What's the deal with everyone using suppresors?

[butcherboy]

I’ve never noticed concussion from a muzzle break. Also, what are ear pro’s that everyone is talking about? I wear muffs and so do my kids. If someone is worried about a kid getting a concussion from a muzzle break then they dang sure better not let them play little league or high school football.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I’ve never noticed concussion from a muzzle break. Also, what are ear pro’s that everyone is talking about? I wear muffs and so do my kids.

I'll link a sound test below that metered some brakes and how loud they are at the shooters' head position. If your earmuffs are reducing the sound by 25-30 decibels and you're not wearing plugs underneath them I don't think you're safe even on a sound level after more than a few shots. Forget concussion altogether, even the sound isn't okay.

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

 

[butcherboy]

Yep, we wear plugs underneath as well. Breaks are definitely loud but I’m still not spending an extra $600-$1000 or more for a suppressor. That money could go toward other tags or having to buy a unit wide cow tag if my kids don’t draw. When we shoot it’s maybe 6 shots at most and quite a bit of time in between shots. We don’t go shooting all the time either. Might be a different story if we did but we don’t. Don’t shoot at a range either. We drive about 10 minutes from our house and have all the BLM land to shoot on for miles. I never stand next to someone shooting either, always behind them.

 

[Ozarkansas]

I think some people underestimate the immediacy and permanence of hearing loss from shooting. If you have ever fired a gun without ear protection (I’ve done it twice) your hearing never fully got back to what it was before the shot, even once the ringing stopped. It doesn’t matter if you wear ear pro to the range, if you’re taking ANY shots without it while hunting, you’re permanently damaging your ears.
Plenty of suppressors are capable of making a rifle hearing safe from an 18” barrel. So for me I’ll happily lop 4” off my barrel and carry around a 2” longer, slightly heavier rifle to get the benefits I get from hunting with a suppressor. The reduced recoil and muzzle blast are also perks, but they barely factor into my decision.

 

[roadrunner]

You’re right, but shooting a rifle with big recoil/big noise/big concussion makes the shooter more apt to flinch. That’s all I’m saying. And I think that’s all anyone is saying. Neither a brake or suppressor truly make the rifle shoot better, mechanically. It makes the shooter more comfortable with shooting said rifle and more apt to “slow, steady squeeze” without flinching and anticipating.

I agree, it's the experience or anticipation of the recoil and loud noise that causes someone to flinch as they "squeeze" the trigger, not the after effect.

If the noise is reduced adequately, reduced recoil is what makes the person more comfortable, whether that noise is suppressed or muffled.

 

[roadrunner]

The point of a flinch in shooting is that people flinch in anticipation of something before it happens.

Yeah. That's kind of what I said, thanks for reinforcing it.

Anyone who's not trying to be unnecessarily pedantic for internet points would acknowledge that's implied when I say flinch.

Who's pining for internet points with this kind of a response?

Your post did not imply that. It clearly reads that flinching is a result of the recoil and blast, not the anticipation of it. See below:

A lot of people flinch from concussive blasts even if the recoil is reduced.

There are a lot of times where even double earpro does not fully protect you when shooting braked rifles.

And this simply is not true...

 

[Gravel Road]

I have a bunch of guns that are going to be sold soon because they aren't suppressor capable. I won't buy a rifle if you can't fit a suppressor on it and one of the first things I check when looking at a new rifle is the end of the muzzle to see if it's threaded.
Besides, shooting a .22lr pistol suppressed is stupid fun

 

[Marshfly]

I’ve never noticed concussion from a muzzle break. Also, what are ear pro’s that everyone is talking about? I wear muffs and so do my kids. If someone is worried about a kid getting a concussion from a muzzle break then they dang sure better not let them play little league or high school football.

Ear protection does zero to reduce concussive effects. Zero. It's the actual pressure wave that is rattling your brain. Just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it isn't happening. It's happening to your kids if they are shooting with muzzle brakes. No doubt about it.

And the damage is additive just was it is with hearing damage. Each time adds to the effect. Every single time. Kids shooting with brakes is absolutely ludicrous with what we KNOW to be true today.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Trying to remember but when I ran a sniper section back in the day there were limits of number of .50 cal rounds shot during training. Same with recoiless rifles. They will rattle your melon.

 

[Jason Snyder]

It’s called concussive hearing damage and it has absolutely nothing in common with sports. You can double pro and it still happens.

Concussive force: the silent variable in hearing loss

Concussion--the silent variable in hearing damageby Sean BellThe U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine lists hearing loss from gunfire as the most common...

www.officer.com

I’ve ran ranges with and without suppressed rifles and the difference is huge. Use a suppressor or don’t, but don’t make stuff up to support your bias.

 

[Sled]

Trying to remember but when I ran a sniper section back in the day there were limits of number of .50 cal rounds shot during training. Same with recoiless rifles. They will rattle your melon.

That's true. Not too long ago we were required take cover behind a 10" concrete wall and fire recoilless rifles remotely. It just so happened the wall was below the muzzle for most of the shots (avalanche control work). I sure would have appreciated a suppressor for that one. Although I guess I'd rather be there than behind it or backed up to a wall in an alley. Those Nissan's with a 75 RR mounted sure look like fun.

 

[butcherboy]

Yes, I know it has nothing to do with sports. I worded it wrong. My point was that if you are worried about the concussive hearing damage then don’t let kids play football or other contact sports. Those types of concussion injuries can be extremely harmful yet no one blinks an eye about it. I will continue to shoot with breaks as will
my kids with the proper hearing protection. Or, they can shoot smaller calibers with no breaks just fine as well. Right now my son is shooting a 25-06 without a break. I see no need to put one on with this caliber.

 

[Robobiss]

Trying to remember but when I ran a sniper section back in the day there were limits of number of .50 cal rounds shot during training. Same with recoiless rifles. They will rattle your melon.

Likely because the .50’s are braked, right?

Was never a sniper but spent a lot of time behind an M2. Never heard about any certain number of rounds but it makes sense because it’s a gun (M2) with a naked muzzle.

I could see a brake on a .50 over and over would wreck your shit. My dad has one and it’s fun to shoot, but it isn’t fun to shoot at the same time.

 

[hereinaz]

You do you, but suppressed rifles carry massive benefits. You might not find them important to you.

You might think that the disadvantages of size and weight are too much. That’s fine, but that’s you.

General consensus is that once a person experiences shooting suppressed, they see the benefits.

And, once a person buys one, they nearly universally ask themselves why they didn’t do it sooner.

Personally I have dozens of instances, not statistically valid, but enough to convince me, that the vast of the big magnum shooters with big brakes shoot with a flinch AND they shoot better with my suppressor on my rifle or sometimes on their rifle.

And, I can shoot better with their rifle at least 50% of the time too. I flinch with a big rifle, just less than them.

Those in this thread are probably the exception, I don’t doubt their ability or experience. I bet they hunt more than me and shoot better than me. But, the average bloke out there shooting a braked magnum flinches and is slowly losing their hearing.

Anyone reading this thread should think twice before believing that using a suppressor is even anything near a close call vs a bare muzzle or brake.

It’s a choice, but the drawbacks are overblown and overstated.

My rifle with a titanium suppressor balances just as well as any other rifle.

My rifle weighs less than lots of other brakes rifles getting carried in the field. Cutting 4 inches of barrel and replacing the brake with a suppressor means my rifle is the same length.

A shorter barrel doesn’t limit my effectiveness out to 900 yards.

It is far easier to ruin the crown of a bare muzzle (and your hunt) than screw up the threads on a suppressor and ruin your hunt. That’s a red herring, just dab a bit of blue loctite and install the suppressor correctly.

Flinch is a reflex, and you may control most of it, but I don’t believe your brain can shut off the automatic reflex when a small explosion goes off and it gets hit with a concussive blast.

Reducing flinch (and sometimes eliminating it) is easiest with a suppressor. Flinch is the easiest way to immediately improve shooting ability.

Hearing damage is very real from brakes. One shot and one miss, and your fine hearing for hunting is severely diminished for that hunt.

I can hear the impact of the bullet and get additional feedback impossible with the reverberations and echo of a magnum.

Concussive wave damage is real from brakes.

Animals are affected by all sorts of things. Big will always affect more than small. I am convinced that suppressors create less alarm. Yes, they may not always jump after a braked shot. But, they will jump less often with smaller noises. Coyote hunters, doing hundreds of stands and killing doubles and triples believe a suppressor helps them, maybe it is confirmation bias, sure.

The government already has you on a list. And, your neighbors will inform on you first if we go full commie.

Almost every shooter/hunter has a safe full of scopes rifles, and selling just one will pay for a suppressor.

 

[Burnsie]

Folks on this forum are obviously more into shooting rifles than your average person. I love to hunt, but I'm not big into shooting in general. Not all geeked out about ballistics, load development, long range shooting...etc. I pull my rifle out of the safe a few weeks before hunting season, go to the range and make sure its still dead on - wearing hearing protection. If I'm fortunate enough to get a shot at game, I rarely even remember the shot, the recoil, or the sound. I understand just because I'm not bothered by the shot, it doesn't mean there isn't some hearing damage going on, but other than sighting in (with hearing protection) I'm going to be exposed to 1 maybe 2 shots in a year, sometimes none if I don't punch my tag. At 61 years old I have what I think is pretty darn good hearing, I can live with my process. Plus I have my trusted rifles that I've used for a long time and they aren't made for suppressors. I'm not buying a new fleet of expensive rifles and high dollar suppressors to go on them for a couple shots per year.
Admittedly, I'm not shooting large caliber magnum rifles with breaks, we're taking .270, .280, 30-06, .308.
Shots are inside 200 yds.

 

[Marbles]

Reduced blast, reduced recoil, reduced noise. Noise reduction meaning I don't damage hearing if I/my daughters don't put ear protection on/in prior to shooting in the field is my main reason for getting one.

Edit: Putting ear plugs in properly in freezing weather is a pain and I don't want to walk through the woods with them in.

 

[49ereric]

Reduced blast, reduced recoil, reduced noise. Noise reduction meaning I don't damage hearing if I/my daughters don't put ear protection on/in prior to shooting in the field is my main reason for getting one.

Edit: Putting ear plugs in properly in freezing weather is a pain and I don't want to walk through the woods with them in.

Put the plugs in your hand for minute and they are soft enough to push in.
been doing it for years before I start the chainsaw.

 

[Lwilliams]

People with a bias will always be able to convince themselves that suppressors are pointless. I have never met anyone with suppressor who feels they are pointless.

The benefits are quite obvious whether at the bench where they are reducing recoil, muzzle blast and decibels or in the field where they do the above as well as quite often allow for follow up shots without the game being spooked.

 

[hereinaz]

Folks on this forum are obviously more into shooting rifles than your average person. I love to hunt, but I'm not big into shooting in general. Not all geeked out about ballistics, load development, long range shooting...etc. I pull my rifle out of the safe a few weeks before hunting season, go to the range and make sure its still dead on - wearing hearing protection. If I'm fortunate enough to get a shot at game, I rarely even remember the shot, the recoil, or the sound. I understand just because I'm not bothered by the shot, it doesn't mean there isn't some hearing damage going on, but other than sighting in (with hearing protection) I'm going to be exposed to 1 maybe 2 shots in a year, sometimes none if I don't punch my tag. At 61 years old I have what I think is pretty darn good hearing, I can live with my process. Plus I have my trusted rifles that I've used for a long time and they aren't made for suppressors. I'm not buying a new fleet of expensive rifles and high dollar suppressors to go on them for a couple shots per year.
Admittedly, I'm not shooting large caliber magnum rifles with breaks, we're taking .270, .280, 30-06, .308.
Shots are inside 200 yds.

Context does matter. I would never try to convince you to get a suppressor, there isn’t a huge use for you or benefit.

If you were one of my friends, I would offer to let you use my suppressed rifle for those one or two shots, because there is no sense doing even minimal damage to your hearing. Anytime friends have a tag for their kids, I always offer up a suppressed rifle as well. Most people want to use their own gear, but I have lost sentimentality for my equipment. It’s just another tool, as long as I get it back it’s not much different than a wrench.

Context does matter, I shoot more rounds in the first two minutes of any single range trip then you shoot in a year, ha, ha, ha, ha. Hopefully, on my hunt I’m not shooting more than one or two.

 

[Amos Keeto]

Reduced blast, reduced recoil, reduced noise. Noise reduction meaning I don't damage hearing if I/my daughters don't put ear protection on/in prior to shooting in the field is my main reason for getting one.

Edit: Putting ear plugs in properly in freezing weather is a pain and I don't want to walk through the woods with them in.

This makes so much sense, it isn't even funny. I honestly wouldn't mind having a suppressor. Hunted once with a guy who was already deaf in one ear and wore a "hearing aid" in the other.
Frank carried ear muffs every step he made hunting. "IF" he ever saw a deer, he put his rifle down, dug out his ear muffs, put them in place.....THEN.....picked up his rifle to locate the deer!
I can't recall that Frank EVER killed a deer.


QUESTION:
It hasn't been THAT long ago, somebody or some organization was trying to get legislation passed to remove all the rules and regs against suppressors. That is, you would be able to walk into a store and purchase a suppressor.
Has there been any movement towards legalizing suppressors for OTC purchase?