“Hearing loss is a serious issue, and hunters should protect their hearing. But given that silencers cost several hundred to over a thousand dollars, earplugs seem like a more efficient solution. When I worked as a park ranger in Montana and Alaska, I had to become proficient with rifles, shotguns and handguns. I spent many hours on firing ranges, and ear muffs worked just fine. And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss.” – Brett Hartl in Gun lobby co-opts sportsmen’s agenda with SHARE Act [via thehill.com]
Home Quote of the Day IMI Systems Quote of the Day: Suppressors for Hunting Just Aren’t Sporting
um, hey dumb ass, the shot can still be heard, it’s just reduced!
That’s why I have a big ol’ cowbell on my bow. Wouldn’t want the animal to not hear me now would I?
Better yet would be to rig up an air horn that blasts 140 dB whenever I draw the bow. Now that’s sporting. Of course I would need to wear earplugs while bow hunting.
Funny how leftist attack tradition and concepts like “sporting” until it helps them defend ground in a losing battle.
Screw “sporting”, its an excuse people use when they do not win the hunt.
Not to mention that animals have excellent hearing. If this govt stooge had ever actually hunted, he would know that even the working of a bolt will spook a whitetail at anything under a hundred yards.
I hunt with a round in the chamber but the striker down. Then, when ready to fire, I lift the bolt slowly and quietly, and that works without spooking the game. But even that tiny movement must be done slowly enough to be completely silent.
Its sure too bad the antis know absolutely nothing about their subject, isn’t it? If they could actually fit some information in those brain cells, this ‘debate’ would be over. But facts don’t fit in their heads. Too full of TV propaganda…
They don’t think, they believe.
I watched a deer look in my direction when I cocked my ruger super redhawk. Amazing hearing they have
Don’t forget that deer is going to have a front row seat to the sonic boom of the bullet if you miss, and subsonic ammunition is almost never used in hunting. So yeah, the argument about the animal not hearing a missed shot is complete bullshit.
As soon as a person says “silencer” instead of the proper word “suppressor”, I know they are a shill. The same argument could be made against almost any modern convenience from cars to microwaves, and even smartphones…. “Mailing letters in a post and reading a newspaper have worked just fine, why would I need a smartphone? They are expensive and unnecessary” Obviously smartphones should be outlawed arbitrarily by the government with stiff fines and jail time for their use. On another note, I’m not sure that I’d use a suppressor on a hunting weapon because of the loss in power and bullet drop. Any hunters out there to confirm?
Suppressors increase velocity. No reduction in power, or additional bullet drop. They act as a barrel extension, but without the friction of the bullet touching the barrel. They might be heavy and slightly deflect the barrel downwards, but I’ve never seen them more than 1 moa off. That said, I never take mine off. So, it’s point of aim, because that’s where I’ve sighted it in.
So what do you put on a Form 4 under “weapon type”?
And what did the inventor call them?
I use the word silencer because that’s the legal term in Title 18 Chapter 44.
Velocity and energy losses are negligible at worst. And additional bullet drop might not matter depending on where you hunt. Where I hunt almost nothing is beyond 100 yards. So the additional drop is less than the error introduced by my zero being offset from the POI at any of those ranges
“And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss.” – Brett Hartl
I feel… we need to give… some sort of special award… for the most ignorant… least intelligent… factually false…
It’s amazing how wishy washy this sort can be on the topic of it being “sporting” to the animal. Look at the guy who killed a bear with a spear. So much butthurt over that despite PETA them selves suggesting it on their web site.
Personally, I’d rather see increased effectiveness and lethality, that way the animal doesn’t suffer needlessly.
They only cost that much because of current regulation.
Ear muffs on the range are one thing. Natural hearing while hunting is another.
A silenced shot is still as loud as a lawnmower. Can animals hear lawnmowers?
People hear “ranger” and think something like fish and game when a forest service park ranger is just a Walmart greeter in a green uniform.
“when a forest service park ranger is just a Walmart greeter in a green uniform” … Ouch! …that’s going to sting for a while.
But the greeter at my Wal-Mart lawn and garden section wears a green vest.
Does that make them the Lawn Ranger? Hi ho savings, away!!
By the way, hunting isn’t the only sporting use for guns….just saying.
Let me help to translate a bit of this…
“I had to become proficient with rifles, shotguns, and handguns.”
“I fired my service handgun once a year, for 50 rounds, during qualification, I fired a pump shotgun for 10 rounds once, but since we only had two and they were kept in the armory I never used it after that, and I watched Black Hawk Down, so I’m pretty sure I can run a rifle like I’m a Ranger.”
Yeah, it helps when “speaking from authority,” one actually has some authority. 😛
1) I’ve gotten the White Tail Salute from brushing against twigs, I don’t think they’re going to stick around after a 130 dB gunshot.
2) Merciless hell, we let idiots like this work as park rangers? I’m surprised he didn’t starve to death out in the woods waiting for his compass to boot.
I heard from a friend trying to become one there are huge waiting lists for the few positions that open up. The salaries are small too. It’s something people do more for the lifestyle.
That’s correct. It’s a Leftist lifestyle job.
POTG would likely not like that job, and if somehow you managed to get one, the others would shun you or outright try to get you fired…
An awful lot of “seems” in that little snippit.
Also from the article:
“In my travels I have yet to come across wildlife wearing body armor. Why would hunters need armor-piercing bullets to kill a deer?
Armor-piercing bullets can have unpredictable effects when they enter a body, but there is clear research on what happens when a lead bullet impacts a target like a deer or elk. The lead breaks apart into lots of tiny pieces so small that hunters often don’t even know they are eating them; poisoning themselves and their families.”
Last I checked “real” AP rounds have hardened penetrators and would a) have less lead content than a non-AP projectile, and b) would be more likely to go straight on through, increasing the probability of a non-fatally-wounded animal.
And bonded bullets have been a thing for oh, since before I was born.
So which is it?
Since AP ammunition is defined by construction and not performance is there really any other lead free option besides monolithic copper that wouldn’t be classified as AP?
This. Hunters need armor-piercing bullets because they define them as bullets not made out of lead, which they are also trying to ban.
Yeah, I thought I heard that even the monolithic copper bullets were being restricted in some situations/locations.
Suppressors aren’t just for the shooter’s ears. Suppressor are a courtesy for other people and other hunters. The investment of a suppressor says to me, first “That guy is a considerate person and a thoughtful shooter and hunter. He prefers not to hurt my hearing or ruin my hunt.” Secondly, it says. too “That’s guy likes cool stuff!!”
Read the full article by this prog. Cut the quote off too soon. This idiot is a moron.
He also dislikes using “Armor-piercing bullets” for hunting unless the deer are wearing vests.
Brett Hartl is the government affairs policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. Yeah right “Biological Diversity” Prior to joining the Center, Brett worked in the House Natural Resources Committee for the Democratic staff Progtard
Maybe he’d care to address the issue of suppressors for hunting in Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, etc. As in, they are allowed and in many cases encouraged. As for AP rounds, there are other kinds of sports beyond hunting.
There is nothing in the Second Amendment about “sports” or “sporting”. You don’t need to give a reason why AP ammo should be available with other common ammo types.
T H I S
The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. The Constitution was singed on September 17, 1787.
[Sic] We declared our individual sovereignty before we had a formalized federal government.
GUNS ARE FOR KILLING EVERY SWINGING D1<K IN YOUR GOVRNMENT (THAT WON'T LEAVE PEACEABLY OF THEIR OWN VOLITION) WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [YOUR] . . . future security" https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
If your government assigns a requirement of a "sporting purpose" then YOU JUST MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOU FUCKING ENJOY YOURSELF WHILE YOU ARE KILLING THEM.
We signed both of our founding documents under the duress of getting rid of a (MILDLY [by todays standards]) tyrannical governing nation. OUR FOUNDERS HAD NO IDEA IF OUR AMERICAN EXPERIMENT WOULD WORK (AS A LIVING NATION FROM ITS FIRST INCARNATION) If you think that gun ownership wasn’t meant to prevent the need to have to worry about doing it again in the future, then you need to kill yourself.
Fair enough. Sometimes I forget I’m commenting on a primarily US site. I was just disputing the merits of his argument, as it fails even on the “sporting” aspect.
Your argument is still valid. While I will always default to stating that all humans have an inherent right to all arms via the inalienable right to self defense; the “sporting” claim only supports having access to suppressors, “AP” ammo, and automatic weapons.
I seem to recall that England requires them for culling deer. And head shots. At ranges under 100 yards.
This is the same argument that anti-2nd Amendment activists use for every facet of gun control. “Why do you need >insert contention hereinsert gun-control alternative here<."
Biden did this when he said that he could do the same thing that people with Ads could do with his double barrel shotgun. California does this with its gun laws all the time.
Give this tired argument a rest.
Well Brett, ear plugs work better at plugging whiney butt hurt, but you might enjoy sitting on a suppressor more (as long as you’re interested in bending over and taking it from the anti-gun lobby).
Maybe fireclean is KY?
It isn’t sporting, huh? Well who died and made you arbiter of all shooting sports protocol? Really, you can pick any arbitrary point in history and its concomitant stage of technology, which appears to be exactly what he’s done here, and unilaterally declare that it is the most noble, fair, and sporting approach to hunting.
Next, he’ll start whining about scopes and their advantage over naked eyes, or windage & elevation adjustments and their advantage over intuitive feel. He may complain about firearms in general and their reliance on chemical explosives for propulsion, as opposed to the pure mechanical and more sporting weapons like spears, slings, and bows and arrows. Good grief.
He’s just anti-gun and making up excuses to oppose suppressors. In terms of intellectual honesty, he’s throwing a dart at the wall, then going and drawing a smug and self-satisfying bullseye around it. That, I find, to be unsporting.
You missed. The sound was that of a jackhammer. Hmmmm
So bow hunting is extremely unethical then??
Glad to hear this character spent all that time on firing ranges and sensibly utilized appropriate hearing protection. Of course if he had been hunting or even been willing to extend himself so far as to imagine he were hunting, he would realize the necessity to listen to the woods. What a maroon!
Let me guess: he’s never hunted and he’s never heard a shot from a suppressed firearm. But he threw his $.02 in anyway.
“And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss”
Well I guess we got to call off bow season 🙂
And of course, if you DON’T miss, the dear deer won’t hear it either, whether you are suppressed or not, since bullets are supersonic and get there before the report does. Maybe hunting is unethical, then? Plus the fact that the bullet itself from a suppressed rifle makes noise during its passing–which the poor little Bambi will undoubtedly hear also.
I guess I’m just not sporting, I’ve dropped 99% of game I hunt in one shot.
You know, here’s the thing, it increases safety by allowing me to hear the hikers and hunters around me, instead of being muffled off from the world.
Why, those hikers might not know it’s hunting season, and might not be wearing their blaze orange, so by having a silencer and not being cut off from the world it increases their safety! IF IT SAVES JUST ONE CHILD HIKERS LIFE!!!
This guy would probably be pretty happy to have you get rid of all your scopes and forgo sighting in your rifles as well. Maybe smack the muzzle on a rock before you shoot – just to keep things sporting.
People as a rule are fairly ridiculous about a lot of subjects. I want my gun as quiet as possible. My motorcycle as loud as possible. People complain about both. I say the heck with people sometimes…….
Hunting is probably the most compelling use of suppressors. Here in Michigan you usually hear deer before you see them. Wearing hearing protection while hunting prevents this early warning of game in your vicinity. The amplified head sets probably do represent an unfair advantage, while other forms of hearing protection represent an unfair disadvantage.
I don’t think it’s very sporting to hunt an animal from hundreds of yards away with an explosively launched projectile. That’s why I only kill animals with my bear (as in no weapon, not the animal) hands. Guess we’ll have to do away with all guns. There we go! Solved gun violence! I’m even cooler than this guy right?!?
Still not sporting enough. Game animals don’t have hands so that is an unfair advantage. To be super sporting you gotta take down that elk with your teeth.
I think that you mean “bare” (as in naked) hands, although I will submit that bear hands are probably more effective, having huge claws and all.
Good god, leftist are really reaching deep and getting NOTHING out of it.
I’ve had game hear me breathing from a hundred yards away, not to mention the critters that have smelled me and seen me. I don’t think suppressors are gonna trick Bambi.
I could give a flying fuck about what is or isnt “sporting”………i’ll use the most effective means at my disposal to put meat on the table. Same with fighting, im not the “sporting” type. I’ll just kick a dude in the balls and stomp on his face while hes on the ground clutching his jewels…..
“When I was a govt thug I learned to shoot so I know you don’t need your rights” heard THAT before sic semper tyrannis
It’s not unsual for a deer to just stand there after a missing shot , sometimes they can’t pinpoint where it’s coming from I guess .
Most of mine are killed in bow but I may fire my rifle once a season .
“And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss.”
And just because he used to be a game warden, we should value his opinion about hunting? This guy’s a gate-keeper. This often happens when you give some people police powers. They see themselves as inherently superior to other mortals and spend their time intoning moral imperatives that they expect the rest of us to honor. Sorry, I ain’t buyin’.
“…given that silencers cost several hundred to over a thousand dollars, earplugs seem like a more efficient solution.”
So, by that logic, it would be more preferable for me to wear earplugs rather than have a muffler on my car? Sure, the added noise is going to disturb everyone else in the area. Sure, earplugs are going to reduce my ability to hear things that I might need to hear for my safety or the safety of others. But hey, at least I’ll be efficient.
Seriously, where DO they find these folks?
Jay in Florida thinks you should take your muffler off your car too.
“Suppressors for Hunting Just Aren’t Sporting”
Neither is sitting in a tree, shooting down on animals who cannot lift their heads to see a threat overhead.
But I am not a hunter because, all the food I want or need is at the supermarket; there is no attraction to living in a shelter in the woods; relaxing does not consist of being uncomfortable for hours at a time; a person is foolish to stand when they can sit, or sit when they can lie down; quaffing beers with my buds is way more entertaining when the beer is delivered by attractive barmaids.
If sporting and fairness were the most important things about hunting, I’d hunt people. That’s about as fair as you can get.
Odd that suppressors for hunting aren’t sporting, but he thinks it’s fine to wear ear muffs or plugs for hearing protection. My electronic muffs and plugs can both amplify ambient sounds significantly – to the point where I can hear far more effectively than with my 63-year old, tinnitus riddled ears. Is that sporting, since it doesn’t involve a firearm?
Notice the author stated that it is unfair that animals cannot hear the shot that misses, giving them threat warning. Not hear the shot? For someone who claimed to be familiar with guns and shooting, he still believes the Hollywood version of “silencers”.
Pretty much pissed on his own credibility.
Suppressors just glorified mufflers. if they are ever deregulated you’ll see most new guns have them built in soon or later.
The term “sporting” is another non-specific liberal phrase that has a changeable definition to suit every argument by every liberal. Just look at GCA 68. Who in their right mind would allow government functionaries to define the term and regulate the degree to which a citizen can exercise a civil right. Another flexible term progressives use is “fair”. They love to define it to suit their purpose in every attempt to foster government overreach to limit our civil rights.
That depends on what the definition of “is” is.
He is proficient with rifles, shotguns, and pistols? I wonder how proficient he would be at the range if the targets spooked every time they heard the slightest noise?
Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have.
Obviously never heard a supersonic bullet whiz past his ear.
That pic’s from the rim of the Kalalau Valley in Kawaii; very cool place I hope to see again one day. Hopefully that fat-head will not be there, either.
Sound suppressors only reduce the sound of the muzzle blast, not the supersonic pressure wave, (sonic boom), of a rifle bullet several hundred yards downrange.
lol !!! Someone is eating stupid sandwiches and expecting everyone to join in.