Finally has our Swedish socialistic government made a proposition to make sound moderator only regulated the same way as ammunition. So if you have a firearm licence you are also permited to buy a silencer the law now is you need a firearm permit for the silencer what costs ~40$. Its still illegal to hunt with subsonic ammunition.

Ive never understood the parinoi of silencers, protects hearing...The rest is Hollywood BS and politicians that watch too damn many movies with all that James bond stuff...

It may go against tradition, but once you have shot with a suppressed rifle you will know why there is an appeal to it.
It is simply more pleasurable. Carrying that rifle all day is the price you pay.
Shooting off sticks, in particular, is noticeably steadier with the suppressor holding your muzzle down.

It saves you and your dogs ears, I have not been using a soundmoderator and they were illegal then I were young so I have now a hearing loss and tinnitus.
I strongly recommend all young hunters to use one. Its not legal to hunt with subsonics here and the loads dont meet the required energy levels for big game either so supersonic hunting loads are about 125-130 dec or like a unsuppressed 22lr.

quote:

once you have shot with a suppressed rifle you will know why there is an appeal to it.
It is simply more pleasurable.

Amen. I hunted with the guide's suppressed .270 on my last trip to Africa and found it a delight. Even though the rifle had a full length 24" barrel I found the additional length of the suppressor not to be an issue. It just moves the muzzle that much further from your ear.

Hollywood fantasies of totally silent guns convinced Congress to effectively outlaw suppressors in the 1938 GCA. That was a huge disservice to both the shooting and non-shooting public. I'm sure my neighbors a half-mile away would prefer not to be disturbed while sitting on their porch drinking their morning coffee by the blast of my high-powered rifle as I dispatch a marauding wild pig in my garden.

I must be the odd one out here.

I hate the bloody things.

Makes the rifle front heavy and unwieldy.

And it looks bloody awful too.

I have only used one in South Africa while hunting Cape Grysbok with Charl van Rooyen of Infinito Safaris a few years ago. Charl had one on his .243 and it wasn't bad. You have to initially get used to it, but it worked well on an old trophy Cape Grysbok ram.

The looks don't concern me but like bipods, the suppressor makes rifles heavier and a little unwieldy to carry. However you do not have to fit the suppressor and or bipod until you are in a position to shoot, Carry them in your day pack and once set up overlooking a clearing, creek, bluffs, or whatever country you are in, then screw on the suppressor and bipod and settle in for a shot when the chance presents itself.
If walk up hunting where a natural rest or sticks are available then the suppressor on its own on the rifle is not such a burden in fact the extra weight on the barrel does go a long way to help steady your shot. If carrying on a sling the extra weight is not very noticeable with a good sling. A suppressor also helps to not scare animals into bolting away. They don't seem to know from which direction a shot has come from so more often than not they will move but not far. A suppressor stops the shot echoing around the countryside.

Although I haven't got round to fitting one to my rifle, my three sons all use suppressors and bipods on theirs. They don't know any different, these were all fitted when they acquired their rifles. Looking at hunting photos of my sons, their rifles just get plonked down on the bipods in rock, snow or wherever while they dress or skin out game or are in camp. I'm always looking for a rock or tree to lean mine against.

I have shot their rifles on the range and the suppressor is a whole new experience, with my ear muffs on there is just a metallic ping rather than a muffled boom and felt recoil is low.

I think once you have used a suppressor you wouldn't go back.

Yes, they make a rifle longer and 11 oz heavier but they are a delight to use. I hunt more open country of the West so it's not an issue for me.

75% of my rifles are fitted for them and I swap a few suppressors around. Wonderful device!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Zeke

Isn’t the report on suppressed rifles shooting full house loads, still over 85 decibels? Meaning that it’s still harmful to hearing, though it’s much quieter than non suppressed.

quote:

Originally posted by df06:
Isn’t the report on suppressed rifles shooting full house loads, still over 85 decibels? Meaning that it’s still harmful to hearing, though it’s much quieter than non suppressed.

I have never measured the sound level on any of my rifles, but I don't think my .308 on full-house loads is loud enough to damage hearing when fired out in the open. However, if fired on a range with walls or solid screens to the sides, or one where you shoot through tunnels, it very much is.

The reason is presumably the shape of the supersonic shock-wave. If there is nothing for it to reflect off, it does not reach the shooter. The sound of the rifle itself and of the gas exiting the muzzle is virtually completely removed if the silencer has enough volume for the caliber. Fancy internal design is far less important than volume.

That would mean that it may be harmful to somebody standing forward of the muzzle, but as safety-conscious modern shooters I guess we all try to avoid that.

With regard to whether or not they are wonderful must-have accessories or a pain in the derriere, I think it depends on what you are doing.
I have two rifles with suppressors. One is ugly, always and whether or not the suppressor is fitted. It gets used a lot, far more than any of my other rifles. The other is pretty when the suppressor and bipod are removed, less so with them fitted. But it is a joy to shoot and my second-most-used rifle.
I have four other rifles on which I have no intention of ever fitting suppressors.

The suppressed rifles are both relatively long in the barrel and heavy-for-caliber, and both tend to be shot mostly off bipods or other rests.
So in my opinion, if the shooting you do is mostly from prone or supported positions, get a suppressor. It makes the actual act of shooting considerably more pleasurable by reducing noise and recoil and often improving accuracy.

If you are a walk-and-stalk hunter (in other words you walk a lot and tend to fire just one shot from a probably-unsupported position at the end of a possibly arduous stalk, or if you have a rifle intended for that purpose, a suppressor is a detriment for most of the procedure, and probably not worth taking.

Yes 85 decibel are harmful for your ears if its for a long time like 8 hours with a chainsaw or laud music. Most ears can probably take 110 dec for a couple of shots but you need protecion if you shoot a lot at a range. 150-160 dec are always harmful even for single shots.

I might have maybe one or two rifles that could be classified as audibly annoying. The rest of them dont bother me at all. Which is why I have no suppressors and see no need for one. I could see how they might help the shooter with a particularly loud weapon though. But what about those standing around you? Dont suppressors just take the muzzle blast and re-direct it out to the sides? I hate getting saddled next to one of the damn things at the range.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
I might have maybe one or two rifles that could be classified as audibly annoying. The rest of them dont bother me at all. Which is why I have no suppressors and see no need for one. I could see how they might help the shooter with a particularly loud weapon though. But what about those standing around you? Dont suppressors just take the muzzle blast and re-direct it out to the sides? I hate getting saddled next to one of the damn things at the range.

No you are maybe getting confused with muzzle brakes which do direct the blast out and rearwards to lessen recoil. They are terrible on the shooters ears or any bystanders or fellow shooters nearby on the range. Suppressors do not release gas other than forward out of the 'muzzle' of the suppressor after it has been baffled and expanded to take out the boom. Take the muffler off your vehicle and see what it sounds like.
A rifle suppressor definitely reduces sound considerably and disguises the direction of the source of the sound so animals do not pin point it as they do with unsuppressed rifles.

Apart from the visual aspect or carry inconvenience which doesn't bother most, I could pretty much guarantee once you have tried a good suppressor you wouldn't go back to unsuppressed.

Take the muffler off your vehicle and see what it sounds like.

Maxim invented both silencers for rifles and automobiles.

Yes, a suppressed high-power rifle still has a muzzle blast of sufficient loudness to be damaging to human hearing. But just as wearing sunscreen reduces the amount of damage and extends the amount of time it takes for strong sunlight to damage your skin, using a suppressor is less damaging to your hearing than the same firearm non-suppressed.

I like suppressors for bolt actions and maybe one day on single shots if I thread a k95 barrel.

It is a pleasure shooting a suppressed bolt rifle and I still use hearing protection.

I shot a whitetail with a suppressed 308 and I could not really tell any difference versus un-suppressed 308. In hunting I largely don’t notice the sound of the rifle.

With semi autos I have had issues with end cap strikes. If you want to shoot semi autos suppressed make sure you have everything set up right.

Mike

There is no way in hell a hunter on a proper hunt - like in the wilds of Africa - would pick an unwieldy setup with a silencer on it.

They good for city dwellers “hunting” on their day off work!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
There is no way in hell a hunter on a proper hunt - like in the wilds of Africa - would pick an unwieldy setup with a silencer on it.

They good for city dwellers “hunting” on their day off work!

Ha ha. Possibly true. However, the opposite is also true. Suppressors are also very useful for those of us who ranch and have a rifle on hand almost every day for culling. Considerably less disturbance to the herd.
I suspect that the same argument was made when telescopes first came out. My grandfather's generation considered them an eyesore and an extra weight. You actually get used to the weight of suppressors and my hunting friends and I think nothing of walking in the mountains all day with our rifles.
I won't put a suppressor on my classic rifles, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
There is no way in hell a hunter on a proper hunt - like in the wilds of Africa - would pick an unwieldy setup with a silencer on it.

They good for city dwellers “hunting” on their day off work!

I think there is some misconception about suppressors, no doubt movies have caused some of this where they generally show the suppressor hanging off the end of the muzzle of a rifle. Most 22RF suppressors do just hang of the end, screwed on to about 1/2" of thread at the end of the barrel.
A proper centrefire rifle suppressor comes right back over the barrel close to the end of the fore-end. While the suppressed centrefire is barrel heavy it is not all hanging off the end heavy.

BTW I've seen numerous pictures of African safari game shot with suppressed rifles.

My youngest boy carries his suppressed Weatherby Vanguard up and down the mountains after these good trophies no problem at all and I don't think it looks too unwieldy, actually Saeed it compares quite favourably with your 375/404 and its red fluted tank barrel which you seem to have no trouble handling

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I must be the odd one out here.

I hate the bloody things.

Makes the rifle front heavy and unwieldy.

And it looks bloody awful too.

You are not alone my friend . I 100% agree.

HUH what you say.

Out lawing sound moderators in the USA is one of worse public health decisions made.

Millions of shooters have hearing loss because of it.

Making them illegal is just plain stupid.

We make them ourselves, and they do work in reducing noise.

They reduce sound, recoil, muzzle blast, makes it difficult for animals to locate where shot came from, allowing you to take 2-3 more ( if you have permit for them).


I can have my 8 year old nephew order 200 suppressors, and have him sell them outside his school.

One of the few things we are lucky to be unregulated in my country.

That rifle looks bloody awful!

I would hunt with a Blaser before hunting with a silencer!

quote:

I would hunt with a Blaser before hunting with a silencer!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
That rifle looks bloody awful!

I would hunt with a Blaser before hunting with a silencer!

Saeed I had a Blaser with a suppressor!

quote:

Originally posted by Esskay:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
That rifle looks bloody awful!

I would hunt with a Blaser before hunting with a silencer!

Saeed I had a Blaser with a suppressor!

Bloody hell!

Cannot get any worse!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Esskay:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
That rifle looks bloody awful!

I would hunt with a Blaser before hunting with a silencer!

Saeed I had a Blaser with a suppressor!

Bloody hell!

Cannot get any worse!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
That rifle looks bloody awful!

I would hunt with a Blaser before hunting with a silencer!

Well Saeed just to have two bloody awful rifles here goes.

I regularly hunt with a MRC X2 in .260Rem, it's my go-to for stalking hogs and deer hunting.

I use a Dead Air Nomad 30 which is shorter than most cans. I have a new Nomad 30 Ti on order which will also be significantly lighter.

I don't find any issues at all with the added weight or length.

The 70-150-900 is the rifle where I really need hearing protection. As that big bullet lumbers out of the bore the gas bounces off the back of it..
If the shooter is not using hearing protection for the first shot, he will be for the second; likely why Winchester gave upon the idea! Say wot??

Eagle27; what brand did your sons go with?

quote:

Originally posted by GBE:
Eagle27; what brand did your sons go with?

NZ made by Gunworks. Not promoting them, just added the link as it has some good info on suppressors in general.
https://www.gunworks.co.nz/suppressor-222-to.html

Because suppressors are so popular and freely available here there are several manufacturers in NZ.

Dark Horse Arms of Santa Anna Texas built all of my suppressed guns. Fully suppressed, using the entire length of the barrel.

This is one of their 308 Win rifles, built on a Rem Model 700.

Nice

Saeed loves it this way: carbon and leather

quote:

Originally posted by Jiri:
Saeed loves it this way: carbon and leather

I knew someone had to be doing full length suppressors, classic looking rifle, Mr. Williams. I don’t know who could’ve conceived of that thing below, however. indeed…

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Dark Horse Arms of Santa Anna Texas built all of my suppressed guns. Fully suppressed, using the entire length of the barrel.

This is one of their 308 Win rifles, built on a Rem Model 700.

I have long liked the idea of an integral suppressor, but am concerned about what that would do to barrel temperatures.
On the one hand, the advantage would be that the temperature would be consistent all the way around the barrel (and thus point of impact shifts due to the barrel cooling more on one side than the other due to cooling should be eliminated, but on the other hand I imagine the barrel would heat up a lot faster.

Have you got any idea what temperature such a barrel would reach after a 10-shot string?