Such a difference

[arizona98tj]

Just don't understand the big deal about owning a suppressor. Other than the novelty what is the attraction?

It isn't a big deal....why do you assume it is? And it sure isn't for the novelty aspect. A good can for a .308 runs in the $1K range....there is a reason for that but that is a different thread. I would personally rather pour those funds into my reloading supplies. When I retire, I'll have a few neighbors near my house. Granted, we are all living on 80 acres or better out in the country, but none the less, the folks across the road will only be at most 200 yds away....as will the person that lives west of me. My neighbor to the east will be 1/4 away.

What do you think the chances will be that all of those folks will enjoy hearing me blasting away with my .308 while working up loads and practicing my longer range shooting? Sitting on the porch, ice tea in hand, enjoying the evening.....and they get to listen to me working on my newest cartridge combination.....tell me they wouldn't enjoy it more if all they heard was at best a small pop, assuming they heard anything at all.

I would rather be the neighbor next door that doesn't make noise while he shoots. I suppose that could be a novelty....perhaps to some it actually is.

[Mdclinks]

I guess I fail to see why protecting your hearing while hunting an animal somehow takes away from the concept of hunting. Does it somehow give you an edge over the animal you are pulling the trigger on?

Wear hearing protection. I don't believe you should be using it on big game or small game. Isn't the technology we have already good enough? Did your father, grandfather, or great grandfather need a suppressor to be successful? I have no problem with owning suppressors. Go ahead and use them on varmints. Shoot coyotes at night with night vision off the back of a atv for all I care. Coyotes are a nuisance and should never be brought here in the first place.

OK....so you can't or won't say how my wanting to protect my hearing somehow changes the actual act of hunting. You seem to think that my using a suppressor will make me a successful hunter? Are you serious? Explain how the technology behind hearing conservation makes me a more successful hunter. Please try to keep your answer on topic....leaving out the comments regarding my long deceased relatives, night vision, or ATVs. OK?

If you think that suppressing the sound of your firearm doesn't give you a distinct advantage, I don't know what else to say besides take up archery.

[arizona98tj]

If you think that suppressing the sound of your firearm doesn't give you a distinct advantage, I don't know what else to say besides take up archery.

I've never had to use more than one shot on a white tail to bring it down. Are you saying the deer hears the report from my rifle before the bullet hits it? (Hint....I am not shooting subsonic ammunition.) I guess if you blaze away at something with a full magazine, your comment makes sense. Fortunately, I do not hunt in that fashion.

So once again....please explain the advantage I am gaining. You have yet to explain it.

So....with that out of the way....yes, I will also most likely being taking up archery as too.

Edit: I think I figured it out. If one poaches, then yes, having a suppressed firearm could be a big advantage. Not a poacher. Is this the advantage you are implying? If so, then I've also heard that a crossbow with night vision is the preferred setup....the crossbow costing much less than a suppressed rifle.

[Mdclinks]

If you think that suppressing the sound of your firearm doesn't give you a distinct advantage, I don't know what else to say besides take up archery.

I've never had to use more than one shot on a white tail to bring it down. Are you saying the deer hears the report from my rifle before the bullet hits it? (Hint....I am not shooting subsonic ammunition.) I guess if you blaze away at something with a full magazine, your comment makes sense. Fortunately, I do not hunt in that fashion.

So once again....please explain the advantage I am gaining. You have yet to explain it.

So....with that out of the way....yes, I will also most likely being taking up archery as too.

Edit: I think I figured it out. If one poaches, then yes, having a suppressed firearm could be a big advantage. Not a poacher. Is this the advantage you are implying? If so, then I've also heard that a crossbow with night vision is the preferred setup....the crossbow costing much less than a suppressed rifle.

So you are saving you have never missed? Wow, very impressive. I can tell you that just this year I missed a shot at a deer. I hunt in some very thick wooded areas. It deflected off a sapling that I didn't know was there. Never got a second shot. The deer emidiately knew where I was. I believe with a suppressor I would have had a chance at a second shot. Or how about you having two/three/four tags and multiple deer come walking out. Better odds of taking multiples? And yes I believe poachers would use them. I don't think a suppressor is sporting at all. I understand trying to save your hearing.

[arizona98tj]

Not meaning to brag but no, I've never missed a shot at a deer. (I've also reloaded since the '70s and I've never had a squib nor an over charged load either.) I've only hunted in deep woods one time, and when I finally saw the deer, it was but 50' from me. We pretty much saw each other at the same time. A suppressor would have been of no advantage there. I typically hunt along the edge of a hay field. Shots are typically 75 to 175 yds. I think the fastest I've ever shot a deer is 10 minutes after I first saw it. Lots of time to take a good aim and ensure the hit.

I'm glad that DNR doesn't ban rifles because poachers use them too.

Now....as to whether I need a suppressor for hunting....I do not. When I really want one is for when I am practicing....more than any time else. I've been on a range where suppressed .308 rifles were being shot, not wearing protection....talking to the gun next to me....it is really a great way to shoot. Beats the heck out of your muff pushing up unnoticed against the stock as you are aiming and the guy next to you pulling the trigger. (Yes, I do double plug but it can still be nasty.)

That being said, two years ago, my sister suffered and unfortunate hearing accident while deer hunting with her husband. I never got all of the nitty gritty details of exactly how it happened, but the end result was a substantial loss of hearing in one ear. Had his rifle been suppressed, she would still have her hearing today. Was he or she at fault....obviously one of them was. But, it was an accident. I can't think of a better reason to allow suppressors on firearms.

[cobb]

I would say that I am close to the senior category in age here and have a few years of hunting experience in Minnesota and a few other states. I have seen fox, coyote, deer and elk all stand or maybe move a couple feet when fired at, they just looked around to try and figure out what just happened. A suppressor is not an advantage, it suppresses sound after the fact. If a person was to think a suppressor was an unfair advantage, I would think it would have to be on a scale well below food plots, baiting, cover scent, attractive scent, cover scents, lighted optics, grunt/doe calls, elevated stands, flat shooting cartridges, real tree camouflage.......

If I remember right it is illegal or against their regulations to hunt without a suppressor because of the noise factor, they want to keep the noise pollution to a minimum.

But, if you seriously think that a suppressor will give a person any true advantage when hunting, I would like to hear your reasoning.

[tazdevil]

Not meaning to brag but no, I've never missed a shot at a deer. (I've also reloaded since the '70s and I've never had a squib nor an over charged load either.) I've only hunted in deep woods one time, and when I finally saw the deer, it was but 50' from me. We pretty much saw each other at the same time. A suppressor would have been of no advantage there. I typically hunt along the edge of a hay field. Shots are typically 75 to 175 yds. I think the fastest I've ever shot a deer is 10 minutes after I first saw it. Lots of time to take a good aim and ensure the hit.

I'm glad that DNR doesn't ban rifles because poachers use them too.

Now....as to whether I need a suppressor for hunting....I do not. When I really want one is for when I am practicing....more than any time else. I've been on a range where suppressed .308 rifles were being shot, not wearing protection....talking to the gun next to me....it is really a great way to shoot. Beats the heck out of your muff pushing up unnoticed against the stock as you are aiming and the guy next to you pulling the trigger. (Yes, I do double plug but it can still be nasty.)

That being said, two years ago, my sister suffered and unfortunate hearing accident while deer hunting with her husband. I never got all of the nitty gritty details of exactly how it happened, but the end result was a substantial loss of hearing in one ear. Had his rifle been suppressed, she would still have her hearing today. Was he or she at fault....obviously one of them was. But, it was an accident. I can't think of a better reason to allow suppressors on firearms.

Enter OSHA. That may be the ticket to getting the suppressor law changed. Many gunsmiths test-fire the guns they're working on, I would think any additional protection to their hearing provided by said suppressor would be encouraged. Then again, I do see a potential problem, as would OSHA suddenly require all of us to suppress all our guns? Maybe not a good idea...

[JJ]

You want to move to SD so you can own a suppressor? Damn....

One of many reasons I plan on moving to SD. Just happens to be they have a much more receptive culture to firearms, which is important to me. Plus the off-raoding is better, as is the hunting, and p-doggin, ect....

Enter OSHA. That may be the ticket to getting the suppressor law changed. Many gunsmiths test-fire the guns they're working on, I would think any additional protection to their hearing provided by said suppressor would be encouraged. Then again, I do see a potential problem, as would OSHA suddenly require all of us to suppress all our guns? Maybe not a good idea...

That would require every gun to have a threaded barrel. I don't think too many would want their original Colt SAA, or German Luger threaded just so a 'smith could work on it.

[Pezhead]

We're required to wear it at work. I work with several people with savere hearing loss. My hearing actually improved not sure how. My wife thinks I can't hear.
One thing about outdoor ranges is the noise issue. Anything we can do to minimze it would help.
The option should be up to the individual.
Revolvers can't be surpressed.

[Hmac]

Noise reduction is very important. How many of you have actually shot indoors that is not a range? Do you know how disorienting it is to actually be subjected to that noise without hearing protection. I don't know how many of you have hearing protection next to your night stand, but when you need it, you would appreciate it. That is why I laugh at people claiming they only need large caliber gun for their "home defense". It is deafening when you have to clear a house like course with hearing protection next to someone with a 1911 even with hearing protection on.

After your first shot, it will be disorienting for you and reduction in noise can be of great asset in many situations. Also, during training courses, it helps you to communicate with your partner/teammates and while electronic hearing protection is nice, having a can attached works much better.

I doubt that this is true. The concept of auditory exclusion will likely mitigate or eliminate any disorientation for the shooter from indoor gunfire.

If suppressors were legal, I'd probably get one for the novelty if nothing else, but I don't hunt with an AR or handgun and I wouldn't spend the money on one for the highly unlikely possibility that I would ever need an assault rifle to defend my home.

[LarryFlew]

Looks like a pro gun vs anti gun argument with the same kinds of information of why or why not!

[solidgun]

Noise reduction is very important. How many of you have actually shot indoors that is not a range? Do you know how disorienting it is to actually be subjected to that noise without hearing protection. I don't know how many of you have hearing protection next to your night stand, but when you need it, you would appreciate it. That is why I laugh at people claiming they only need large caliber gun for their "home defense". It is deafening when you have to clear a house like course with hearing protection next to someone with a 1911 even with hearing protection on.

After your first shot, it will be disorienting for you and reduction in noise can be of great asset in many situations. Also, during training courses, it helps you to communicate with your partner/teammates and while electronic hearing protection is nice, having a can attached works much better.

I doubt that this is true. The concept of auditory exclusion will likely mitigate or eliminate any disorientation for the shooter from indoor gunfire.

If suppressors were legal, I'd probably get one for the novelty if nothing else, but I don't hunt with an AR or handgun and I wouldn't spend the money on one for the highly unlikely possibility that I would ever need an assault rifle to defend my home.

Happened to me and 9 others wearing basic ear plugs that only offered 22NRR. The house setting was made of basic plywood, but the layout was the same. I don't recommend anyone try it out without better hearing protection or without one, but this is based on experience. Auditory exclusion can mitigate some noise with chemical changes in your body from fight-or-flight response, but repeated noise doesn't really change. Consider being hit. It may numb your senses after a while, but that doesn't stop it from further damage from occurring and recovery process.

[Hmac]

Happened to me and 9 others wearing basic ear plugs that only offered 22NRR. The house setting was made of basic plywood, but the layout was the same. I don't recommend anyone try it out without better hearing protection or without one, but this is based on experience. Auditory exclusion can mitigate some noise with chemical changes in your body from fight-or-flight response, but repeated noise doesn't really change. Consider being hit. It may numb your senses after a while, but that doesn't stop it from further damage from occurring and recovery process.

If we're talking about fatigue from the noise of repeated gunfire in a protracted gunfight inside our homes, then yes, I can agree that a suppressor would help to mitigate that. I perceive that as being different from disorientation, however, and I am skeptical of the basic premise of a protracted firefight in defense of our homes.

[crbutler]

As to advantages in hunting, they are there.

Its not an advantage to the first guy to shoot an animal in an area- generally, that one is unaware. However, in most areas around MN you are very unlikely to be the very first fellow hunting that spot for the year (by spot I mean within hearing distance). Out west, this is less of an issue,but still happens.

At my hunting place, the deer are very tame until the start of early goose season. Now, I know they are not getting shot, but the repeated gunfire changes their behavior, and as the seasons progress, they become much more wary to the point of when gun deer season arrives, they are comparatively skittish. Wait until the end of muzzleloader season after all the duck hunters are off the lake for a couple of weeks, and they go back to being fairly complacent.

After watching a couple of cull hunts where they use suppressed rifles, the animals have no real clue what is going on. They run a few yards from the sound of a bullet strike, and start feeding again. While all the hunters would prefer to shoot at game that is not wary, it would substantially change the success percentages overall if most folks were allowed to hunt with them. That would reduce the number of tags or licenses available for all.

An English hunter I met uses suppressors on all his guns except for the elephant gun he uses in Africa, and said the biggest advantage was unwary game. He said the second advantage was that the local populace didn't really realize you were hunting in the area, but that can backfire, as some folks get upset that you are shooting near them and they don't know it... Kind of like our metro folks who want the deer gone, but don't want hunters there, just the DNR professionals (meaning they would rather the DNR shoots them with silenced weapons than have a bow/crossbow hunt).

On a personal end, the other side is that this English fellow said that if you wanted to hunt in most spots, you HAD to use a suppressed gun. I have too many that are perfectly balanced now to want to throw a can on them in order to hunt or shoot them. I would see that trying to mandate suppressors for a "health" concern would rapidly go down a path I would prefer not to. That's not to say I don't want to have one for recreational uses, but starting a legalization campaign based on "health" concerns can rapidly backfire on us.

[solidgun]

Happened to me and 9 others wearing basic ear plugs that only offered 22NRR. The house setting was made of basic plywood, but the layout was the same. I don't recommend anyone try it out without better hearing protection or without one, but this is based on experience. Auditory exclusion can mitigate some noise with chemical changes in your body from fight-or-flight response, but repeated noise doesn't really change. Consider being hit. It may numb your senses after a while, but that doesn't stop it from further damage from occurring and recovery process.

If we're talking about fatigue from the noise of repeated gunfire in a protracted gunfight inside our homes, then yes, I can agree that a suppressor would help to mitigate that. I perceive that as being different from disorientation, however, and I am skeptical of the basic premise of a protracted firefight in defense of our homes.

It was more of loss of balance and related issues that come from that (navigating over obstacles, fast reacquisition of sights, etc.). Hard to describe it, but running it the first time, I had sinus issues and subsequent times (separate training times), I really had to use ear plugs along with headsets. The pressure felt is pretty heavy. I think the same situation can be replicated if you shoot inside a barrel. Minnetonka IDPA has courses where you shoot between the barrels and I thought it could be used to explain this without building a home like environment.