Hunting Rifle: Anyone Else Have No Desire for a Silencer?

loghome

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
96
Location
Lock Haven pa
Yes many companies make one. I got a Silencerco 300 Omega and it works awesome on everything from 223-300WM. 22LR has to be able to take apart and clean, so I would suggest not using it through a closed can even though you could. Screwed up and should have gotten the 338 Harvester. My dumb butt didnt research enough before I jumped.
Thanks for the info
 

Teri Anne

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
May 24, 2021
Messages
269
Location
Wisconsin
There is so much bad information in this post it was actually painful to read it. I would expect to see something like this on FB, but not on a forum of experienced shooters.
One must be more specific in regards to bad information. Just jabber jawing without any testing or diagnostics does little to reinforce the response as being invalid. Show some data that supports you comments and I will gladly listen. I don't know everything, but I do know a lot and do try to back up my comments with solid data. :cool:
 

CMP70306

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
529
Well here we go again! I see the name of this blog as Long Range Hunting yet see all kinds of responses that belay the true intent of the title of the blog. Yes I will admit that to me 300 yards or less is all that I am comfortable taking a shot at big game at, an honestly much less. Much prefer between 50 and 200 yards but might stretch it to 300 yards if really warranted. I am one that loves to maximize ballistic performance as well as terminal performance on the rifles I use for hunting. Target shooting is entirely a different story. Here I see talk about wanting to shoot large animals out to 800 or 900 yards or more ,but want to have a short rifle 20 inch barrel and a suppressor to shoot as these ranges. OK Folks...I have been in this game for over 50 years and what is proposed here is not ballistic-ally feasible. You don't take a magnum cartridge designed for a 24 inch or longer barrel and shoot it in a 20 inch barrel to begin with is ludicrous. All that powder that exits the barrel burned in the atmosphere outside of the barrel causing a big eruption of muzzle flash is essentially wasted money. A suppressor on a hunting rifle is about as useless as tits on a boar hog. A supersonic bullet will hit the target before the sound of the shot will. Thus the comment in the military that you will never hear the shot that kills you rings true. The supersonic bullet will hit you and kill you before you will hear the sound of the shot from the rifle that it was fired from. Silencers on high power rifles are essentially useless. You may deaden the sound of the rifle going off in the distance but that will be negated by the supersonic bullet hitting the target, whatever that may be before the sound of the shot reaching them. By that time the animal you were shooting at is dead before the sound of the shot reaches them. Wake up people. If you want to chronograph ammo leaving the barrel of a test rifle, same ammo..from two different identical rifles one with a 20 inch barrel with or without your mystical suppressor as opposed to the design 24 inch barrel that the manufacturer's use as their proof rounds for each bullet design, and expect to get better performance than the factory does you are simply delusional. With this I will simply sit back and listen to your diatribe on the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about. Your challenge is to prove me wrong;.

One must be more specific in regards to bad information. Just jabber jawing without any testing or diagnostics does little to reinforce the response as being invalid. Show some data that supports you comments and I will gladly listen. I don't know everything, but I do know a lot and do try to back up my comments with solid data. :cool:

I have the data, l handload my own ammo and shoot it past a LabRadar. Shooting the same ammo in a 26” barrel and dropping to a 20” or a 24” and dropping to an 18” results in a drop of 150 to 200 fps based on the particular bullet, cartridge and barrel combination. I will also preface this by saying that the long barrels are Proof Research and the short barrels are Carbon Six, based on testing my proof barrels seem faster as the same ammo that clocks 3300 in my brothers 26” Browning clocks 3280 in my 24” proof and 3080 in the 18” carbon six.

That being said this will reduce your effective range by about 150 yards assuming 200 fps less. This sounds like a lot but if you are shooting a cartridge capable of taking game in excess of 1000 yards then that still leaves you the ability to shoot 850+ yards. Then of course there is the little fact that you can use still use a suppressor on a 24” barrel and have the best of both worlds, no muzzle blast, less recoil, and all of the velocity.

But since you want hard numbers let’s look at hard numbers in the .300 Win Mag. Hornady loads the factory Precision hunter ammo with the 178gr ELD-X at 2960 fps out of a 26” barrel, that load hits 1800 fps at 750 yards. Now let’s look at my 181 Hammer loads, at 3260 fps they hit 1800 fps at 900 yards a full 150 yards further than Hornadys long range hunting factory ammo. If I cut 6” off the barrel my velocity drops to 3050 fps and my 1800 fps limit is reduced to 775 yards, so in other words my 20” suppressed .300 Win Mag has a higher effective range than somebody with a 26” barrel shooting factory long range hunting ammo.

Additionally you say that suppressors are useless because the sound of the shot doesn’t reach the target until after impact. What happens if you miss or you choose to take a second animal? In my experience deer react very differently to suppressed shots and move much more slowly compared to a regular rifle shot easily allowing time for a follow up or a second shot in many cases.

Also what about your own hearing or that of those around you? How many people have permanent hearing damage from a braked rifle because they didn’t have enough time to get ear pro in before they took the shot? I know for my bear a few years ago there was 10 to 15 seconds between the first sighting and 4 rounds of 6.5 PRC being shot as it was running my way. Had I not been suppressed I would have had to choose between missing the bear or the hearing damage that 4 rapid rounds of 6.5 PRC would cause.

You seem stuck on the velocity loss of a short barrel and the sound reaching the animal, two of the least relevant things about suppressors, but completely ignore many of the benefits that myself and others have listed here. I personally recommend that you find someone who has one and give them a try, you might find that you like what you hear.
 

orkan

Official LRH Sponsor
LRH Sponsor
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
968
Location
SD
That's the thing about data. If someone competent is collecting it with good equipment... then it carries a lot of weight. Conversely, if someone incompetent is collecting it, with bad equipment, it is worse than worthless.


In all of the barrel length tests that site has performed, you won't find anything near the 80fps per inch that this teri anne person is claiming.

 

Benman73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
105
Location
Ooltewah, TN
The OP asked if anyone preferred not to put a silencer on their hunting rifle, which is a personal choice, so no right or wrong answer there. But the spreading of bad information about the aspects of silencers, short barrels, etc., is what gets folks worked up.
 

General RE LEE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
799
Location
Middle Tennessee
The OP asked if anyone preferred not to put a silencer on their hunting rifle, which is a personal choice, so no right or wrong answer there. But the spreading of bad information about the aspects of silencers, short barrels, etc., is what gets folks worked up.
To be 100% honest I read a couple pages and then move on. I don't even know what is being discussed in here lol.
 

CMP70306

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
529
To be 100% honest I read a couple pages and then move on. I don't even know what is being discussed in here lol.
You probably aren’t missing much, started off with people relaying their experiences with suppressors, others stated their reasons for not using them, then came the people calling those who use suppressors dumb and saying they had no place on a hunting rifle and it just devolved from there.
 

338weatherby

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
810
Location
Northern Minnesota
To be 100% honest I read a couple pages and then move on. I don't even know what is being discussed in here lol.
Stirring up the hornet's nest and walking away! lol

bet stick GIF


Couldn't resist. I unwatched this one, but had to take a peak again!
 

762x51

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
492
Location
NC
i dont see why you wouldn't want one. i only have one at the moment. but they're awesome. i can shoot my 20" .308 over and over with no ear pro and have no ringing in my ears. the rifle groups a little tighter with it on too. the only real downsize is added weight and length. worth it in my opinion.

i do think the process for obtaining them is ridiculous. it's easier/faster to get the actual device that shoots bullets with no $200 tax than it is to get a round piece of pipe.
 

Rich Coyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,799
Location
Grants Pass, Oregon
then came the people calling those who use suppressors dumb and saying they had no place on a hunting rifle and it just devolved from there.

Then came people, a very few, Democrat lights who want their use mandated. Maybe brakes should be mandated so people would not flinch and wound animals. Or maybe magnums should be outlawed. That would help.
 

CMP70306

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
529
Then came people, a very few, Democrat lights who want their use mandated. Maybe brakes should be mandated so people would not flinch and wound animals. Or maybe magnums should be outlawed. That would help.
They were joking about suppressors being made mandatory as there is no feasible way for that to happen nor should the government be making anything mandatory.

You however went right to insulting people.

Are you a democrat? Sure looks like it.

By the way I have brakes on everything. I gave my suppressor to my son-in-law.

I get it, you like muzzle brakes on your rifles and are not a fan of suppressors for I assume recoil reasons. I have shot a few braked rifles and am personally not a fan of the extra concussion so I choose not to shoot them.

I personally only use a brake on the end of my suppressor to help mitigate the recoil while still getting the benefit of the sound reduction from the suppressor.
 
Top