Thread: Why have a suppressor?

Originally Posted by northdude

I think certain rifle manufacturers some times put a tiny bit of choke on their rifle barrels so chopping the end off my affect it but I my be wrong

Yes some do in their rimfire models. Anschutz 54 match action rifles and Weihrauch have slight chokes on their barrels.

I was originally very slow to catch on to the suppressor fad as well, thinking we spend a lot more time carrying our rifles than we do shooting them. Wearing ear protection when at the range, and only normally needing one shot to tip a deer over, i didnt really see the point of suppressors.

However i have finally come around to the idea, two of my rifles are now short barreled (bushpig style) rifles that are designed to be only fired with the suppressor on. They really are a pleasure to use in the field compared to my un-suppressed rifles. No fuss, no ringing ears after a shot.




Top one is a T3 rechambered in 284 win, cut to 17", 162 Amax at 2740 fps, holds 1000 ft lbs to 900 yards

Bottom one is a Rem Model 7 in 7mm-08, cut to 15", 140 NBT at 2720 fps, holds 1000 ft lbs to 600 yards

Both are balanced perfectly, total lengths are shorter than they were originally, both extremely capable of dropping animals at ranges far beyond where the average hunter is capable of making a good shot. They are nice to carry, easy to shoot with reduced recoil, and of course much easier on the ears. I'm starting to take one of the kids on hunts now, so its even more important to look after their ears.

Im finding the short suppressed rifles are the ones that are getting used most these days.

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.

Originally Posted by Tentman

Yeah but 4" doesn't do anything to remedy balance and handling, to get that back to a nice parameter 6-10" has to go and that does have a big effect (and then you must use the suppressor or the muzzleblast is horrific).

Nothing wrong with building a bush rifle with a 18 or 20" barrel but to do that in a suppressed bush-pig your barrel is getting pretty short (for velocity) if you're going to step out onto the tops with it - your 308 is suddenly a 30-30!

How much do you think suppressors weight? 10" of barrel to match the weight of one? Really?

The 4 last inches of a conventional tikka barrel weight 130 gr roughly . So 8" will weigh the same as a very lightweight suppressor.

Some rifles like the Remington 7 are stock heavy and a suppressor put them back into a very good balance.

When I see the size and weight of certain modern scopes, plus the bipod and other shit carried around in the back pack of the modern hunter the 250 to 300 gr extra from a suppressor don't worry me too much.

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

only a idiot would thread a colectable rifle, and only a idiot wouldnt thread and supress an modern hunting rifle in my opnion-we only have so much hearing and I personly have lost to much of mine before I wised up to doing everything I could to preserve it.

Im more of a colecter/range shooter these day as I only hunt to full the frezzer for th most part so I have rifles in both camps

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.

I'm prepared to call this a fact. I was told this by two of the more well known gunsmiths in the country. Nobody is perfect. There is a risk you might end up with a larger group size (maybe your 1/2moa grows to .75moa)
Whether this is because the re-crown is less quality than a factory job, the barrel end getting stressed I dunno...

My first barrel with thread job shot well. (or my newby shooting back then hid the true results). I didn't think to just go and shoot it blank first. Such was my rush to join the crowd and get a can fitted. Now I'm not so sure it's as mandatory as commonly thought.

Originally Posted by Dead is better

I'm prepared to call this a fact. I was told this by two of the more well known gunsmiths in the country. Nobody is perfect. There is a risk you might end up with a larger group size (maybe your 1/2moa grows to .75moa)
Whether this is because the re-crown is less quality than a factory job, the barrel end getting stressed I dunno...

My first barrel with thread job shot well. (or my newby shooting back then hid the true results). I didn't think to just go and shoot it blank first. Such was my rush to join the crowd and get a can fitted. Now I'm not so sure it's as mandatory as commonly thought.

If the accuracy suffers because of a poor recrown or workmanship, then there is recourse to have the crown/work redone. As for barrel stresses, most overbarrel suppressors actually help to support the barrel but adding support at the back where they fit to the barrel as well as the muzzle.

If you dont want a suppressor, they are not compulsory, and you dont have to get one. Some rifles are not suppressed for valid reasons- Full wood stocks is an example, along with sxs which are almost impossible. And simply not wanting a suppressor IS a completely valid reason not to suppress. But in saying that, I like suppressors. They make some rifles far nicer to shoot. They have their uses and are an effective piece of equipment.

Useful post!

Interested in how you manage you longer shots with those rifles? In asking that I'm assuming the trajectory has been adversely affected by docking the barrels. Do you 'dial' your scopes, hold over, or use a reticule other than a plex ?

Originally Posted by GWH

I was originally very slow to catch on to the suppressor fad as well, thinking we spend a lot more time carrying our rifles than we do shooting them. Wearing ear protection when at the range, and only normally needing one shot to tip a deer over, i didnt really see the point of suppressors.

However i have finally come around to the idea, two of my rifles are now short barreled (bushpig style) rifles that are designed to be only fired with the suppressor on. They really are a pleasure to use in the field compared to my un-suppressed rifles. No fuss, no ringing ears after a shot.

Name: 20161130_142432.jpg Views: 121 Size: 1.23 MB
Name: 20161130_142207.jpg Views: 123 Size: 1.07 MB

Top one is a T3 rechambered in 284 win, cut to 17", 162 Amax at 2740 fps, holds 1000 ft lbs to 900 yards

Bottom one is a Rem Model 7 in 7mm-08, cut to 15", 140 NBT at 2720 fps, holds 1000 ft lbs to 600 yards

Both are balanced perfectly, total lengths are shorter than they were originally, both extremely capable of dropping animals at ranges far beyond where the average hunter is capable of making a good shot. They are nice to carry, easy to shoot with reduced recoil, and of course much easier on the ears. I'm starting to take one of the kids on hunts now, so its even more important to look after their ears.

Im finding the short suppressed rifles are the ones that are getting used most these days.

Originally Posted by Maxx

Useful post!

Interested in how you manage you longer shots with those rifles? In asking that I'm assuming the trajectory has been adversely affected by docking the barrels. Do you 'dial' your scopes, hold over, or use a reticule other than a plex ?

Thanks @Maxx,

Yes the velocity is obviously less with the shorter barrel, but the change in trajectory is very easily allowed for by dialing the scope turret to adjust for the bullet drop. In the case of the 17" 284win, by running a high bc projectile, even tho it starts out slower than it would if i run a 140gr, due to the high bc projectile slipping through the air better it hangs onto its velocity longer and therefore hangs onto its retained energy, hence the 1000 ft-lbs at 900 yards (that's at my normal hunting altitudes).

Heres a little recent video of some gong shooting with a couple of my rifles, one being a 22" barreled 7mm SAUM, and my 17" barreled 284.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeoqULlzDN8

Both rifles using the 162gr Amax, only difference is the SAUM pushs it at 3,005 fps as opposed to the short 284 at 2,740 fps. In this video we shoot a gong at 637 yards with both rifles.

The 7mmSAUM required 9.75 MOA of up adjustment on the turret, while the 17" 284 required an adjustment of 12.5 MOA. In theroy the SAUM hit the target with 1,674 ft-lbs of energy, while the short 284 had 1,355 ft-lbs. Obviously there is a windage advantage to the faster bullet too.

Once you get the hang of dialing, it makes it pretty easy, the hardest part is always the wind.

I have dial-able scopes on all my rifles now, and even the .223 with a 55gr bullet is no drama to hit little gongs at 600 yards. Dial-able scopes dont have to be super expensive to work well. I have $300 Vortex diamondback scopes on 3 rifles including the .223 and they dial very accurately and repeatably. They dont have big exposed target turrets, but for rifles that are mostly bush hunters you dont really want that, but having the ability to dial up the correction for a shot across a gully at 450 yards when needed is bloody good. Of course if you want to spend more $ on a scope the sky is the limit, but its not essential to get into dialing.

I would have a permanent scar on my forehead from my carbon 7MM rem mag if I didn't have a suppressor! Bucks like a mule! Haha

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)