Why use a Suppressor?

[jjjones7]

Echo what others have already said. Magnums with a brake are unbearable to me. One other big advantage is if you have a buddy with you he can focus on ranging/spotting the shot other than messing with plugs or muffs or trying to plug ears with fingers while trying to spot. To those who’ve never cut a barrel down don’t hesitate. I run a sako 85 300WSM with a 21” barrel and an omega 300 with an end cap (which should come standard instead of that atrocity they put on them) overall length is shorter than a 26” barreled long action without a break and I’m running 200 grainers at 2850. What’s not to love about that?

 

[Forest]

There are plenty of threads out there about short barreled magnums, long story short there are plenty of us doing it with success.
Will your 28nos lose some speed if shortened to 20"?? You bet. Will the elk care?? Not a bit
Often the losses are less than people think they will be especially if you play with different powders and such, and in the end the "effective" range difference is hardly a factor imo. Also some cartridges are just naturally less affected than others and to me is part of the decision making for new guns. Along with factory threading, or barrels heavy enough to do so.

 

[hereinaz]

I run a 26” 7 mag, and a suppressor. It’s long for sure. But, most of the glass and stalk hunting in the west I do it’s not a problem. I have learned how to sling it and pack it without a big deal. Threading the suppressor on and off is no biggie to me. I use direct thread on my hunting rifles and I use my calibrated elbow to torque it on. It is good to take it off regularly so it doesn’t get carbon locked on. I had that happen.

I have a 20” 6mm rifle and a 22” .25 magnum if I want shorter and need one to point and shoot in brush or something.

With a 28 nosler, from 26” to “22 inch you might lose about 25 fps for each inch you cut off. 100 to 125 fps isn’t going to make much of a difference except at the extreme.

In the end, the benefit of a suppressor outweighs all the concerns you make. Again, people that get a suppressor cut barrels once they give up the idea that they need all the velocity or whatever they thought. Or, they live with a long rifle.

Seriously, go try to find a thread where people who bought a suppressor regretted it.

Suppressors are for the civilized. Brakes are used by Neanderthals. LOL

 

[archp625]

Because they bring all the girls to the yard. I bought one on August 4th and have received it yet. I was questioning just like you. I have never shot suppressed or have been around one. I just had a rifle built around the suppressor and glad I did. I was shooting said rifle last weekend and a guy was there with a 5.56 can on his AR. While AR's don't recoil much as all the hearing portion was awesome. Cant wait to see what mine is like on a 300 WSM.

 

[iseebucks]

It isn’t the sound, it is the concussive blast jarring your brain around in your skull, literally tiny concussions.

A suppressor eliminates the concussion.

Buy one.

Can you explain how that happens? How can the concussive blast penetrate through the face and skull and into the brain? Or are you saying it moves your head back and forth rapidly?

 

[wind gypsy]

OP, I agree about the shortcomings of suppressors. I haven't used mine much in hunting but that is largely because none of my hunting rifles have barrels shorter than 22". A 7" suppressor on a 22" barrel is inconvenient to me. Not a deal breaker but it's notable.

 

[hereinaz]

How can it be any other way. There are powerful acoustic waves, pressure waves that come out of a brake. The air that moves isn’t the measure of the wave. Once the waves hit your skull, they don’t just bounce off, they vibrate the skull, some pass through it. Our skulls are not designed or evolved to deal with blasts from acoustic waves. it is why you can wear hearing protection but still get a headache. Some people feel it more than others, but it is real. Shoot a hundred rounds in one day with a brake and I feel it. With a suppressor, nothing.

Can Shooting Cause Brain Damage? The Science, the Bad News, and the Solution

Beyond hearing damage, are shooters and hunters susceptible to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)? We share the bad news, the science and the solution.

shwat.com

 

[Bighorner]

I have a suppressor for the people I hunt with, which hopefully I'm a couple more years will be my daughter followed closely by my son.

 

[fwafwow]

How can it be any other way. There are powerful acoustic waves, pressure waves that come out of a brake. The air that moves isn’t the measure of the wave. Once the waves hit your skull, they don’t just bounce off, they vibrate the skull, some pass through it. Our skulls are not designed or evolved to deal with blasts from acoustic waves. it is why you can wear hearing protection but still get a headache. Some people feel it more than others, but it is real. Shoot a hundred rounds in one day with a brake and I feel it. With a suppressor, nothing.

Can Shooting Cause Brain Damage? The Science, the Bad News, and the Solution

Beyond hearing damage, are shooters and hunters susceptible to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)? We share the bad news, the science and the solution.

shwat.com

Thanks for posting this. I suffered a TBI in 2020 (not from firearms) and I am very focused on limiting my risk of further damage. A few steps are easy - especially (at least for me) avoiding shooting at indoor ranges, and not shooting around anyone using a brake - indoors or outside.

I shoot suppressed and *hope* that it not only reduces sound damage, but concussion. I read the article in the link you provided and would very much appreciate any other information that supports the reduction of acoustic wave damage from suppressors, and/or that explains how it works. Again, I'm not doubting that it is helpful - I just welcome more info.

I am not aware of any other passive protection (ear muffs, and as far as I can tell, any commercially available helmet) that prevents the concussive effect from shooting.

 

[HaydenLane]

Can you explain how that happens? How can the concussive blast penetrate through the face and skull and into the brain? Or are you saying it moves your head back and forth rapidly?

A quick google search will yield a handful of articles and even a study or two supporting the idea that ear pro will not protect you from all of the damage brakes can do, especially if you’re not directly behind the muzzle.

Protecting Warfighters from Blast Injury

Developing strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies.

www.cnas.org

Frontiers | Occupational Blast Wave Exposure During Multiday 0.50 Caliber Rifle Course

Research on blast overpressure (BOP) experienced by military personnel in operations like breaching, identifies transient, measurable effects on operator rea...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[TX_Diver]

Thanks for posting this. I suffered a TBI in 2020 (not from firearms) and I am very focused on limiting my risk of further damage. A few steps are easy - especially (at least for me) avoiding shooting at indoor ranges, and not shooting around anyone using a brake - indoors or outside.

I shoot suppressed and *hope* that it not only reduces sound damage, but concussion. I read the article in the link you provided and would very much appreciate any other information that supports the reduction of acoustic wave damage from suppressors, and/or that explains how it works. Again, I'm not doubting that it is helpful - I just welcome more info.

I am not aware of any other passive protection (ear muffs, and as far as I can tell, any commercially available helmet) that prevents the concussive effect from shooting.

Completely unscientific here, but I have a large hickory tree at the house that is a V shape at the base. I put a bag in the V and shot through it a few times yesterday. Just having the muzzle (no brake or can) on the other side of the tree SEEMED to have a noticeable reduction in felt blast/percussion.

I have never shot a can but hope too soon if the e-files continue to come back quickly!

 

[jhm2023]

Quite a few good responses stating the pros of hunting suppressed. For me, the main reason I started hunting suppressed was the fact that I hunt with my wife and daughter a lot and I don't want them to have crap hearing like I do, but I also don't want to pass opportunities at animals to put on hearing protection. For ear pro to reasonably work anyway you have to have muffs that also cover the bone behind the ear and even then most muffs reduce the sounds about the same or less than a suppressor does. I've since learned that hunting suppressed offers better follow up shots in the event of a miss or when more than one hunter is taking shots on more than one animal.

I've carried a 26" inch 28 Nosler with a 7.4" can and it's a beast to carry through brush. It's easy enough to detach the can when traversing brush then put it back on when I get above tree line. I do prefer to keep it attached though and for this reason I won't purchase/build a rifle that has a barrel longer than 22" and even still prefer 20" or less and chambered in more efficient cartridges. I'm currently waiting for a 20" 7 Sherman Max for my mountain hunting rifle and will be building a 18" 338 Sherman Short for brush hunting for moose and brown bears. Where weight is concerned for hunting cans, I went with an 8 stack AB Raptor as it only weighs 8 oz and a Rugged Radiant that's only 9.4 oz in the short config. I'll never hunt without a can again and will find ways to make it less inconvenient for for the added length and weight.

 

[LittleZooski]

Looking to get a DeadAir for my .270!!!

 

[hereinaz]

Completely unscientific here, but I have a large hickory tree at the house that is a V shape at the base. I put a bag in the V and shot through it a few times yesterday. Just having the muzzle (no brake or can) on the other side of the tree SEEMED to have a noticeable reduction in felt blast/percussion.

I have never shot a can but hope too soon if the e-files continue to come back quickly!

I am hoping the e-file happens quickly too! Waiting for my second can. Already took almost a year to get it built (I bought it off a prize table certificate).

 

[mcr-85]

Another benefit to hunting suppressed. When I take my boys hunting we can whisper or talk and hear each other. We do a little bit of coyote hunting and being able to talk to them and have them hear me if I see a coyote coming in gives them a better chance at getting a shot than if they sat there with ear pro on and couldn't hear a thing.

Quite a few good responses stating the pros of hunting suppressed. For me, the main reason I started hunting suppressed was the fact that I hunt with my wife and daughter a lot and I don't want them to have crap hearing like I do, but I also don't want to pass opportunities at animals to put on hearing protection. For ear pro to reasonably work anyway you have to have muffs that also cover the bone behind the ear and even then most muffs reduce the sounds about the same or less than a suppressor does. I've since learned that hunting suppressed offers better follow up shots in the event of a miss or when more than one hunter is taking shots on more than one animal.

 

[hereinaz]

Another benefit to hunting suppressed. When I take my boys hunting we can whisper or talk and hear each other. We do a little bit of coyote hunting and being able to talk to them and have them hear me if I see a coyote coming in gives them a better chance at getting a shot than if they sat there with ear pro on and couldn't hear a thing.

Two more hunting benefits I find significant.

1) Animals don’t seem to react or triangulate where the shot comes from as fast. The sound seems more confusing to them and they don't react like they do with a loud gunshot. That seems to give me more chances at follow up shots.

2) You can clearly hear the bullet impact meat. Last animal killed with my rifle was an elk at 1000 yards, and we could hear the thump clear as day.

The mean thump gets mixed up in echo and the blink/flinch that happens when you hear a loud noise and your higher order processes give way to reflex processes. Or, if you are wearing ear pro, you can't hear it.

 

[LookinforDirt]

The accuracy improvement isn’t because of what suppressors do for the gun, it is what they do for the shooter. When you don’t have the muzzle blast and sound, your brain isn’t reacting with a massive flinch or off switch for a second.

I agree the reduced sound could help some. The argument on them improving accuracy has to do with changing barrel harmonics (random and could be a positive or negative affect). But more so, removing the turbulent gas that flows out of an unsuppressed barrel right at the muzzle where the bullet is most susceptible to it.

 

[clperry]

Numbers 3, 4, and 5 are in jail right now. Find someone who will let your shoot theirs and you’ll know why. Every rifle I have that wasn’t threaded is now at the smith getting cut down to at least 20” and threaded. There is no going back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Justin Crossley]

I have seen no evidence that a suppressor makes a rifle more accurate. In fact, I shoot most accurately with a good side port brake. The recoil pulse with a suppressor is a longer, softer push than a normal barrel but not as reduced as a good muzzle brake IMO.

I still do prefer to hunt suppressed so I don't have to carry hearing protection and remember to wear it. As stated above, the animals don't react as much. You also get fewer "cock watchers" coming to check you out since they can't hear your shot echoing down the canyon.

 

[hereinaz]

I agree the reduced sound could help some. The argument on them improving accuracy has to do with changing barrel harmonics (random and could be a positive or negative affect). But more so, removing the turbulent gas that flows out of an unsuppressed barrel right at the muzzle where the bullet is most susceptible to it.

OP's question has probably been answered, but for future people reading, hopefully this thread sheds light on the conversation. I've put a lot of thought into this as people personally ask me at the range or when talking hunting. I am not a guy who likes to speculate or to tell people what they should like or dislike, or how they should do what they want to do. I like to stick to the facts and let the arguments stand for themselves, so people can weigh them out.

With suppressors, it is repeated so often that people wish they would have bought one sooner, I have tried to understand why that happens and try to reframe the discussion into a way that can convey why people love their suppressors and talk about how it completely changes things.

All the talk and speculation about a suppressor's effect on the rifle is just that, a lot of speculation. In the end, I think the greatest effect it has is on the shooter. A bad shooter makes good guns bad. I have seen it time and time again. I used to shoot 1" groups and my buddy shot .25 groups with my same rifle. I trained and improved. I fit my gun to me and improved. I obtained better gear and improved. I bought a suppressor and improved. The suppressor also makes hunting more pleasurable, except the extra weight and length. But, the weight and length are solved all the time with shorter barrel rifles and ditching a needless piece of gear. In the end, muzzle velocity doesn't matter as much as precision. Bullets that pass through both lungs of any animal will kill it at the appropriate velocity for expansion. I know guys that kill out to the same distances as I do with "lesser" non magnum cartridges.

It comes down to the opinions you hold and are you willing to reconsider them. A person who doesn't want to change their rifle for any reason, won't buy a suppressor if it makes it too long. That's a perfectly rational decision. There is no right or wrong on personal preference or the weight you give different factors. The thing with suppressors is that it is so lopsided, the vast majority of people hunting with a suppressor will never go back.

NOTHING else I have seen has the same effect on a shooter as a suppressor. Most who adopt a suppressor will give up almost everything else about their hunting rifles, but won't give up the suppressor. It becomes the primary condition around which they build their rifles. Nothing is as dramatic in my opinion.

When it comes to "suppressors improve accuracy because of XYZ" I have heard all that and more. The truth is that at best there are hypothesis and guesses. Science hasn't really "proven" the hows and whys yet for some things people believe they observe. Some people make the argument on increased accuracy due to harmonics, etc. And, there is evidence that a suppressor will improve groups. But, the same mechanisms can also be used to argue why a suppressor would make it less accurate for the same reasons of harmonics by putting a heavy weight on the end of the barrel. And much of the same logic applies the other way around. The same gasses are there when the bullet leaves the rifling whether in a suppressor or in a brake or a bare muzzle. I could argue that trapping the gasses in the suppressor causes more turbulence around the bullet than into the open air.

I have talked about this issue and bandied it about with guys that shoot for a living, and they don't see a lot of difference either way. In some occasions, it helps, in others it hurts. It is usually marginal and they can't tell the difference over an extended period of time. It is just like putting a brake on a rifle. It can improve or make worse groups for any number of reasons. As a note, there are now tunable brakes and I have a couple friends who believe they can see a difference in the way the rifle shoots during and after the tuning process.

In the end, it doesn't much matter why suppressors seem to improve groups more than hurt them. But, to me, the most reasonable explanation is that a suppressor makes the greatest change to the weakest link in the shooting system--the shooter. If you think you have trained out flinch, then you are denying biology and the fact that your lizard brain reacts before your human thinking brain can do anything. Reflexes happen at subconscious levels of the brain that neurology is just discovering. Even with a suppressor, the lizard brain is still reacting to the recoil of the rifle moving. You can't do anything about it. You can make it a lot worse and you can make it a little better, but that is about it. A suppressor reduces the negative input into the lizard senses so the shooter isn't affected by it as much.

Now, I know guys, some record holding shooters, who can shoot good braked or suppressed. The thing of those guys isn't that they don't flinch, it is that they are so well tuned to the shooting process that they break the shot in a repeatable way so that they eliminate any possible error due to something conscious that they control. I've had the conversation with a couple, and we've talked about reducing the flinch, but they acknowledge that they can't control a reflex.

So, for the majority of hunters who aren't out there shooting thousands of rounds every year, when you consider whether to get a suppressor or not, just realize that most of the discussion that centers around the pros and cons listed above, don't really capture the "feeling" that shooting suppressed gives you. It changes shooting and hunting in so many ways that you just can't comprehend, because you have never truly experienced the way it completely changes the paradigm for the people that buy their first one.

Consider that in this thread, I think of everyone who has said that they own a suppressor, only @wind gypsy says he may or may not hunt with it. I am sure some people buy a suppressor and hate it, but I can't really remember anyone in any thread of people who say that.