Thread: suppressor failure

All I can say is lucky you had a real calibre, read:30 cal, to back up your little pea shooter...

Given some of the comments I have heard Bout how important hunting success relies on suppressors, makes me wonder how the older generations got on with hunting.

They never used them and there are heaps now that don't use them, so effectively they are an unnecessary luxury.

Originally Posted by jim160

Given some of the comments I have heard Bout how important hunting success relies on suppressors, makes me wonder how the older generations got on with hunting.

They never used them and there are heaps now that don't use them, so effectively they are an unnecessary luxury.

The older generation are largely stone deaf. As are all their hunting dogs.

Originally Posted by jim160

Given some of the comments I have heard Bout how important hunting success relies on suppressors, makes me wonder how the older generations got on with hunting.

They never used them and there are heaps now that don't use them, so effectively they are an unnecessary luxury.

Thats great. I was wondering who I could swap my old 303, Swandry, hob nail boots, army trou and kidney roaster pack with. I will send you all that stuff, and you send me your modern stuff thats no better. Fair swap?

Originally Posted by gimp

The older generation are largely stone deaf. As are all their hunting dogs.

What?

They may be deaf. Well some are but I would say its not from shooting, most likely work related, but they probably fired more rounds than we ever will and they never thought to have something to stop the noise.
We don't really need them as most only fire one shot. yes it causes damage but not more than a few minutes on a disc grinder or chainsaw with no earmuffs.
Ive seen people who say they must use a suppressor on a rifle due to the noise but will use a chainsaw without earmuffs

its all about looks and image, nothing about effectiveness of the suppressor.

If it was really a huge issue and all that, then the Police and Army would have suppressors on their rifles. But they don't and they fire a lot more rounds than you ever will.

Originally Posted by jim160

We don't really need them as most only fire one shot. yes it causes damage but not more than a few minutes on a disc grinder or chainsaw with no earmuffs
Ive seen people who say they must use a suppressor on a rifle due to the noise but will use a chainsaw without earmuffs

It's stupid to do either, the fact that some people are stupid enough to use power tools without hearing protection doesn't meant it's not stupid to fire a rifle without it

its all about looks and image, nothing about effectiveness of the suppressor.

Entirely your opinion. A suppressor does reduce sound pressure level to near or below hearing safe, does reduce severity of felt recoil, does disturb animals in the immediate and wider vicinity less, and does reduce muzzle blast. I personally think they look quite ugly but I put up with it because life is much more pleasant with them.

If it was really a huge issue and all that, then the Police and Army would have suppressors on their rifles. But they don't and they fire a lot more rounds than you ever will.

NZSAS



NZ Police



You're also making assumptions, I would say that I fire about an order of magnitude more rounds than any normal police officer does in a work related capacity, and those institutions presumably mandate use of other hearing protection wherever practical

Fair enough.
But the SAS & AOS are not the only ones that are armed.
I haven't seen any front line cops with suppressors and soldiers don't have them either.

So the less that 100 soldiers out of over 3000 have suppressors and the less that 500 out of 3500 cops have suppressors.

Not really a fair representation of numbers.

Besides, when was the last time a cop fired a rifle at someone. So of course you have fired more shots than them. Even I have.
But I understand your point.

No-one is suggesting that a suppressor is necessary for hunting success, that's a strawman. A suppressor is a useful tool for protecting the hearing of those that hunt in situations where other forms of hearing protection aren't practical, and they have useful properties for shooting besides.

The whole legal case in the UK that got them legalised was based on health concerns about hearing loss. They do work and work well if you get a good one.

Originally Posted by jim160

They may be deaf. Well some are but I would say its not from shooting, most likely work related, but they probably fired more rounds than we ever will and they never thought to have something to stop the noise.
We don't really need them as most only fire one shot. yes it causes damage but not more than a few minutes on a disc grinder or chainsaw with no earmuffs.
Ive seen people who say they must use a suppressor on a rifle due to the noise but will use a chainsaw without earmuffs

its all about looks and image, nothing about effectiveness of the suppressor.



If it was really a huge issue and all that, then the Police and Army would have suppressors on their rifles. But they don't and they fire a lot more rounds than you ever will.

A better comparison would be using a chainsaw without a muffler. Or driving a noisy straight piped vehicle. The earmuffs are protection but the convenience is the suppressor doesn't stop you haearing other sounds where muffs will. In saying that use a chainsaw without muffs (or grinders etc) and you wont be hearing much else anyway.........Once damage is done it cannot be undone. Once you are deaf- you stay deaf! Suppressor or ear protection- I dont care which, but I make sure I do use it.

If you hunt without a suppressor you also risk the hearing of your companions. Often they are the ones that end up in a worse position for the muzzle blast and get more hearing damage than the bloke behind the butt.

I was at the range again on friday arvo and had a guy with a .308 on my left and another guy had his new .270 on the right of me none of them suppressed. When the .270 went off you could feel the shock wave. My suppressor was worth every cent.
I wont be owning another center fire again without one.

Originally Posted by jim160

Fair enough.
But the SAS & AOS are not the only ones that are armed.
I haven't seen any front line cops with suppressors and soldiers don't have them either.

So the less that 100 soldiers out of over 3000 have suppressors and the less that 500 out of 3500 cops have suppressors.

Not really a fair representation of numbers.

Besides, when was the last time a cop fired a rifle at someone. So of course you have fired more shots than them. Even I have.
But I understand your point.

All of the NZ Police training rifles are fitted with suppressors as well. They also shot a guy not to long ago in Thames, with a suppressor.

Have you ever fired a large centrefire with a suppressor? It's one of those thing where ignorance is bliss, but once you try it you wont go back.

I'm in the process of suppressing all of my rifles, even my deer stalking rifle, as I already have some slight tone deafness in my left ear from shooting, and I'm only 31!

I find them so much more pleasant to shoot and stops a flinch from developing.

Yes their training rifles have suppressors and they wear earmuffs as well.
Much like the army wear earmuffs when doing the awq.
The guy shot in Thames was shot by aos and they all have them.
I have a suppressor on my 260 but I certainly won't be doing any other rifles I have.
I'm not going to ruin them by adding a can to it.

Suppressors are good for noise reduction to a point but muzzle brakes reduce recoil more and would reduce the flinch. If the recoil is too much.