What's the deal with everyone using suppresors?

[hereinaz]

I guess it depends what you consider ROI. If I can get a little kid to comfortably shoot a .243 with a suppressor because it stuffs a lot of the recoil and noise, that’s a win for me. If I can get my in kid in the woods hunting two or three years sooner by using a suppressor, that’s a hell of a ROI for me. That makes it worth it right there. Not to mention I can take it off of Jr’s model 7 and slap it on any of my rifles to use as well. Very modular and multi-use.


Yeah I was referencing the hearing safety aspect. I agree, safety is a behavior. I’m not talking about being less likely to ND. Just that you’re more likely to preserve your hearing. Every. Single. Shit that you take without ear pro is slowly chipping away at your hearing. Every one of them. I am no longer concerned about this in a hunting situation.

Shooting better however is almost without question. It’s well documented that recoil affects accuracy. Give (almost) anyone a .223 and a 300 WM of similar configuration and weight and it’s of little question which rifle the shooter will be more accurate with. You can train the crap out of your brain all you want and tell it not to be afraid. No matter what you are more flinchy with the heavier recoiling gun. The relationship between recoil and accuracy is pretty well documented.

A muzzle brake accomplishes this recoil mitigation as well, no doubt, but at the detriment of hearing safety. Muzzle brakes are hard to make hearing safe even with double ear pro. They are effing loud. Not to mention, the concussive sound effects shooter accuracy and comfortability with the weapon as well. I’d be willing to bet that on average, most shooters will make more/better hits at distance with a suppressor instead of a brake, but I’m no expert so YMMV.

Everyone can do what they want with the money they earn. I just know for a fact that I will never shoot unsuppressed again unless I absolutely have to. It’s exponentially more enjoyable for me.

I would hunt in crocs borrowed from Ryan Avery before I shot with a muzzle brake.

Many of the people claiming cost and poverty could swing it. Someone with multiple rifles in their closet can easily sell one and pick up a basic suppressor.

For those who genuinely scrimp and save, I feel it. I was there. A suppressor is worth it before you buy a second rifle.

Return on investment? Hearing aids aren’t cheap.

Having a daughter born with hearing loss and now a cochlear implant, hearing is priceless.

Honestly, the old crotchety guys I meet with no hearing are the same ones who accuse me of being cool with the suppressor. I am OK with that.

 

[5811]

The $200 dollar tax associated with the NFA was designed to be a significant barrier to entry for controlled items in 1934, but the act was not written to increase in cost with inflation.

There's a couple of ways to look at the "big brother" angle.

If you only buy guns by private sale (where legal) and only buy ammo with cash, and never post on the internet about your firearms, I understand not wanting to be on a list. Especially if you've never been fingerprinted or had any sort of clearance/government interaction, I definitely understand the apprehension to being "on a list."

But as someone who was prior service and has purchased firearms over the counter, I'm already on whatever list/database we think might exist. So that argument doesn't apply for me.

The application/cost/process can be seen as government controlled overreach and overly burdensome. However, I'm sure the government would love to see form 4 applications go to 0. So for every person that applies and is approved, especially when the government is likely losing money on the deal, could be thought of as a win for the people.

Similarly, every person that chooses not to apply could be seen as a win by the government. They used the paperwork and price to intimidate people into not even applying.

I also understand not wanting to give the government 200 bucks for a background check, but I've already paid for background checks on firearms. Sure, it's a different level of money and check, but it would feel hypocritical to stand on principles with that in mind.

Just a different perspective. I understand both sides.

 

[hereinaz]

The $200 dollar tax associated with the NFA was designed to be a significant barrier to entry for controlled items in 1934, but the act was not written to increase in cost with inflation.

There's a couple of ways to look at the "big brother" angle.

If you only buy guns by private sale (where legal) and only buy ammo with cash, and never post on the internet about your firearms, I understand not wanting to be on a list. Especially if you've never been fingerprinted or had any sort of clearance/government interaction, I definitely understand the apprehension to being "on a list."

But as someone who was prior service and has purchased firearms over the counter, I'm already on whatever list/database we think might exist. So that argument doesn't apply for me.

The application/cost/process can be seen as government controlled overreach and overly burdensome. However, I'm sure the government would love to see form 4 applications go to 0. So for every person that applies and is approved, especially when the government is likely losing money on the deal, could be thought of as a win for the people.

Similarly, every person that chooses not to apply could be seen as a win by the government. They used the paperwork and price to intimidate people into not even applying.

I also understand not wanting to give the government 200 bucks for a background check, but I've already paid for background checks on firearms. Sure, it's a different level of money and check, but it would feel hypocritical to stand on principles with that in mind.

Just a different perspective. I understand both sides.

The government has lists, and you’re on more than one of them.

They have a special list of people who don’t buy a suppressor because they don’t want to be on a list.

If you don’t admit to having a suppressor on Rokslide, then you go on the list.

 

[ianpadron]

What’s the deal with people shooting without suppressors?

That is the real question…

Weight for me. I have a can and it doesn't go on most hunts.

Looking forward to material sciences advances and some future Uber light cans

 

[dan2173]

No clue, but now I want one too.

 

[InteriorAKPopsicle]

I think it depends on the situation. I don't have any yet but am considering it.
I know that I wear hearing protection at the range but have never seen anyone use hearing protection in the field. A Lot of folks mean too, I have started carrying some to try to throw in when I get ready to shoot, but it isn't one of the items in my mental checklist.
So one reason is for you to be able to hear up until and following the shot without ear pro.
My recent Sheep Hunt I was laying in the rocks and all the sound reverberated back into my ears. I couldn't hear for a couple days, then had a ringing for a couple more days after. With a suppressor it wouldn't have bothered me hardly at all.
Another would be for follow up shots - sometimes it seems the sound is more of what scares/alerts the animals than the bullet(s). So having that quieter gives you additional chances for success.

Interestingly enough I have a gentleman from the UK who has moved to Alaska. He finds it baffling that we don't all use suppressors. Not to say we want to be like the UK but they all have suppressors and when you buy a gun they basically attach on for you! They are over the counter so you aren't disrupting your neighbors, etc when you shoot. I'm surprised that we make it so difficult.

 

[Robobiss]

I would hunt in crocs borrowed from Ryan Avery before I shot with a muzzle brake.

Many of the people claiming cost and poverty could swing it. Someone with multiple rifles in their closet can easily sell one and pick up a basic suppressor.

For those who genuinely scrimp and save, I feel it. I was there. A suppressor is worth it before you buy a second rifle.

Return on investment? Hearing aids aren’t cheap.

Having a daughter born with hearing loss and now a cochlear implant, hearing is priceless.

Honestly, the old crotchety guys I meet with no hearing are the same ones who accuse me of being cool with the suppressor. I am OK with that.

I’m with you here. For me, assuming I have a gun I can hunt with (barely gun hunt anyways, more of a bowhunter) a suppressor is a much worthier purchase than ANOTHER rifle I can hunt with. To me it isn’t even a question. You’re right, hearing is priceless. Shooting once or twice with no ear pro a year while hunting with no suppressor likely makes a huge difference in your hearing at 70 or 80 years old.

For me the can is always worth it.

 

[cmahoney]

I love shooting with silencers. I also enjoy driving with mufflers on my vehicles. I guess I don’t need either though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Robobiss]

The $200 dollar tax associated with the NFA was designed to be a significant barrier to entry for controlled items in 1934, but the act was not written to increase in cost with inflation.

There's a couple of ways to look at the "big brother" angle.

If you only buy guns by private sale (where legal) and only buy ammo with cash, and never post on the internet about your firearms, I understand not wanting to be on a list. Especially if you've never been fingerprinted or had any sort of clearance/government interaction, I definitely understand the apprehension to being "on a list."

But as someone who was prior service and has purchased firearms over the counter, I'm already on whatever list/database we think might exist. So that argument doesn't apply for me.

The application/cost/process can be seen as government controlled overreach and overly burdensome. However, I'm sure the government would love to see form 4 applications go to 0. So for every person that applies and is approved, especially when the government is likely losing money on the deal, could be thought of as a win for the people.

Similarly, every person that chooses not to apply could be seen as a win by the government. They used the paperwork and price to intimidate people into not even applying.

I also understand not wanting to give the government 200 bucks for a background check, but I've already paid for background checks on firearms. Sure, it's a different level of money and check, but it would feel hypocritical to stand on principles with that in mind.

Just a different perspective. I understand both sides.

I agree with you here. The government has had my fingerprints for a hell of a long time.

I’m not concerned about them getting them again. Nor a background check that is no more stringent than any other firearm purchase.

 

[Amos Keeto]

As for the aesthetics, it's no biggie to me.
Watched a B movie years ago. The military guys carried full size AR15 (or M16 if you wish) rifles with the carry handle, scopes and suppressors! Horrible looking set up!

Personal preference:
I have no desire to shoot a rifle with a barrel of less than 16".
Suppressors are terribly unwieldy on a barrel of 16" or more.
You've just about got to go with a 12" barrel or less.
....and I don't want an AR "pistol"!

1) permit required to build a SBR.
Available by Gov't application
2) permit required to "obtain" suppressor
Available by Gov't application
3) Gov't registration of stripped AR lower

I have a terminal case of OFS! That's WAY more gummint involvement than I care to get into.
At 73, I MAY NOT live long enough to wait 11 months for a suppressor "permit"!

Things may have changed since I last checked into a suppressor.
Last time, you applied for a "permit". $200
Wait almost a year.
Purchase your suppressor. There's another $250/$300.
If, for whatever reason, you decide you don't want or want to "sell" your suppressor, you've GOT to go back to the same dealer where you bought it.

Also, as I understand it, if you "lend" a suppressed firearm to family or friend, and they get caught with it, it's "Katy, bar the door!"
Think a child, nephew, uncle, etc, etc grabs your suppressed firearm in an emergency situation, they could be in real trouble.

As I understand it, there are some organizations who are pro-suppressor and are advocating for suppressors to be legal and permit less.

Oh, well! Maybe I'll be around that long! LOL!

 

[JohnJohnson]

I never understood the logic of not buying a suppressor as a way to stick it to the government. The wait time and $200 tax stamp is there for the purpose of making people not want to buy one. The government wins when you elect to not buy one for those reasons.

 

[WCB]

We should be buying cans on a 4473, not the current cluster mess.

Should be buying cans like I buy ammo in most states or realistically a candy bar. Grab off shelf and money done. I don't fill out a 4473 for a scope including Night Vision/Thermal, sling, ammo, stock, barrel, trigger assembly, muzzle break, etc.

 

[StuckoYota99]

I shoot suppressed rifles because it's fun.

 

[txjustin]

Noise and recoil reduction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

What these threads generally sum up to



Seriously, there are benefits to both sides and deciding what is best for you and your situation is the best thing you can do. Life is much better when you stop caring how other people spend their money.

 

[butcherboy]

Like I said earlier. It would be nice to have a suppressor but in all honestly I can’t afford one. I have to save just afford to put myself and kids in for hunts. If they draw, I purchase them some decent gear so they don’t get cold or wet. With 3 kids, POOF! There goes all the money plus all the other extra curricular activities they do. I don’t shoot a lot. In fact, I only shoot when myself or one of my kids has a hunt. Could be a few times a year or a few times every few years. If and when I take them shooting for fun we use 22’s and air rifles. I’ll let them shoot a high powered rifle once or twice in between so they are still proficient with it.

If the govt ever changes things and allows us to buy a suppressor on a much easier scale then I’ll probably do it once. Until then, it’s muzzle breaks and ear protection.

 

[roadrunner]

I think he meant the safety of your hearing. As for shooting better, I have noticed people (in general) shoot better suppressed due to the lack of concussion. Everyone on the internet is a man's man who would never flinch from recoil or concussion but people in real life somehow still do.

Hearing protection can then be phrased as being more safe if that is what was meant, so...

As for concussion (recoil maybe?), a muzzlebrake will out perform a suppressor, not by much though.

Hearing protection and a muzzlebrake together will put a suppressor as being nonoptimal.

The real benefit is combining the two for lessened noise and lessened recoil, but not a substitute for the other. It's really a convenience thing, not more advantage.

My take is that it's a preference. All of our preferences are held in bias supported with whatever anecdotal evidence we possess...

 

[Vaultman]

...

 

[Robobiss]

...

Hahahahah. Trust me, I saw that. I think I am too new to be allowed to edit.

 

[Vaultman]

.....

Yeah I was referencing the hearing safety aspect. I agree, safety is a behavior. I’m not talking about being less likely to ND. Just that you’re more likely to preserve your hearing. Every. Single. Shit that you take without ear pro is slowly chipping away at your hearing. Every one of them. I am no longer concerned about this in a hunting situation.

....

Am I the only one that found this funny?