Supressors... worth the effort?

[Plowboy]

Yes Juzz there is a dickhead factor but if that were apllied across the board you would not have a car/boat/gun/golf clubs etc. The dickhead factor can kill a person not matter what the person is using. There are warming signs on hairdryers saying don't use underwater!!! Some dickhead obviously got killed that way! Should we ban hairdryer??
The only difference is not so many people have guns. Mistruths get taken as gospel and shabang you have some stupid laws in place that don't stop criminals anyway. I remember before semi autos were banned reading in the paper that shotguns were lethal at 1km.... now I would like to see that!! I have been under a shot shower more than a few times and the shooter was way lees than a km from me and apart from being annoying(sitting in a fishing boat) I am hardly dead!

[andrewk]

i can't hear a single f#*king thing you blokes are arguing about! i shot my ears out hunting years ago.

i'm voting supressors in. i sick and tired of a few of my mates insisting on wearing earmuffs while hunting and i'm trying to quietly give them directions and safety tips on what to do while in proximity of the quarry. found it down right dangerous on a few occasions and i yeah i hear you say "oh, just get the electronic ones". news flash they have them and half the time they don't switch em on or still can't hear what's going on.

lead the way keithy, lets start a move to ask for the laws to be amended.

[Stalker]

Dangerous situations brought around by the use of hearing protection, blokes not hearing "don't shoot" or "look out".Bloody hell, just going out in the scrub with some blokes can be dangerous eh? So you obviously all currently wear hearing protection?? I seriously doubt it.

If you were say a pro roo (under permit) or rabbit shooter and you were firing on average 50-100 rounds a night, then maybe the OH&S factor would come into it. We could just call it PPE!!

You are preaching to the converted boys, as a rec shooter I would like to see some changes to the firearms laws too.

As for me taking the easy way out, I offered some first hand advice to Plowboy who asked if going through the wringer to get a silencer permit was worth the effort.

I answered his question.

[fenring]

Dunno how well you blokes think a suppressor would work on a high intensity varmint cartridge pushing 4000fps....

Good, a well made supressor shuts the .204 up nicely. Nothing you can do about the projectile breaking the sound barrier though.

That's what I meant.

[Stalker]

For truely quiet times Fen, we load subs for the .308 and put a can on that, all you can hear is the firing pin hit the primer!!!

[Curtley78]

.....Easier to give them 10litres of your own blood. I asked if I could do that and believe me they nearly took me up on it.......

At least when you give blood at the Red Cross they give you a cookie and a glass of Milk afterwards.

Regards

Sean

[Mick]

mick,when is the last time you heard of a criminal using a silencer ?
if you put a silencer of a large cal rifle [anything over a 22] the size of the tubing increases big time.this myth of using silencers to make a large cal pistol or rifle [any rifle] dead quiet is just that.the noise you hear on telly when the bad guy fires a off a silenced weapon is only a sound affect.its not like that in real life.
in a sniper situation a silencer is used to disguise where the shot came from.not make it unheard.it cant be done.
sure it will lessen the noise,reduce the flash and even aid in reducing recoil [a bit] but...it will put your POI off quite alot.And ,if it isnt dead streight to the bore,it WILL catch the projectile and cause all sorts of problems.

i can see the benifit of using them at the range,but if you take that same rifle into the field and DONT use it,your going to have to spend time and ammo resighting the gun.
im all for being alowed to use them,but wouldnt bother on anything other than a 22.[in the field] but then again,if the need arose,i would like the option without the gov restrictions.

JMHO

LR

Pretty well versed in the use of suppressors and how they do and don't work. I did preface what I said with "unless you are using subs". Muzzle blast can't really be detected when the shot comes from 500m or so away in any case, suppressed or not.

Yes, for larger cals the diameter and length of the can increases, but if it is decently made by somebody who understands the required volumes between baffles, you don't have some retardedly oversized thing on the front of your rifle.

As for the movie sound effects, have you ever let rip with a suppressed MP5? All you hear is the tinkle of brass. They work very well, with subs.

[jeffk]

Dunno how well you blokes think a suppressor would work on a high intensity varmint cartridge pushing 4000fps....

I've used one on .223, .243 and .22-250 and it works very well. Friends back in the UK are using them on .204's now too, which has the most chance of meeting your 4000fps requirement , and they are equally effective on that. I've also used them on larger magnums, and they tame them considerably too, with none of the downsides of a brake.

It's one of those things you just have to experience.....I'd put one back on every varmint gun in an instant if I could.

[Plowboy]

Lets just make this clear so to end any more discussion on it. The use of supressors is ONLY to reduce the MUZZLE BLAST. NOT the sonic boom of the bullet. There seems to be a lot of conflicting info on this. They will never stop the crack of a supersonic bullet but they can reduce the muzzle blast considerably. It is clearly not worth the effort of getting a permit for recreational use but pros should be able to easily get a hold of them as a long time shooting would have hearing effects for sure and I don't know how many people have worn ear protection for extended periods but they become uncomfortable after a while.

I reckon a petition could be a good way to go to gauge the ammount of support. But really while you have clueless people in power and mistruth and scaremongering having more clout than common sense, we would have no chance of getting any reforms through. Keith I wonder if a petition could be set up on here and some links for other shooting sites included?

[Trev]

Guys

One thing on the hearing damage from shooting. One shot will damage your hearing, its just that the damage wont appear until later in life. You dont have to fire thousands of rounds to damage your hearing, a few will do that very well.

[Plowboy]

I know I have "shooter's ear". And I have mainly used .22s until lately. Had a hearing test for the mine where I work and first thing after the test he said was..."let me guess...your a farmer and a shooter eh?" Basically every farmer has the same pattern of hearing loss and shooter have it too. Something to do with driving tractors the way we do and of course shooting.

Your dead right too Trev if you ever have that ringin in your ears it means you have dome some damage. I am not too bad but...

[Curtley78]

I would actually like to see Roy Smith take the issue of suppressors being approved for use ranges that are located within the urban metropolis. In fact it could be argued that it need be compulsory.

The main complaint expressed from those that live within the vicinity of a range is the noise.

Such amendment would only leave the Greens speechless.

Regards

Sean

[juzz338]

Plowboy you hit the nail on the head when you stated that not every one has guns and that is y we have trouble. Chainsaws are just as bad for hearing damage and you do not need the ringing to have done damage. being aloud a suppressor not very likely to ever happen

[jeffk]

I would actually like to see Roy Smith take the issue of suppressors being approved for use ranges that are located within the urban metropolis. In fact it could be argued that it need be compulsory.

The main complaint expressed from those that live within the vicinity of a range is the noise.

Such amendment would only leave the Greens speechless.

Regards

Sean

Trouble is, you run the risk of acknowledging the noise problem....and if they say no to sound moderators, you might find you have no range either following the decision. These things need to be thought through for all the potential negatives, as what appears a great idea and no-brainer to us could be seen significantly differently by the antis or the decision makers....

[frakka]

Why would you use a silencer if you’ve got nothing to hide……….I can just hear the action groups now…..(first you want a noisy gun, now it hurts your ears and you want to stop the noise, maybe you need to forget about guns then….pretty slippery slope I think)……..the only faction that may have genuine cause are the hit men, be a real asset in that line of work, but then again some on the other side of the law like a bit of noise to scare the punters….like the jewel thieves in London yesterday.

For me, I don’t mind putting up with the occasional blast in the field, it’s the dinner bell for a myriad of predators and scavengers……nature at work....