Do you regret getting your suppressor?

[5811]

The idea that a braked magnum isn't hearing safe with double ear pro is what got me to finally get on the suppressor hype train. Especially when I dug in a little on the efficacy of ear muffs or lack thereof when wearing safety glasses or incorporating any interference with the stock. Basically ear pro never really gets you the db reduction you think it does.

However, I've always been skeptical when people throw around numbers like 175-185 dbs for braked magnums. Can anyone point me to test data that backs this, specifically at the shooters ear to mimic hunting situations? I've seen numbers like that at the muzzle, but we should compare shooter's ear numbers with shooter's ear numbers.

 

[CMP70306]

From my perspective, the people who rabidly love suppressors and seem to get uptight during suppressor pros/cons discussions, are the ones who’ve had them for less than 5 years, or are in the process of getting their first can. Everyone else has figured out that they’re a tool that have their place. Specifically, low recoiling, high round count training rifles. While muzzle brakes are best for high recoiling, low round count, hunting rifles.

6 years and 10 suppressors later, all my new hunting and target rifles are suppressed and I almost never shoot my unsuppressed rifles anymore.

I even suppressed my smokeless muzzleloader and it provides such a concussion and recoil benefit that i would also use it on my .458 Win Mag if the barrel was thick enough to thread.

 

[CMP70306]

Muzzle Brakes: Sound Test

I thought about these muzzle brake tests for over a year before I started this field test. We all kn...

precisionrifleblog.com

A bare 308 is 150 dB at shooters ear and the worst brake added 15 dB so I would imagine that a .300 Win Mag would be significantly louder though it doesn’t appear many people have bothered to test it.

 

[5811]

Muzzle Brakes: Sound Test

I thought about these muzzle brake tests for over a year before I started this field test. We all kn...

precisionrifleblog.com

A bare 308 is 150 dB at shooters ear and the worst brake added 15 dB so I would imagine that a .300 Win Mag would be significantly louder though it doesn’t appear many people have bothered to test it.

That was what I was looking for, thank you for posting that. I wish the measurements behind the gun were closer to the actual shooter's ear, but it does line up with what people are saying. I just wonder if there's more of a low pressure envelope that is sensitive to distance behind the brake. The jump from 165 to 185 is quite a bit, however.

 

[Bluefish]

That was what I was looking for, thank you for posting that. I wish the measurements behind the gun were closer to the actual shooter's ear, but it does line up with what people are saying. I just wonder if there's more of a low pressure envelope that is sensitive to distance behind the brake. The jump from 165 to 185 is quite a bit, however.

Probably depends on the brake. I have read a white paper that explored the concept that the head would protect the shooter right ear (right handed) due to the sound having to go around the shooters head. It did lower the sound level for the right ear, but not enough to become hearing safe.
surprisingly there is not that much research into damage from gunshot noise. When I was researching it around 2011-12 noise meters for recording the noise levels were not readily available and even determining the true level was difficult. It’s also hard to get repeatable conditions to test hearing protection. we did that using an air cannon to get ipil data on our in ear plugs. Actually testing the exposure under the hearing protection on a dummy head.
I had a coworker who was working with niosh on the new nrr standard look for papers for me. Not a lot out there. My assumption is that it was simply gunshots are loud and do damage, so little time was spent figuring out how much. Suppressors were not that common in the USA at the time, not like now.

 

[Oldffemt]

You guys have more than convinced me. I am actually looking at getting 2 cans. One for my rifle and one for the kids rifle.

Do yourself a favor and get a can for your kids’ 22. Doesn’t have to be expensive and most are completely hearing safe. You can shoot 22 subsonic and hear the firing pin drop! Blows me away that some don’t like shooting suppressed. I haven’t shot my braked m70 in years cause it’s the only rifle I have that isn’t set up to be shot suppressed. The reduction in concussion with magnum rounds is unreal. For reference I have a griffin recce 7. It’s not a “hunting” can but since I’ve had it, (10yrs) I haven’t and won’t hunt without it.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Do yourself a favor and get a can for your kids’ 22. Doesn’t have to be expensive and most are completely hearing safe. You can shoot 22 subsonic and hear the firing pin drop!

Can't emphasize this enough. .22 cans are the cheapest and you'll get more mileage out of them than any of the others. Plus they're the only ones that are Hollywood quiet.

 

[ztc92]

No regrets, wish I had one growing up, as I probably wouldn’t have developed the flinch that I’ve been working to fix for the past few years. The decrease in noise and muzzle blast is a game changer but don’t overlook the reduction in recoil and improved ability to spot your own impacts as well. That’s been the thing I appreciate most as I look to become better at long range shooting and hunting. For reference I bought the SiCo Harvester Evo because like you price was a big concern. It’s the best $800 I’ve spent besides my rifle abs optics.

.22-cal can will be next on my list!

 

[StupidLightweight]

Suppressors are marvelous inventions, and I have no regrets of owning or using them, but there is no free lunch. The only benefit to a suppressor is it reduces the noise of the shot. That's it. They don't reduce recoil nearly as much as muzzle brake, and the argument of not spooking game is overblown. A bullet impacting an object next to an animal is far spookier than a far away boom!

Along with reduced noise come a host of negatives besides cost and wait time. (Note: I'm primarily addressing centerfire rifle suppressors; rimfire and shotgun suppressors are very different.)

• Added length and weight can be significant, which changes the handling characteristics.
• It's one more thing that can and will go wrong. For a direct-thread can, it will come loose if you don't pay attention. The same can occur with a quick-connect mount.
• Another overlooked concern applies to hunters who carry a rifle muzzle up. Debris from the can has been known to fall down the barrel, where it can seize the locking lugs of the action.

All these are preventable, but like any variable, they should be addressed.

For stand hunting, suppressors make a lot of sense. Likewise for high-volume shooting (pigs, rodents, etc.) or places you don't want to upset the neighbors. For this, they're almost required.

However, for hunting in big country, where you might spend a week covering untold miles looking for one shot, I don't think the added length and weight are worth it. I learned my lesson carrying a 24-inch barreled rifle with a 6-inch suppressor for Idaho spring bear in 2020. The extra pound and length didn't justify the sound reduction of a single shot. Foam plugs would have been a better choice.

Again, suppressors are great, but they are not a magical solution to every hunting scenario.

 

[Formidilosus]

From my perspective, the people who rabidly love suppressors and seem to get uptight during suppressor pros/cons discussions, are the ones who’ve had them for less than 5 years, or are in the process of getting their first can. Everyone else has figured out that they’re a tool that have their place.

Ok. How many people do you personally know that have and use suppressors hunting to come to that conclusion?

I shoot and hunt with 40-50 people that use cans, quite a few have for the better part of 20 years, and no one wants anything to do with unsuppressed rifles for hunting. I’d rather use a 308 with a suppressor than the best cartridge without.

Specifically, low recoiling, high round count training rifles. While muzzle brakes are best for high recoiling, low round count, hunting rifles.

Yeah no. Why exactly are brakes better for hunting rifles? And- how ar e you getting those brakes rifles hearing safe?

 

[JohnJohnson]

• Added length and weight can be significant, which changes the handling characteristics.

I learned my lesson carrying a 24-inch barreled rifle with a 6-inch suppressor for Idaho spring bear in 2020. The extra pound and length didn't justify the sound reduction of a single shot. Foam plugs would have been a better choice.

I wouldn't want to carry a suppressed rifle that long either. I think what most people do is they end up chopping their barrels down shorter so the common tradeoff is muzzle velocity.

 

[Formidilosus]

Suppressors are marvelous inventions, and I have no regrets of owning or using them, but there is no free lunch. The only benefit to a suppressor is it reduces the noise of the shot. That's it. They don't reduce recoil nearly as much as muzzle brake, and the argument of not spooking game is overblown. A bullet impacting an object next to an animal is far spookier than a far away boom!

That is not my experience or the experience of anyone I hunt with. I have killed, and been involved in the killing of at least 25 game animals a year for more than two decades- a significant portion of those years it was hundreds of animals a year. I only say that to acknowledge that I am not going off of a small sample size.
Animal reaction is way less suppressed than unsuppressed. In crop damage/culling from ranges of 300+ yards, unsuppressed you might get one or two shots on a herd of WT’s before they take off. With suppressors, 4-6 isn’t uncommon. With elk, unsuppressed they react immediately to the first shot, and generally start to move. Suppressed sometimes they don’t even get out of their bed. We kill multiple animals out of a herd when suppressed, usually one with bare muzzle.

Along with reduced noise come a host of negatives besides cost and wait time. (Note: I'm primarily addressing centerfire rifle suppressors; rimfire and shotgun suppressors are very different.)

Everything costs something, however-

• Added length and weight can be significant, which changes the handling characteristics.

Cut the barrel shorter. The loss of MV isn’t nearly what people make it out to be, and has almost no effect for the vast majority of hunters.

• It's one more thing that can and will go wrong. For a direct-thread can, it will come loose if you don't pay attention. The same can occur with a quick-connect mount.

If someone’s suppressor is coming loose, they’re doing something wrong. With direct thread, snap it into place and use a wrench for a bit of torque.

• Another overlooked concern applies to hunters who carry a rifle muzzle up. Debris from the can has been known to fall down the barrel, where it can seize the locking lugs of the action.

If a tiny bit of carbon is effecting chambering and locking, then someone’s chamber is cut way too tight. They’re field guns, not benchrest guns.

All these are preventable, but like any variable, they should be addressed.

You are correct, but addressing them isn’t hard.

However, for hunting in big country, where you might spend a week covering untold miles looking for one shot, I don't think the added length and weight are worth it. I learned my lesson carrying a 24-inch barreled rifle with a 6-inch suppressor for Idaho spring bear in 2020. The extra pound and length didn't justify the sound reduction of a single shot. Foam plugs would have been a better choice.

The added length and weight can be offset with a shorter barrel. 100% if people try to stay with contemporary ideas of rifles- as long of a barrel as possible, with as short of a can as possible- they probably will get annoyed with them. Take your 24” barrel, cut to 20” and now you have something that makes sense. The loss of 80-100fps MV doesn’t change much downrange.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

That is not my experience or the experience of anyone I hunt with. I have killed, and been involved in the killing of at least 25 game animals a year for more than two decades- a significant portion of those years it was hundreds of animals a year. I only say that to acknowledge that I am not going off of a small sample size.
Animal reaction is way less suppressed than unsuppressed. In crop damage/culling from ranges of 300+ yards, unsuppressed you might get one or two shots on a herd of WT’s before they take off. With suppressors, 4-6 isn’t uncommon. With elk, unsuppressed they react immediately to the first shot, and generally start to move. Suppressed sometimes they don’t even get out of their bed. We kill multiple animals out of a herd when suppressed, usually one with bare muzzle.






Everything costs something, however-



Cut the barrel shorter. The loss of MV isn’t nearly what people make it out to be, and has almost no effect for the vast majority of hunters.




If someone’s suppressor is coming loose, they’re doing something wrong. With direct thread, snap it into place and use a wrench for a bit of torque.




If a tiny bit of carbon is effecting chambering and locking, then someone’s chamber is cut way too tight. They’re field guns, not benchrest guns.




You are correct, but addressing them isn’t hard.




The added length and weight can be offset with a shorter barrel. 100% if people try to stay with contemporary ideas of rifles- as long of a barrel as possible, with as short of a can as possible- they probably will get annoyed with them. Take your 24” barrel, cut to 20” and now you have something that makes sense. The loss of 80-100fps MV doesn’t change much downrange.

Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t threaten your credibility. You aren’t the only one killing a bunch of animals every year for the last two decades. Its a value proposition plain and simple. I agree with 95% of what you say, suppressors will always be something that we disagree on from the value added perspective depending on the situation. I think that is ok. I love suppressors for prairie dogs and varmints, the range and competition - that makes sense to me, and I am still going to wear ear pro in those situations. I disagree that suppressed rifles without ear pro are hearing safe. For me to go pack into the frank church for 10 days, I am still going to go with a lightweight short barrel rifle, but I am leaving the can at home and bringing plugs. I no longer own any magnum rifles (i think they are overrated), so I will likely leave the brake at home too. I think it is ok for people to hear different perspectives.

 

[atmat]

I think it is ok for people to hear different perspectives.

Totally agree with you, except that you keep saying suppressors don’t make guns hearing safe. For a small number of shots, a good suppressor is hearing safe.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Totally agree with you, except that you keep saying suppressors don’t make guns hearing safe. For a small number of shots, a good suppressor is hearing safe.

I'm starting to think he's just fishing for attention/reactions. The not hearing safe stuff he's said is just provably false. It's not even a matter of opinion.

 

[Formidilosus]

Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t threaten your credibility. You aren’t the only one killing a bunch of animals every year for the last two decades.

Where did I say it did? The issue with the internet is that by and large the people with very little or no experience on a subject are speaking as if they have massive experience. Me saying that I disagree with his statement about animals not reacting differently to suppressed versus unsuppressed shooting, requires some numbers/data to be relevant. If I said “they react way different to suppressed rifles” and yet I had only shot one animal suppressed and 5 unsuppressed- my statement would be near worthless- it’s simply not enough data or experience.

Nothing I write is out of emotion or ego. I do not care how many animals someone has killed or how many rounds they shoot or anything else, until they make statements that requires that information or counters massive experience.
I do not know the poster I quoted- maybe he will come back and say his experience is in crop damage shooting 200 plus deer a year suppressed and unsuppressed and he’s not seeing a difference in reaction, then a conversation can be had. One I would appreciate having. However if his experience is a couple animals a year, then more than likely his view is based on limited data.

Its a value proposition plain and simple. I agree with 95% of what you say, suppressors will always be something that we disagree on from the value added perspective depending on the situation. I think that is ok.

100% that’s ok.

I disagree that suppressed rifles without ear pro are hearing safe. For me to go pack into the frank church for 10 days, I am still going to go with a lightweight short barrel rifle, but I am leaving the can at home and bringing plugs.

My only rub with your stance, is you haven’t stated what is “hearing safe” to you, and how you achieve it.

What decibel is gearing safe to you, and how do you ensure you achieve it?

 

[5811]

Yeah no. Why exactly are brakes better for hunting rifles? And- how ar e you getting those brakes rifles hearing safe?

Are we sure they aren't safe with good foam ear pro? As stated above, 165db with the worst brake on a 308 is easily brought under 140db with 30 nrr foam. And if we are talking about a big magnum hunting rifle, are we sure it's hearing safe with a short, lightweight can?

And if you're talking about hunting with a magnum, can, and ear pro, do we have the data to say for certain that rifle wouldn't be hearing safe with good foam plugs on the least-loud brake? Shooters ear 175db plus?

It very well could be 175db plus, I just haven't seen that number. And I'd be willing to bet many skip the ear plugs in a hurried opportunity if they feel good enough about their can, right or wrong.

I'm on the "can for hunting" bandwagon, but I hunt where putting ear pro in before shooting isn't always an option. I'm also one of these new people to the bandwagon, truth be told.

But, if someone is going to put ear pro in before shooting anyway, and that gets them to hearing safe or fairly close, not wanting to lug a can around is a fair point of view.

 

[Formidilosus]

Are we sure they aren't safe with good foam ear pro? As stated above, 165db with the worst brake on a 308 is easily brought under 140db with 30 nrr foam. And if we are talking about a big magnum hunting rifle, are we sure it's hearing safe with a short, lightweight can?

There are tons are papers and information about ear pro. Foam ear plugs only reach their stated NRR when used exactly as they are supposed to. People think that from ear plugs are so simple, yet in seeing hundred of people use them, I could probably count on one hand how many did so. Those foam ear plugs rolling in your pocket and put in quickly are most likely offering about 15 NRR at best. If you can hear someone talking with them inserted, you’re not doing much. The shooting world is full of people with permanent hearing loss from shooting even while wearing ear pro religiously.
I shoot braked guns a lot- tens of thousands of rounds a year. 100% with brand new foam plugs inserted correctly, and very good muffs over. As well, bone conduction is real, and my rifles also have foam or leather cheek pieces to help with that. I also almost always set up something between the muzzle and myself to block it redirect the blast and sound while shooting on a range. I must get a full hearing test done annually and my hearing has not changed in 20 years. People that I am around that only use plugs or muffs- not both, all have measured hearing damage every year.

As for cans, it depends. Unlike ear pro, the can is always working. There is zero doubt that a real suppressor and any type of ear pro- muffs or plugs drops it to true hearing sage levels. On the range I do not shoot without at least plugs. Hunting, no. It’s not needed. One to two shots a day in the open with a real suppressor is not causing hearing damage. Having said that, whenever I have time, I still out in plugs half way while hunting.

And if you're talking about hunting with a magnum, can, and ear pro, do we have the data to say for certain that rifle wouldn't be hearing safe with good foam plugs on the least-loud brake? Shooters ear 175db plus?

Addressed above. Every person I know that shoots braked rifles with just plugs or muffs, has measured loss of hearing year after year. Those who only shoot suppressed and who only shoot around those with suppressors, have no hearing loss each year.

It very well could be 175db plus, I just haven't seen that number. And I'd be willing to bet many skip the ear plugs in a hurried opportunity if they feel good enough about their can, right or wrong.

That’s correct. One or two shots at 130-140dB does not worry me- one shot at 150 plus decibels greatly does.

But, if someone is going to put ear pro in before shooting anyway, and that gets them to hearing safe or fairly close, not wanting to lug a can around is a fair point of view.

Sure. Hence why I am asking for clarification. Plugs only are not bringing a braked rifle to hearing safe. Plugs or muffs only, with an unbraked rifle are right at the limit. Plugs and muffs when worn exactly correct can. A suppressor for a couple shots is good, or a suppressor with any type of ear pro worn is good for hundreds of shots a day.

 

[Lawnboi]

Reading some of these reply is I wonder if I’m the only guy who runs into quick shooting out west?

Granted I really enjoy spotting, stalking and having a perfect opportunity with all the time in the world. But it rarely happens that way.

 

[5811]

There are tons are papers and information about ear pro. Foam ear plugs only reach their stated NRR when used exactly as they are supposed to. People think that from ear plugs are so simple, yet in seeing hundred of people use them, I could probably count on one hand how many did so. Those foam ear plugs rolling in your pocket and put in quickly are most likely offering about 15 NRR at best. If you can hear someone talking with them inserted, you’re not doing much. The shooting world is full of people with permanent hearing loss from shooting even while wearing ear pro religiously.
I shoot braked guns a lot- tens of thousands of rounds a year. 100% with brand new foam plugs inserted correctly, and very good muffs over. As well, bone conduction is real, and my rifles also have foam or leather cheek pieces to help with that. I also almost always set up something between the muzzle and myself to block it redirect the blast and sound while shooting on a range. I must get a full hearing test done annually and my hearing has not changed in 20 years. People that I am around that only use plugs or muffs- not both, all have measured hearing damage every year.

As for cans, it depends. Unlike ear pro, the can is always working. There is zero doubt that a real suppressor and any type of ear pro- muffs or plugs drops it to true hearing sage levels. On the range I do not shoot without at least plugs. Hunting, no. It’s not needed. One to two shots a day in the open with a real suppressor is not causing hearing damage. Having said that, whenever I have time, I still out in plugs half way while hunting.




Addressed above. Every person I know that shoots braked rifles with just plugs or muffs, has measured loss of hearing year after year. Those who only shoot suppressed and who only shoot around those with suppressors, have no hearing loss each year.






That’s correct. One or two shots at 130-140dB does not worry me- one shot at 150 plus decibels greatly does.





Sure. Hence why I am asking for clarification. Plugs only are not bringing a braked rifle to hearing safe. Plugs or muffs only, with an unbraked rifle are right at the limit. Plugs and muffs when worn exactly correct can. A suppressor for a couple shots is good, or a suppressor with any type of ear pro worn is good for hundreds of shots a day.

If you believe 33 nrr foam plugs are only good to 15, everything you say makes perfect sense. As someone who's damn good at using them, I'd say it's a tad presumptuous to state unequivocally that 33nrr foam plugs only count to 15.

I get where you are coming from, but I don't think I'd agree to your degree of certainty that you can't get a braked 308 at 165db under 140 with foam plugs.