush pig chop, it quite often ends up being threaded at 14x1 , i.e. the same thread as the factory tikkas comes into...

Originally Posted by Sidney

Dude you must have missed the memo about single loud noise exposure creating lasting and ongoing cumulative damage. .

A suppressor will not save you from hearing loss. Though it may lessen it a little. Good quality electronic muffs will save your hearing

Originally Posted by Sidney

If you are any good as a hunter you will be firing more shots that will damage your hearing, than you might be prepared to live with whilst getting old. ..

Actually the better I got the less I shot.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Besides, reloaders using faster powders can make up most of any speed lost from shortened barrels. .

No that's a piece of collective wisdom that is simply false, barrel length is irrelevant when it comes to powder burn rate for best velocity. However you can drop projectile weight to gain velocity but that will have its own implications.

Originally Posted by Sidney

The fascinating thing about those with negative opinions about well set up shortened and suppressed rifles, is that those holding such opinions usually don't have, or haven't owned a well set up shortened and suppressed rifle to enable them to form a creditable opinion. You know actually knowing something about what they want to share with the rest of us.

Its the world we live in...

And in my case wrong again.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Dude you must have missed the memo about single loud noise exposure creating lasting and ongoing cumulative damage. If you are any good as a hunter you will be firing more shots that will damage your hearing, than you might be prepared to live with whilst getting old. I know its bloody annoying not hearing animals sneaking around that my young mates can hear. Suppressors are the single most important discretionary choice that you can make to protect your hearing, so consider it an investment in your future hunting. I just wish they were an option for me in my teens and twenties. Might not have that perpetual ringing noise that accompanies me all of the time now days if they had of been.

Come on do the maths.. no one is cutting down rifles to make them handier outside of suppressor use. 20-22 inch unsuppressed barrels are fine for bush hunting, if you prefer deafness from noise, lessened shootability, less confusion from game, more neighbour disturbance and more perceived recoil.

Rifles are being cut down to make suppressor equipped rifles the same sort of length as those 20-22 inch factory length barrels. As handy with a suppressor at the same overall length. And that is perfectly logical.

The benefits of suppressors more than justify the loss of 4 inches of barrel and 100fps. Worrying about that appears to be entirely illogical. Besides, reloaders using faster powders can make up most of any speed lost from shortened barrels. And that is still logical.

The fascinating thing about those with negative opinions about well set up shortened and suppressed rifles, is that those holding such opinions usually don't have, or haven't owned a well set up shortened and suppressed rifle to enable them to form a creditable opinion. You know actually knowing something about what they want to share with the rest of us.

Its the world we live in...

I don't have anything against bushpigs. I just think they look ugly and that there are better options out there if maximum manoeverability is your requirement. And as far as hearing loss is concerned, again, I think there are better options.

I use hearing protection whenever I'm shooting my unsuppressed centerfire. It works.

When I owned my suppressed .270 MKV and suppressed and shortened Sako 75 7mm-08, I still wore hearing protection. It worked well.

My choice of firearm does not have any bearing on how rigorously I follow safety protocols.

You could argue that by using hearing protection AND a suppressor, you're taking all the possible precautions (short of not shooting a firearm in the first place ) against hearing loss - but I don't think the difference in noise reduction between using ear muffs with a suppressor VS ear muffs without a suppressor, makes much of a difference in typical hunting situations - where only one or two shots may be fired. And you can always use ear plugs in conjunction with muffs if you're overly anxious about it.

But I get your point. If you're not willing to fork out on quality electronic ear plugs, and you're hunting in very thick terrain where you have to rely on your hearing - a suppressed rifle is obviously going to do less damage than an unsuppressed rifle. But 'less' damage is still a form of damage, right? You could say it's a better middle ground, but it's not completely mitigating the risk of hearing loss. In that sense, suppressors could contribute to a false sense of security.

In general, I think they're a good idea. But there are ways around it without putting your ears at risk. And it may even work in your favour, because, as I said in my previous post, if maximum manoeverability is your priority, there are rifles out there which are more suited to that type of use (by design) than a chopped up Tikka, Remington, Sako, whatever.

Originally Posted by Frodo

I think they're ugly.

And while they may be practical and suit the tastes of many; from my somewhat traditionalist perspective, they are a bit of everything and not much of anything.

They're often championed as a 'solution', when there have always been rifles available which were designed from the ground-up with portability in mind.

Why chop up a general purpose rifle which wasn't designed with the express purpose of manoeverability, when there are rifles out there such as lever actions which were specifically designed for that purpose? They're also lighter, trimmer, and you do not have to go to the expense of modifying them and compromising their integrity from a design standpoint.

It may be a kiwi thing - this incessant urge to tinker and modify things. It should be reffered to as the Frankenstine Complex. ;P

But all of this is just my opinion, and I'm glad that people are getting the most out of their bushgrunters.

While i think you make some valid points, my ideal bushpig still needs to be able to reliably place accurate shots out to 500 yards if need be, Id like to see someone do that with ya typical lever gun ;-)

i just think its a dumb name to call a carbine kind of like reinventing the wheel and giving it a new name

Originally Posted by northdude

i just think its a dumb name to call a carbine kind of like reinventing the wheel and giving it a new name

Im actually not a fan of the name bushpig either, i like to refer to my short rifles as "Stumpy"

Not forgetting of course, that using a suppressor helps to not overly disturb other game animals or stock in adjacent gullies, I have a rifle that will never be suppressed and I have no drama shooting an animal in open country with it, would have muffs on if target/gong shooting though. I like having a suppressor on (my current favorite hunting rifle, .243 18" shorty) , but only on a shorter barrel, quite apart from how odd it looks on a long barrel, they just balance and carry better short.

Yes damage is still done to the hearing even when using a suppressor BUT not to the same level.. my ears will ring from a bare rifle and is quite uncomfortable. I’m only 24 and have hearing damage from growing up hunting with traditional rifles.. all my rifles are suppressed now except a traditional Sako 243 that I keep looking traditional. If you substitute a suppressor for elec earmuffs then that’s a good way to attack the problem but then what about your mate beside you or the dog you are shooting directly over top of? Or the gully just over the rise holding animals? I have had animals 100metres away not be spooked by my suppressed 7mm08 with the way it captured the sound in the space I was in. Yes a lever type gun will do the same short thing without modification.. but again, loud! and short range. A short suppressed 308, 7mm08 etc is still capable of taking shots to 3 - 400. My new short rifle is a 284 with 17” barrel. The places I generally hunt even when bushstalking will provide the opportunity to take a shot at 400. With my suppressed rifle I can do that. With a lever gun I don’t think so.

Browning BLR being the exception to the rule.......and YES I have hunted and shot deer with one recently and YES it was suppressed,suppressor fitted snug up to forestock and added only a couple of inches to overall length,was much more pleasant to shoot.

A suppressor will not save you from hearing loss. Though it may lessen it a little. Good quality electronic muffs will save your hearing..

Never said that it would eliminate hearing loss... however the implication is obvious... less noise = less damage. <140Db vs 165DB+ is a significant difference in damage. Also suppressors are always on your rifle, unlike hearing protection not being always in your ears. Also there are significant disadvantages with having to manage hearing protection. Batteries, moisture, not losing them, wind noise, river noise. I have both suppressors and electronic ear protection and frankly for bush hunting they are next to useless..

Actually the better I got the less I shot.

Yeah well normal people shoot more with more identified opportunities to do so. Identifying opportunities comes from getting better at identifying them. Clearly your different...

No that's a piece of collective wisdom that is simply false, barrel length is irrelevant when it comes to powder burn rate for best velocity. However you can drop projectile weight to gain velocity but that will have its own implications.

Bullocks - try shooting slow powders through pistols and getting the same performance... everything is a continuum chap and slow powder performance gets optimised in longer barrels. Conversely faster powers are optimised in shorter barrels.

And in my case wrong again.

Who would really know?

Originally Posted by Bill999

was 300blk a factory option @tikka?
how do you overcome the supersonic/subsonic differences in POI?

It’s a second hand 223 rebarreled to 300 blackout and using a Nightforce NXS compact 2.5-10x42 zero.
The zero stop set for supers and subs set on turret zero, then just need to dail to whatever range.

I’m glade we live and play in a country where we can do almost anything to our bolt rifles with no hoops and government red tape bureaucracy to say we can’t shorten and suppress compaired to Australia and the USA.

Originally Posted by tikka

It’s a second hand 223 rebarreled to 300 blackout and using a Nightforce NXS compact 2.5-10x42 zero.
The zero stop set for supers and subs set on turret zero, then just need to dail to whatever range.

Now that is bloody smart

Originally Posted by GWH

Yes i agree, it all depends on what you will be using said rifle for, most of us have at least a couple of rifles for various purposes. One of mine is T3 cut to 17" with a DPT magnum suppressor, chambered for 284win (was a 7mm08, rechambered). It has a LA mag and bolt stop fitted and i run 162 Amax seated out long. They do just over 2700 fps, at 700 yards it still retains 1226 ft-lbs and 1850 fps.

Its super nice and light to carry, short and easy to get through tight scrub, doesnt catch on things when slung, its balance is really nice. Firing it is much easier on the ears obviously.

Its the rifle i take when i just dont know exactly what the hunt will entale, ie a bush or river hunt with the chance of a longer shot type of thing.

IE Sunday morning I went for a hunt with a mate to one of his old stomping grounds, took the 17" 284. We ended up spoting some deer across a gully at 370 yards, dialed on the 4.5 moa needed and let one rip - Dead deer.

A short handy length rifle especially when running heavy for cal high BC bullets and matched with a dialable scope is a very practical, capable and versatile game harvester.

A 308 running a heavier frangible bullet wouldnt be much different.

See you've been commenting on the 284win FB page with the bottom photo :-)

Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter

See you've been commenting on the 284win FB page with the bottom photo :-)

You stalking me? ;-)

Originally Posted by Frodo

[/B]

I don't have anything against bushpigs. I just think they look ugly and that there are better options out there if maximum manoeverability is your requirement. And as far as hearing loss is concerned, again, I think there are better options.

I use hearing protection whenever I'm shooting my unsuppressed centerfire. It works.

When I owned my suppressed .270 MKV and suppressed and shortened Sako 75 7mm-08, I still wore hearing protection. It worked well.

My choice of firearm does not have any bearing on how rigorously I follow safety protocols.

You could argue that by using hearing protection AND a suppressor, you're taking all the possible precautions (short of not shooting a firearm in the first place ) against hearing loss - but I don't think the difference in noise reduction between using ear muffs with a suppressor VS ear muffs without a suppressor, makes much of a difference in typical hunting situations - where only one or two shots may be fired. And you can always use ear plugs in conjunction with muffs if you're overly anxious about it.

But I get your point. If you're not willing to fork out on quality electronic ear plugs, and you're hunting in very thick terrain where you have to rely on your hearing - a suppressed rifle is obviously going to do less damage than an unsuppressed rifle. But 'less' damage is still a form of damage, right? You could say it's a better middle ground, but it's not completely mitigating the risk of hearing loss. In that sense, suppressors could contribute to a false sense of security.

In general, I think they're a good idea. But there are ways around it without putting your ears at risk. And it may even work in your favour, because, as I said in my previous post, if maximum manoeverability is your priority, there are rifles out there which are more suited to that type of use (by design) than a chopped up Tikka, Remington, Sako, whatever.

Of course ear protection will do a better job.. but in my book ear protection is a pain in the arse when bush hunting. I have fitted electronic earpieces that I wear wallaby shooting where there are a number of shooters in close proximatey and the shooting is spasmodic and unpredictable. Ear muffs when hunting are stupid.

But in the bush both are useless. On the tops with time I use foam earbuds over my suppressed rifle. You usually have time.

Suppressors are on my rifles whether I have other ear protection or not.

I can't help you with ugly. A rifle is a tool. It has to be functional. Suppressors add to that utility but the are a curse if they create unbalanced rifles. Shortening rifles is a solution to that and allows for that utility.

I can't help you with a name. I don't care what people call shortened suppressed rifles.

You get to choose for you.. but don't kid yourself, suppressing a rifle is a solution to quite a few issues... the fact that you can't quite seem to understand that people enjoy shooting suppressed rifles more than unsuppressed is clearly difficult for you. Shortening them is peripheral to that and is not the principal issue...