Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Wyoming Rep Immediately Re-introduces Bill to Allow Suppressor Use
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Broz" data-source="post: 749686" data-attributes="member: 7503"><p>A few years ago it was mentioned as a possible bill here in Montana. I didn't think it would fly and it never even made it to a vote. I have thought about it a lot since then. I do understand some values of supressors. But still not sure. That said I would not vote against them either. I am truly on the fence.</p><p> </p><p>I wonder how many elk could be taken from one herd from 700 yards if they were not alarmed from the shot? I guess we have taken 2 from the same herd with braked rifles before they moved out, so what's the difference? Just talking out loud here as I would like to air all the good and bad and take a side. It is diminishing the potency of one of their defense mechanisms (hearing) but so is sent spray, camo, and such. </p><p> </p><p>I would be all for any increased fines for illegal taking of game. I feel most fines are way to low and most deliberate poachers keep poaching. They just get training in how to better get away with it.</p><p> </p><p>So Outlaw, you have aready said we don't "need" them and I got your drift there. But aside from the reduced recoil and quieter discharge what do you feel they bring to the table? I am looking for the reasons to hunt with them.</p><p> </p><p>Thanks</p><p>Jeff</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Broz, post: 749686, member: 7503"] A few years ago it was mentioned as a possible bill here in Montana. I didn't think it would fly and it never even made it to a vote. I have thought about it a lot since then. I do understand some values of supressors. But still not sure. That said I would not vote against them either. I am truly on the fence. I wonder how many elk could be taken from one herd from 700 yards if they were not alarmed from the shot? I guess we have taken 2 from the same herd with braked rifles before they moved out, so what's the difference? Just talking out loud here as I would like to air all the good and bad and take a side. It is diminishing the potency of one of their defense mechanisms (hearing) but so is sent spray, camo, and such. I would be all for any increased fines for illegal taking of game. I feel most fines are way to low and most deliberate poachers keep poaching. They just get training in how to better get away with it. So Outlaw, you have aready said we don't "need" them and I got your drift there. But aside from the reduced recoil and quieter discharge what do you feel they bring to the table? I am looking for the reasons to hunt with them. Thanks Jeff [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Wyoming Rep Immediately Re-introduces Bill to Allow Suppressor Use
Top