“I’m okay with it if we arm the bears with silencers too,” Unapologeticdemocrat comments underneath Some Hunters Want Gun Silencers at spokesman.com. “Oh the heck with it. Just let these guys also have bazookas and let them blow up any place where they want to kill their game animals. That might make them happy. I’m not against hunting (God forbid in Idaho), but I think some of these guys with their scopes, suppressors, incredibly high powered semi-automatic weapons have just gotten a little nuts in the way they want to hunt. Next they are going to want to use drones with hell fire missiles to get their big game.” Your problem being? Funny I should ask . . .
Steve Kilpatrick, executive director of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, said his group opposes allowing hunting with silencers on ethical grounds.
“We already have a lot of tools, and a lot of them are toys I guess, with GPS units, night-vision scopes, high-powered rifles with ballistic scopes that allow you to kill critters at 800 to 1,000 yards, four-wheelers, four-wheel drives – the list is quite long,” Kilpatrick said. “And we don’t really see the need for silencers, especially for the hunting of game animals.”
So that’s the “suppressor equipped rifles give hunters too much of an edge” objection well and truly covered. Otherwise, it’s a question of enabling poaching (the reason suppressors were outlawed in the first place) and safety.
Kim Floyd, spokesman for the Wyoming Federal of Union Sportsmen, said his group also opposes the prospect of allowing silencers for hunting, calling it “a poacher’s dream.” He said any hunters truly concerned about the effect on their hearing from shooting at game can carry earplugs.
Floyd questioned why Wyoming would want to allow silencer use. “I want to know who’s in that drainage with me,” he said. “If they’re shooting a gun, I want to hear that gun. I want to know where these other hunters are. It just absolutely makes no sense to us. Why we would open that can of worms? I don’t care how many other states have this law in effect, it’s just a really, really bad law for Wyoming.”
Really? Once again, the media pretends to present a fair and balanced firearms-related story without covering the benefits of eliminating infringements on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
How many hunters have suffered hearing loss because they couldn’t use sound suppression technology on their rifle? How much noise pollution do non-suppressed rifles create in rural areas? How many women avoid the shooting sports because of noise levels that would otherwise be illegal?
And what of those other states where hunting with a suppressor-equipped rifle is legal? Any increase in poaching? Homicides? I guess it’s just wishful thinking to believe that public policy should be based on fact rather than supposition and that firearms freedom should be the government’s default position.
Lets educate people about Sound Suppressors. They only know what they see on TV.
First… There is no such thing as a Silencer. You will still hear a very loud bang. It will sound like you are wearing ear plugs.
The pain zone for a human ear drum is about 120 decibels.
A typical rifle sounds off at about 140 decibels.
The Sound Suppressor will reduce the noise by about 30 decibels to about 110 decibels. This is about how loud a rock concert is.
Second… The Bullet from a rifle is traveling at least 2 times faster then the speed of sound. So the bullet will always arrive at the target before the sound reaches the target. The target will hear the gunshot a few second later if it is is still alive.
Third…. Since the bullet is traveling faster then the speed of sound there will always be a sonic boom. This sound can not be reduced.
Summery…
1-What is see on TV with regard to silencers is fiction.
2- Sound Suppressors are still loud.
3-It will not effect the animal being shot being shot because the bullet always arrives before the sound reaches it.
4-The gunshot, while still loud, will be less of a disturbance to the rest of the animals and people in the area.
5-In my area most people have backyard shooting ranges. It would be very polite if everyone would use suppressors… unfortunately ATF rules make it too much of a hassle and too expensive to obtain them.
6- It would be more healthy for the shooters to use sound suppressors.
Conclusion… no body gains anything when sound suppressors are not used.
Guns are louder than that, 22 lr is about 145 db and an integrally suppressed 22 lr is 115 db, 308 is about 150-160 db.
But yes, you cant silence the sound of the bullet you will still hear it. Here in Norway you can use suppressors freely, in fact many stores here have package deals which include: rifle,scope, rifle bag and suppressor.
Normally, I wouldn’t use any European country as an example of doing it right when it comes to firearms, but I have been educated! Well done, Norway!
Wow, Norway sounds (even more) awesome!
Exept for shotgun laws( you can only buy tgem for hunting so all hunting rules apply to them, since we dont have any “real” shotgun competition) and of course our fantastic laws regarding guns such as ARs and AKs( you habe to be in pistol club before moving on to rifles) and did I mention you have to be in club 6 months befOre youcan buy pistol or rifle?
To point 2- When combined with correct ammunition pairing, even high-powered rifles can be very quiet. (Obviously, using subsonic ammunition reduces hunting viability). You can’t just load up your 300 magnum and expect it to be quiet, it takes more work than that.
To point 3- Misses and nearby game are factors in shot noise.
Point 4 is one of the points covered as a negative in the article. Missed shots not being heard, hunter location id etc are all considered negatives, so to write it off as a positive doesn’t make much sense.
It is important to remember that a 3 dB noise reduction is half the volume of before. 20-30 decibel reductions are not small noise decreases.
Wishful thinking here, but I would like a suppressor for my .22 rifles. Maybe when I leave Ca.
I think Hollywood has screwed over too many people to count. Anyone who has heard a rifle round fired through a suppressor knows its not quiet in any way shape or form, just makes your ears not hurt if you’re not wearing ear protection. Ears not hurting is always nice.
I’m on the fence on this topic. I see the benefits, but the dangers of not hearing other hunters shooting (especially Deer hunters drinking in their deer stands) is a scary thought.
On the other hand, I dislike not having the option for noise reduction for hearing-safety reasons.
Either way, I don’t think there is a clearly right and wrong answer either way.
It irritates me that they make silencers difficult to obtain. Yes I know, it was an anti-poaching measure during the Great Depression and my great uncles would talk about how they would poach in the national parks. They had to feed their families. There weren’t food banks back then and people were hurting. They made their own silencers and showed me how to do it. It isn’t exactly rocket science to suppress the report of a gun.
I will say the SILINCERS available for purchase now are pretty damn good. I own three. The $200 tax on them has worked to make manufacturers build top quality products, always looking to make them better. I have shot some of the cheap over the counter silencers overseas and they in no way compare to an AAC or and SWR. Not even close in performance or quality.
Oh, why did I capitalize SILENCERS? I don’t know. I guess because so many gun enthusiasts like to point out that they do not make the gun actually silent, like duh; something they read in Guns & Ammo and take as The Truth and try to be ‘Guns PC’ calling them suppressors. To me a suppressor is a flash suppressor but I will use the terms interchangeably. Rarely I use the term ‘can’ but that to me sounds too ‘in’ to use. Silencer is what the inventor called them. Silencer is what the BATF calls them if these people would ever buy one they would know this. They will not find the term ‘sound suppressor’ anywhere on the form. Most manufactures call them silencers, hell there is a company that makes them called Silencerco! I guess they better write them and tell them to change their name to Suppressorco or something. Because some idiot in Guns & Ammo needed something write about years ago and said that it was not PC doesn’t make it so. What gets me is that some of the Gun PC crowd will say that only in movies are they called silencers. No, they are called silencers by the inventor, the BATF and manufacturers of the devices. It is only in gun rags that they are called suppressor to make people feel like they are in the know.
It amazes me that people get on their high horse about what the devices are called, most of whom have never shot one let alone owned one. It’s a damn silencer! That is what is was named by the inventor. Yes, it is not totally silent but the Seattle Seahawks aren’t really birds either. Hell, some people would say they aren’t even a football team.
Well I certainly got off topic there.
Suppose outlawing mufflers on pickups would discourage poaching too?
Slightly off topic:
What are US laws about exporting silencers/suppressors? Since like another poster said, its true that american suppressors are better than most european(exept for one of a kind custom suppressors). I am asking since I am very interested in one of those Silencerco Sparrows in stainless(from what I read it is about 40-45 db)
If anyone knows please reply here. Thanks in advance.
Well the short answer is if you are planning on doing it, you can’t. Yes, it is possible but you have to have a State Department permit and then they can only be exported to police and military of the other country. If you look at the different sites of silencer companies they will state they cannot export. Of course they can, but don’t want to go through the trouble. I am sure if they had a big order they would do it. The companies are doing a land office business now, I am not sure why that is. I have not heard any talk of further restrictions on silencers. Maybe it is a result of the Internet or gaming.
to digress I think it is really one stupid thing to treat silencers like a fully automatic weapon. Well they aren’t quite treated that way but close. They should just be an over the counter item like they are in many countries. It is a legacy of poaching during the Great Depression. Now during the Great Recession, most people wouldn’t even know how to poach let alone do it. They simply go to the food bank.
States are loosening up on silencers but I don’t have a lot of faith in the BATF ever letting them go. It is a money maker for them. I wish I had a scam where I could sell a stamp for $200. I guess we are lucky they do not raise the price. When they initiated the law $200 was a fortune putting silencers out of the financial realm of most people. Did it stop poaching? Well like I said, my great uncles poached with home made silencers. They bragged about it. Were they criminals? Yep. But it was a different time and there were needs that had to be met. They had family to feed and they were products of the frontier when there were no game laws so thought little of such regulations.
There is one bright side. We have access to the best silencers in the world. You just have to fill out some paperwork and pay the government $200 to get them. Really, you can get a silencer for a .22 such as the SWR Spectre II which makes the gun almost completely quiet; so quiet you can shoot it in your backyard and your neighbors will never know let alone complain. There are other brands that are just as good.
The other bright side is that yes, silencers are a pain to get but I would rather live in a country where it is easy to buy a gun than one where getting a silencer is easy and a gun difficult as it is in most countries.
Just shop smart when you buy a silencer. Go for the largest caliber you’re likely to use. For example, for a center fire handgun get a .45 silencer. It will work on your 9mm too. The SWR Specter II not only works on a .22 rimfire but also on a FN 5.7 but of course you have to add a threaded barrel to the FN and no, it is not as quiet on the FN.
Would it be legal to get the dimensions and baffle design and then get a gunsmith to make one over here since then I wouldnt be exporting.
I suppose that would be possible but not practical. Most, but not all center fire silencers are factory sealed. .22 silencers come apart for cleaning and I guess you could get the dimensions of one of those but often the baffles are not a straightforward design, being odd shapes and configurations. You would have to have photos or blueprints really. Really I would say it isn’t worth the trouble and would end up being very expensive to make a single copy. European silencers are good enough. I heard there is a relatively new German one of modern design that is pretty good although I have never even seen one. It is called E.Ve-Tech or something similar to that.
Hunting with a silencer here in North Dakota is legal. Our poaching isn’t any worse than states that ban silencers for hunting, using silencers shouln’t be illegal.
We legalized hunting with suppressors this year (Arizona). I have seen no reports of increased poaching using such devices.
The main advantage (other than the obvious hearing protection) is that you can get an opertunity to engage multiple targets when hunting coyotes. (And yes I used “targets” intentionally, ‘yotes are vermin.
My Grand Pa’s Savage 99 came from the factory with a Maxim supressor which he used for Antelope. All of the so-called wildlife and nature groups are simply crypto-commie fronts who siphon off money from kool aid drinkers to weaken America
I would love to have a suppressor / silencer. I support any states legalizing them, because they make a great deal of sense. Since I live in CA, and do most of my hunting in WI on private land, I can’t use a suppressor. I have a small amount of hearing loss which will likely continue.
CA worries about lead, but hearing loss apparently isn’t much of a concern. At least CA is consistent in being stupid (thanks again, anti gun legislators) in that they care more about the game than the hunters. I would welcome a lawsuit against the state of CA for outlawing suppressors and contributing to hearing loss. I don’t see any statistics to support anti-suppressor legislation. More states allowing suppressors is a good thing.
I would love to have one of these…
http://www.silencerco.com/downloads/9OSPREY.pdf#zoom=100
I wonder how well they work.
Im not for banning suppressors for hunting, BUT at the same time. Its not sporting and the military GPS night vision scopes and now sound suppressors make hunting nor a rich mans game?
Think some gone too far tacti cool for types of shooting that doesn’t need a all out tacti cool look for a fair hunt.
Fair hunt? No hunting with a gun is “fair”. If you went bear hunting with a spear, then you can say it’s a fair hunt.
Im not into pioneering back to hunt. But if you want a tactic cool hunt be better to use a GPS guided bullet from home and have a helo drop the meat off at your home.
no, sporting would be using your bare hands on a bear!
who determines what is “sporting” enough? what about trapping?
I respect other people’s choice toouse whatever they feel is sporting but I’m not hunting for sport, I harvest meat. don’t tell me I have to subscribe to whatever methods you feel are “sporting” enough.
I’ve read this forum for about a year now, but this is the first time I’ve felt compelled to comment. For my own use, I don’t see the need for a suppressor. I’ve been living in north central Idaho for 21 years now. I use a 12 gauge for upland game and a 30-06 for deer and elk. I always use ear protection when I shot trap, skeet, or sporting clays. Also, when I sight in my rifle every year or when I shoot my handguns. Please keep in mind, that I don’t shoot the rifle except for hunting. When I hunt, I never use ear protection and I don’t know anybody who does. I rarely shoot my rifle more than twice at any deer or elk. (Once 4 times on an elk). When hunting, I never notice the noise or the recoil; there is just too much adrenalin.
This is just my personal preference. I don’t know if suppressors are legal in Idaho and I don’t care if someone chooses to use one – it just isn’t my choice.
When I hunt, I never use ear protection and I don’t know anybody who does. I rarely shoot my rifle more than twice at any deer or elk. (Once 4 times on an elk). When hunting, I never notice the noise or the recoil; there is just too much adrenalin.
You may not “notice” it, but your body does. In a few decades when you’re dropping down for the “buy one, get one half off” package on hearing aids, you’ll be regretting that decision.
Exactly my point. Suppressed firearms still make a decent amount of noise with supersonic ammo, but hearing damage long term would be significantly diminished. It doesn’t take much noise too spook a white tail – I’ve done it by clicking my safety off. I’ve yelled at a whole lot of old hunters who “don’t have hearing damage.”
I hope you don’t yell at me; I’m 60 and I’ve learned to avoid confrontation (humor). I like to listen to the sound in the forest, especially elk bugling.
I find this funny. The anti-hunters in their quest to ban lead ammunition are now commonly citing “health concerns” for the hunter and all those that eat said game shot with a lead-containing bullet. If they are so concerned about our health then why not stand solidly behind the health of our hearing and embrace silencers?
I live in Wyoming and never heard of these two Fudd groups before. That said, hunting with suppressors shouldn’t be a problem. It is even required for hunting in much of western Europe.
We use suppressors a lot here in the UK, especially when controlling vermin such as rabbits & foxes.
Rabbiting with a suppressed .22lr & subsonic ammunition is highly effective – even with a $30 suppressor.
We use a suppressor & 22-250 for foxes because such shooting is often done at night & it reduces the noise pollution likely to bring complaints from those living nearby on this crowded isle.
The use of suppressors is positively encouraged here, both by the authorities & shooting organisations.
Yes, it is really idiotic that the use of silencers is restricted in some states here. It is really an outmoded law that was put in at the behest of the state wildlife agencies because of the rampant poaching in the Great Depression. Although poaching still goes on it is not nearly at the level it was then. Wyoming is correct to change the law. When it comes to gun laws things are changing for the better, at least in most states. BTW, I have never used a $30 silencer but I have used some that cost around $50 while abroad and they were…well OK but they sure weren’t a AAC or an SWR but then they didn’t cost near as much.
The $30 jobbies cut subsonic .22rf down to a lot less noise than an air rifle, which is fine for most rabbiting.
The ones we use for foxes/deer & other centrefire rifles are mostly $500 & up reflex types. Putting one of those on a .22rf means the loudest sound is the firing pin hitting the case rim.
Well that’s in the same cost range as in the US then although they can be more expensive. I think the last I bought was $800 for a .45 although I don’t really recall. I am bad that way. If I want it I just buy it and don’t really look at the price which is stupid on my part. Of course on top of that we have to pay $200 for stamp. Quite a scam and I can’t see the BATF giving that revenue producer up. Hell if I could sell stamps for $200 for doing nothing I guess I would do it too!
Then again we can buy semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns over the counter here whereas in the UK those are all restricted and as I understand it nearly impossible to own. I knew someone living in England who had to turn his handguns in. He did say they gave him a fair price for them but hated losing his S&W Model 29 which is hardly a gangster gun! I think I would rather put up with the $200 stamp than that.
Aye; the only semi’s we can own are in .22rf these days & no handguns at all.:-(
That’s why I fly out to the US two or three times a year; because your government trusts me with firearms to a far greater extent than my own & for that I give thanks. I just got back from three weeks of visiting friends in GA, AL & NM & doing as much shooting as possible.:-)
It’s really a shame you can’t own handguns. I know Brits don’t like semi-auto shotguns and I have to say I used to think the same way but there are some damn nice semi-autos nowadays that balance like a well made double. I am not kidding, they do. Maybe better with the long sighting plane. Of course even when they were legal in the UK next to no one used them for hunting. Not sporting and all that. Really I think not traditional was more like it.
I want to ask you a serious question and I hope you don’t take offense. I have been to England quite a bit but not for years. One thing I noticed is that there are a lot of fist fights, right in London even and not in the bad parts of the city. My girlfriend went there for the first time for a few weeks and saw three fist fights. I asked her how many she had seen in Seattle in her whole life and her answer was the same as mine, none. Yeah, I have never seen a fist fight in Seattle although I can’t say the same for Alaska. Alaska is a different case though. Until the recent past there was a frontier attitude in the bush and people went into the bars with not only the expectation but the hope of getting into fights. I hardly think of London as having a frontier mentality. Even in such formely wild towns as Dutch Harbor the fighting has been pretty much curtailed. However it seems to go on in London.
So what gives with England? Are the people more aggressive? Is this why they restrict guns? Or is it that because guns are restricted, you know, the old saying about a armed society being a polite one? I was hunting in Mozambique with two Brits and they started talking about fighting in bars, like a sport. I said it wouldn’t be a sport with me, that I would use whatever was handy to end it and I would. They were a bit shocked. Maybe it is just different attitudes and has nothing at all to do with guns.
I gusee i forgot about shotguns.
Semi auto shotguns are allowed here, though generally restricted to two in the tube & one in the chamber (as are pump actions).
I use a left handed Benelli SBE for pest control (unrestricted magazine for that purpose…).
I don’t know what it is with drink & fighting over here but I’m convinced that the “armed society” truism IS a factor; here the idiots don’t have to consider the consequences of picking on an armed citizen.
The UK has more than double the violent crime rate of the US, yet nobody mentions this – only the four times higher homicide rate in the US (which is 80% felon on felon).
If I visit my sister, who lives in London, then I expect to hear gunfire at least once or twice a night but in seven years staying in Albuquerque a few weeks at a time, I’ve heard it twice.
I feel much safer in the US than I do here in the UK.
Oh, I didn’t realize that semi-autos shotguns were legal there. I knew next to no one used them years ago but then years ago they weren’t all that hot. Yes, Benelli makes a fine shotgun. I have had a few and still own one. I wonder if they have altered them for export to the UK like they did the US to not allow a round to be placed on the carrier. For hunting, we for the most part are limited to three rounds. There are exceptions but that is the case most of the time. The first Benellis even with the magazine plugged to two rounds making it supposedly a three round gun, you could load a fourth round on the carrier and it would feed and fire. The Feds didn’t like this and made Benellis change it. So now the gun out of the box is not as reliable however it is very easy to bring it back to original design specs. The hell with USFW!
You may well be right about the armed society thing, I am not sure and I suppose something like that would be impossible to prove but I am sure there is a difference in the violence levels and you’re correct in your observations.
I want to congratulate the author of this article. Seriously. You have illustrated just how ignorant human beings can be. How in any way, can you quote a bunch of moronic, window-licking Fudds who know NOTHING about the law (or suppressors, for that matter) and actually print mind-numbingly stupid statements which lump sound suppressors into the same category as “bazookas” and “Hellfire missiles”? Added to which…this rambling, uncohesive, collection of ignorance and well-worn anti-gun cliche’s…only multiplies. “High powered, semi-automatic weapons”? If you’re referring to semi-automatic, military-pattern sporting arms, 99.9% wouldn’t even be CLOSE to being considered as “high power” as your average deer/elk rifle, like a 30.06, 300 WinMag, or .338 Magnum. Such modern weapons are functionally NO different than traditional hunting arms and only differ cosmetically–because as we all know, it’s not very sporting to shoot a deer with a weapon with black plastic in it. The weapon must have wooden grips, forearms, and stocks to be a legitimate hunting weapon. Simply quoting members of an extremist group convincingly named with the word “hunter” in its title, doesn’t mean the organization supports or represents hunters. Sound suppressors serve to protect the ears of hunters (how in the world can you hunt ANYTHING with earplugs in, as one of the idiots quoted, mentioned?), they reduce the changes of upsetting neighbors or livestock with the sounds of gunfire, and in many cases, actually increase the accuracy potential of the weapon, ensuring cleaner kills. Wyoming would be smart to join the rest of the free world and un-restrict such devices for hunting and the author needs to certainly educate himself before announcing to the world just exactly how ignorant he is.
Comments are closed.