Thread: Why have a suppressor?

Originally Posted by Tentman

Wouldn't have a suppressor on me nose for a wart - let alone one on a centre-fire hunting rifle for bigger game, they bugger up the balance (unless you cut the barrel short enough to hugely reduce velocity), they look stupid, you can't have a fore sight (unless you want to hunt with a AR), and they are not that effective at either reducing noise (to the shooter/bystander, I have participated in tests that demonstrated this) or to game as Sneeze and others point out.

Just another fashion accessory marketed on dodgy science to a gullible public (in this case gun owners) as the "new cool". However they have been a goldmine to gun plumbers who've been able to thread the hundreds of rifles and thereby improving the collector value of the unmolested ones - so its an ill wind that blows no good.

And as for your hearing, wear earmuffs on the range ( secondary effect, yes you will shoot better if the perceived noise/muzzleblast is moderated) and when hunting don't ever put yourself in a position where you might cop muzzle-blast. I spent 3 years in the artillery, don't think I saw that many gunners wearing ear-muffs (I never did) and I still have good hearing.

Even the most ineffective suppressor on the market will reduce the sound by 10-20db, that in itself reduces perceived sound by 1/2 - 3/4, far from "not that effective".

Originally Posted by Tentman

Just another fashion accessory marketed on dodgy science to a gullible public (in this case gun owners) as the "new cool". However they have been a goldmine to gun plumbers who've been able to thread the hundreds of rifles and thereby improving the collector value of the unmolested ones - so its an ill wind that blows no good.

God forbid someone hurt the collector value of a Tikka T3 by molesting it! Sacrilege! Or a Remington 700! Say it ain't so!
Mate, I love a nice blued/walnut hunting rifle from yesteryear, especially one with open sights, but 90% of new rifles brought into the country today don't have iron sights, and have no collectors value.

After years of driving American trucks (Mack, Kenworth, International, etc. ) my hearing is already pretty much fukt, so I don't worry about a suppressor when hunting, but I do wear hearing protection when shooting paper. Who cares if the deer hears it coming?

Awesome, thanks everyone for your answers

when I got hearing tested and they said one ear going and other will follow ...lost some sounds eg fffs a day out shooting wallabies with mate using suppressors had me sold completely...how the heck I ever did it with the .270 beforehand I dont know...I can remember having ringing ears from mates fireing that DOESNT happen with suppressors.

a suppressor alone isn't good hearing protection, you should still use earmuffs. altho must help a dog with no choice.
The small amount of recoil reduction over nothing is probably the extra weight on the end of the barrel which a bigger barrel would probably do the same. kiwigreg has a video comparing this somewhere.(suppressor vs nothing vs brake)
a magnum booming through a gully also has game not knowing what's up. but it probably depends on how often the game has been shot at, as to them knowing what's up.
The heat the suppressor holds in is a negative too. (accuracy decreases with heat, heat burns barrels.)
I don't really buy into the hype.
I don't hunt with a dog except with a shotgun. I just use electronic earmuffs, better hearing and protection. a suppressor would be better than no ear protection.

Originally Posted by bully

The small amount of recoil reduction over nothing is probably the extra weight on the end of the barrel which a bigger barrel would probably do the same. kiwigreg has a video comparing this somewhere.(suppressor vs nothing vs brake)

while the total amount of force imparted by the recoil is the same (excluding the effect of the weight), the recoil impulse is slowed leading to a perceived lower recoil. KG's test does not show this (because he's trying to sell you muzzle brakes, not suppressors)

Originally Posted by Cigar

Twenty years ago suppressors were common on .22lr rifles using subsonic ammo, but virtually unheard of on centre fires. Why are they so popular now? Is it to do with the not causing an annoyance to the public rules? I doubt it would be due to fashion, or for poaching. Maybe so the neighbours don't complain?
And how quiet do they make a centre fire?

Cheers,
Chris

With HV ammo they probably halve the felt recoil and perceived noise, meaning the animals can't hear where the shot came from if you miss or need to take another animal (e.g. in pest control), safer for your hearing, your hunting mate's hearing, your dog's hearing. Less likely to upset livestock, meaning farmers are more likely to let you hunt on their land, less likely to upset neighbours in rural or lifestyle block type areas. The lessened recoil and noise gives you less to flinch over, meaning easier to avoid bad shooting habits, you'll often find that the added dampening weight of a suppressor effects your barrel harmonics and increases precision.
With subsonic ammo (no supersonic crack) you bring it down to around that subsonic/suppressed .22 we all know, which is even better for pest control on farms.
Oh yeah and they look cool.......... plus Aussies can't have them

I'm based in the UK and personally hated the idea of suppressors when they became widely available over here about 10 years ago; the ruin the balance and aesthetics of a rifle. However, as I started to suffer more and more from tinnitus I decided I would give one a try.....

I have to say I'm now a convert; they tame the recoil on the harshest of calibres reducing recoil, noise and muzzle flip. This often enables you to see the bullet strike and increases the likelihood of a shot at a second animal.

In the UK there are people everywhere, sadly they don't stick to public areas and footpaths and, at the sound of a shot, will often either come to investigate or phone the police. Whilst this may be good news for deterring poachers (without suppressors) it's not good news when you're legitimately trying to cull deer! People are only too keen to post photos of 'Bambi Murders' all over the internet and social media, therefore the quieter we conduct our business the better!

Hoping to move to NZ in the near future…….

Originally Posted by Sauer_202_6.5x55

I'm based in the UK and personally hated the idea of suppressors when they became widely available over here about 10 years ago; the ruin the balance and aesthetics of a rifle. However, as I started to suffer more and more from tinnitus I decided I would give one a try.....

I have to say I'm now a convert; they tame the recoil on the harshest of calibres reducing recoil, noise and muzzle flip. This often enables you to see the bullet strike and increases the likelihood of a shot at a second animal.

In the UK there are people everywhere, sadly they don't stick to public areas and footpaths and, at the sound of a shot, will often either come to investigate or phone the police. Whilst this may be good news for deterring poachers (without suppressors) it's not good news when you're legitimately trying to cull deer! People are only too keen to post photos of 'Bambi Murders' all over the internet and social media, therefore the quieter we conduct our business the better!

Hoping to move to NZ in the near future…….

Stay away mate, nothing here to interest you.....horrible place and besides we don't need any more Pom's as we are trying to be pest free by 2050.

Originally Posted by viper

Stay away mate, nothing here to interest you.....horrible place and besides we don't need any more Pom's as we are trying to be pest free by 2050.

What Viper is concerned about is you'd pop over from the UK and raise the IQ in NZ
I am from north of the border and nah nothing to see here, certainly not a Brexit in sight- move along

unfortunately I left it a bit late my back then little girl came up to me one day and I realized I was finding it hard to hear her talking to me in a normal voice that's when I decided to start wearing poofy ear protection I'm glad I did otherwise id be a deaf poof by now as gm said its good to be able to hear your kids

I'm not using one on my target gun (and it is incidentally shooting better than any suppressed gun I've ever shot with).
They are nicer to shoot with but the experts tell me there is a certain risk with threading, that you can get a reduction in accuracy (precision)

-So, on my gun, no. On yours? Yes, go right ahead haha.

Originally Posted by Dead is better

I'm not using one on my target gun (and it is incidentally shooting better than any suppressed gun I've ever shot with).
They are nicer to shoot with but the experts tell me there is a certain risk with threading, that you can get a reduction in accuracy (precision)

-So, on my gun, no. On yours? Yes, go right ahead haha.

Originally Posted by 6x47

"Risk with threading"???
If it's done by a competent person with decent gear, the muzzle is recrowned accurately and you don't go down to stoopid small threads for calibre, there is NO risk. You're far more likely to hear a rifle will shoot better after being suppressed rather than the opposite.

Comments like that suggest either a bias against suppressors or limited confidence in their gunsmithing skills/gear.

The only risk with threading is if you try to do it yourself. If it is done by a Gunsmith then it will be recrowned etc as well. (defined as Competent, with decent gear, and who knows how to use that gear properly) These "experts" you speak of, sound like they have just enough information to be dangerous (especially to your hearing) All the rifles that we have had suppressed, for my own use or for others, have performed at least as well as before they were threaded. Most performed better with only the 22LRs not seeing much improvement. (But the 22s did get really quiet)

"Risk with threading"???
If it's done by a competent person with decent gear, the muzzle is recrowned accurately and you don't go down to stoopid small threads for calibre, there is NO risk. You're far more likely to hear a rifle will shoot better after being suppressed rather than the opposite.

Comments like that suggest either a bias against suppressors or limited confidence in their gunsmithing skills/gear.