Let us know when you get here. mtmuley
Suppresors in Montana
- Thread starter Blackbart
- Start date
Let us know when you get here. mtmuley
fishing4sanity
Well-known member
You can switch between rifles as long as you DON'T exceed the suppressor's caliber size or pressure limits. Example, some 30 caliber suppressors are rated/specific for .308, using a 30 cal magnum could be bad. I have one that is rated for 338 Lapua, but it spends far more time on my 260. I now have one in the process for rimfire and another for pistols. Not everyone gets the suppressor bug once they shoot them ............ but I did.
TimeOnTarget
Well-known member
I dunno if i'll get the bug or not, but i ordered 3 of them just i case. My paperwork should be back real shortly. I'm on month 9 currently....
fishing4sanity
Well-known member
Just a little eye candy for the suppressor fans. My 3 sons and a couple hunting ones. We've hunted in Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico with suppressed rifles.
Fire_9
Well-known member
I agree that there can be a little sticker shock but I still think it's some of the best gun money I've spent. I've wasted money on a lot dumber things. Besides the cost I don't see any drawbacks. It's way easier on your ears and it reduces recoil like a muzzle brake. You have the supersonic crack but it is still way quieter and depending on caliber hearing protection safe. As stated above you're going to get more noise out of a gas gun but it's still worth it in my opinion. I decided to get a few more so I can keep one dedicated for my AR and I thought it would be awesome to have one for my rimfires. I'm going to put a hurting on the prairie dogs with my suppressed .17 this summer.
There are a few suppressors out there now that really wouldn't be that bad to hunt with if you have a rifle setup for it. A rifle with a 20-22" barrel and an ultra 7 would be the ticket. You're still within a reasonable barrel length and it only weighs 11 oz so it won't be super front heavy. I agree that they can be cumbersome while hunting which is why I've only hunted with mine a few times. That might change this year though since my stamp just came though for my ultra 7
There are a few suppressors out there now that really wouldn't be that bad to hunt with if you have a rifle setup for it. A rifle with a 20-22" barrel and an ultra 7 would be the ticket. You're still within a reasonable barrel length and it only weighs 11 oz so it won't be super front heavy. I agree that they can be cumbersome while hunting which is why I've only hunted with mine a few times. That might change this year though since my stamp just came though for my ultra 7
Fire_9
Well-known member
Interstate travel restrictions? You can travel through any state where they are legal to own with no restrictions. If the hearing protection act goes through, good luck getting your hands on one.
marksjeep
Well-known member
Thanks for the correction. I always thought they were regulated same as an SBR and was totally wrong.
fishing4sanity
Well-known member
You're going to love that Ultra 7. I've been shooting a can from Griffin Armament and still really like it, but I got an Ultra 7 not long ago and it's a GREAT suppressor.
2ski
Well-known member
I hear the suppresor thing is supposed to pass. And this goes back before Trump Jr and no matter who was going to be in the White House. I've heard it has support and is expected to pass. That's why I'm holding off. I don't want to be waiting for 8 months when it becomes legal in 4 or so.
shootbrownelk
Well-known member
A few companies have a lot of money in R&D and expensive metals....then there are the copycat companies who buy one of the good ones and cut corners and sell it for way less. You'll see a lot of that if they ever become legal to own without all the Fed's red tape and treated the same as firearms.
antlerradar
Well-known member
As a landowner I am not to exited about suppressors being legal. A suppressed rifle is likely to become the trespasser and poachers best friend.
devon deer
Well-known member
Don't worry on that score, its not at all like you see in the movies, the rifle still makes a bang!
I have one, but i hate them, they totally unbalance the rifle.
Cheers
Richard
They are not that quite. Just less hearing damage if you are not wearing proper ear protection. You would still hear shots a long way off, unless it was a subsonic round and no one would use that for poaching.
Fire_9
Well-known member
You sure about that? A subsonic .300 blk or .308 still delivers a fair amount of energy within 100-200 yards
I suppose, I have shot subsonic .22 and it's crazy quite, but a regular .22LR not so much. Have you seen anyone shoot the rounds you spoke of with a suppressor?
FAIR CHASE
Well-known member
What difference would that make? None.
There is nothing better when using a suppressor (223 in my case) while more than one coyote comes in to a call and at the first shot, the other coyotes are not able to tell the direction of the rifle report.
marksjeep
Well-known member
Hearing Protection Act was introduced yesterday.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367?r=21
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367?r=21
I'm hopeful! A suppressed .22 would make squirrel hunting during bow season FUN!
Likewise, if the price/availability reaches the point I can get a few, both my son's will have them on their deer rifles. Can't see the downside to less noise and recoil for the kiddos. Where and how they hunt, for the time being, they will always have a rest available.
Fire_9
Well-known member
I wasn't disagreeing with the sound of a supersonic round. I agree that they are still very loud. My response was to your comment that nobody would use a subsonic round for poaching. People use them for legal hunting so why wouldn't they use them for poaching?
