Silencers

jryoung said:
Just like medical MJ, yes there are benefits, and for some it's medically necessary, but most just wanna get baked and there are bigger issues to worry about.

I'm guessing it will be a cold day in hell to ever see one in CA which is a bummer since my brother manufactures them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I fully acknowledge the benefit that they provide when it comes to hearing protection. I have had my bell rung a few times sans hearing protection, so I am intimately familiar with their benefit, especially in enclosed environments.

The point I was trying to make in response to the OP, is that I don't believe the primary motivation for the legislation was to protect American hearing. I think it provided a very rational excuse, but what seems to motivate politicians and lobbyists is money, which led me to my original thought.
 
MinnesotaHunter said:
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I fully acknowledge the benefit that they provide when it comes to hearing protection. I have had my bell rung a few times sans hearing protection, so I am intimately familiar with their benefit, especially in enclosed environments.

The point I was trying to make in response to the OP, is that I don't believe the primary motivation for the legislation was to protect American hearing. I think it provided a very rational excuse, but what seems to motivate politicians and lobbyists is money, which led me to my original thought.
Click to expand...

You really don't know what you are talking about. Sportsman have pushed the Hearing Protection Act, not industry.
 
Keeptrying said:
You really don't know what you are talking about. Sportsman have pushed the Hearing Protection Act, not industry.
Click to expand...

Rep Jeff Duncan R-SC introduced this legislation first in a Sportmans heritage bill, and then independently. He is also listed as one of the top 20 public land transfer advocates in DC. He sure does listen to sportsmen.....

I never once said sportsman don't, or shouldn't support this. I only said I don't take everything that happens out in DC at face value.
 
Last edited:
MinnesotaHunter said:
Rep Jeff Duncan R-SC introduced this legislation first in a Sportmans heritage bill, and then independently. He is also listed as one of the top 20 public land transfer advocates in DC. He sure does listen to sportsmen.....

I never once said sportsman don't, or shouldn't support this. I only said I don't take everything that happens out in DC at face value.
Click to expand...

No, you said hearing protection was an excuse, and that money was the reason for this bill. Those are your words in the post I quoted.
 
I see no use personally.
I have always used some form of hearing protection at the range,in a shop & even in combat way back. It's a wonder I can hear after a few turns in the Duece. TP is the key,the Chief would always say.
 
MinnesotaHunter said:
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I fully acknowledge the benefit that they provide when it comes to hearing protection. I have had my bell rung a few times sans hearing protection, so I am intimately familiar with their benefit, especially in enclosed environments.

The point I was trying to make in response to the OP, is that I don't believe the primary motivation for the legislation was to protect American hearing. I think it provided a very rational excuse, but what seems to motivate politicians and lobbyists is money, which led me to my original thought.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% with you.
 
So out of curiosity what is the fear of those here who are against suppressors?

It makes a whole lot of sense to me, and I fail to see how making them more accessible is a problem.

You realize they are already legal in most states, correct? You realize you can buy all the parts on eBay and build your own, correct?

Why the fear? As far as, "I don't see the need so get rid of them.", there are a whole lot of things that could apply to including hunting and fishing rights. Just because you don't see value doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
I've got 1 gun that's already threaded for a suppressor - and I'll be getting one for my kids hearing. I am a hearing protection fiend every since I started wearing hearing aides at 33. The kids pack ear-muffs when we are hunting and I always have some earplugs.

I'll be going in to sign up for the suppressor now that the bill died.

Which reminds me I need to go in for a tune-up.
 
Keeptrying said:
So out of curiosity what is the fear of those here who are against suppressors?

It makes a whole lot of sense to me, and I fail to see how making them more accessible is a problem.

You realize they are already legal in most states, correct? You realize you can buy all the parts on eBay and build your own, correct?

Why the fear? As far as, "I don't see the need so get rid of them.", there are a whole lot of things that could apply to including hunting and fishing rights. Just because you don't see value doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I think you might want to re-read the thread, I don't see anyone against them. Maybe not interested in them personally, but I see no one here in opposition.
 
You're all wrong, they are called 'sound moderators'!
Mine is gathering dust in my gun cabinet, i am not a fan of them.
Cheers
Richard
 
jryoung said:
I think you might want to re-read the thread, I don't see anyone against them. Maybe not interested in them personally, but I see no one here in opposition.
Click to expand...

well shit I might as well be the first then. Won't explain why, don't care to start a back and forth with any proponents for the simple sake of an argument. I was also against lighted nocks for whatever that's worth, probably not much.
 
jryoung said:
I think you might want to re-read the thread, I don't see anyone against them. Maybe not interested in them personally, but I see no one here in opposition.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

For me a quality over barrel suppressor would be really nice, but burdomson regulations have make them ridiculously expensive. I really value my hearing, and would prefer to keep what I have.

I just don't see a downside.

http://www.silencer.net.nz/silencers-and-suppressors/long-rifle-silencers/

Exchange rate puts this model at about $350. Sounds like a bargain. Right now a similar unit will cost $1000 and take six months.
 
Keeptrying said:
Point taken.

For me a quality over barrel suppressor would be really nice, but burdomson regulations have make them ridiculously expensive. I really value my hearing, and would prefer to keep what I have.

I just don't see a downside.

http://www.silencer.net.nz/silencers-and-suppressors/long-rifle-silencers/

Exchange rate puts this model at about $350. Sounds like a bargain. Right now a similar unit will cost $1000 and take six months.
Click to expand...

If you truly value your hearing and think it is that important, $1000 isn't that bad. Is it more expensive than it should be? You're bet, but it's what we have to work with.

Hearing protection is a great reason to own one but I have to agree with minnesotahunter and jryoung. Hearing protection is a way to get this pushed through but I don't believe it their only motive. Not that I disagree with it, but I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than it appears
 
So what exactly do you think their ulterior motive is?

Once the regulations are relaxed the current manufacturers are going to face intense competition from everyone who owns a late. I just don't see it being much of a win for them. They will be forced to lower their prices.

These are in no way a complicated device. As I said before they are legal most everywhere and anyone who wants to make one illegally can do so for right at $100. It is ridiculous to tax the law abiding among us and force us to pay an exaggerated price for something as innocuous as this.

That's how I see it. As far as $1000 not being a heavy price, I also have a wife and kids who hunt and shoot. That is a heavy price. No reason we should pay for one item what should get us three.
 
Keeptrying said:
Point taken.

For me a quality over barrel suppressor would be really nice, but burdomson regulations have make them ridiculously expensive. I really value my hearing, and would prefer to keep what I have.

I just don't see a downside.

http://www.silencer.net.nz/silencers-and-suppressors/long-rifle-silencers/

Exchange rate puts this model at about $350. Sounds like a bargain. Right now a similar unit will cost $1000 and take six months.
Click to expand...
Can these be imported to the US without contravening ITAR regulations?

They were banned in the UK in the past, they were solely introduced as a means to protect ones hearing, but a lot of hunters thought they would be like you see/hear in the movies, wrong, you stand beside someone using a suppressor, it sounds very loud, the sound does disperse, but its still loud.
If i zero my rifle i use hearing protection, for the odd shot shooting deer when i remember i take hearing protection, more often than not i forget.
Recoil is reduced, POI changes, when i used mine the 30-06 dropped by 2 1/2'' over 100 yards with a 180 grain bullet.
What i did notice was that if there were a group of deer and you shot one they got confused, so you could shoot another before they realised something was up, not a problem for me as i don't need a tag where i am.

But the main reason i stopped using mine was it totally unbalances the rifle, whats the point in having a well engineered, balanced rifle, and then stick a tube on the end and ruining it?
I had a Wildcat T8, huge thing, then i bought a smaller A-TEC, much improved, but it sits in the cupboard now.

Finally, and this is very important, NEVER leaver the suppressor on the end of the rifle and store it, you will find that the crown of the rifle becomes corroded and ruined, oh did i mention i'm not a fan of suppressors!

Cheers mates

Richard
 
You are correct, Richard. ITAR regulations prohibit the importation of suppressors. I gave that example of what a quality over barrel would cost without the red tape. Here in American it would likely be even less due to volume and competition.
Thanks for sharing your insight.
 
ChrisS said:
Does anyone use the electronic game ears that only reduce harmful noises? Curious how they work.

I'm protective of my hearing (living and working on air force bases will instill that pretty quick) and I'm not a huge fan of gun shots (or fireworks for that matter). I prefer bowhunting because of the silence.
Click to expand...

I use a different brand, but really like them for pheasant and ruffed grouse hunting. I can hear small sounds in the field better with them (think hearing aid), but then a cut-off that makes them similar to cheap foam ear buds in attenuation. But good fitting ones can be pricey. I also use a super cheap "half-way solution by 3M https://smile.amazon.com/3M-Peltor-Combat-Arms-Earplugs/dp/B000W2CPCC that at least let you hear your buddies a little better, but you get what you pay for in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
What doing to silence bugle tube knocking against pack?
Replies
16
Views
811
lifeisgoodsteve
L
6mm Remington
What's your side hustle?
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
3K
Nick87
Nick87
ChavytheGoat
Seized Cylinder on Revolver
Replies
6
Views
352
longrunner
L
ChavytheGoat
Seized cylinder, HELP!
Replies
2
Views
266
std7mag
S
R.K.
“Thank you” Card for non-BMA landowner?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
RoughCountry
R

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,041
Messages
1,944,753
Members
34,985
Latest member
tinhunter

Share this page

Back
Top