Is a suppressor worth it?

[Member 66129]

As you're in Oregon, it's up for debate if 114 will impact suppressor sales with the permit to purchase. I'd wait and see what shakes out. To answer your question, my suppressed VQ always puts a smile on my face. My suppressed 92G is almost as much fun.

114 does not affect suppressors.

 

[User 1234]

Whether it is worth it depends on your use. Subsonic ammunition and a manual action is the highest benefit. Supersonic rifle cartridges in a semi auto are the least in my opinion.

For plinking with subsonic pistol cartridges they're great. Also useful for home defense when the reduced report can protect hearing and help a moderately-trained person maintain their situational awareness.

 

[GrayGoose]

In this day and age in Oregon, is a suppressor worth the effort?

If you have to ask, then probably not for you.

 

[Twodogs]

Shooting CCI Quite .22 LR , 45gr 800 fps ammo is back yard quite and will cycle in all my .22LR autos.

 

[Member 66129]

Anyone who says they aren't useful is lying to themselves and frankly, dumb.

Is there a cool factor? Absolutely.

More importantly, they reduce the risk of hearing damage to the shooter and everyone else around them.

I am 35 years old and I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds out the end of a barrel. As a result, I wear hearing aids in both ears and have 20-90% hearing loss at almost every measurable frequency. Don't be like me and wait to buy a suppressor (or 5). Every single time you hear a gunshot, even with ear pro on, you are damaging your hearing to some extent.

I will choose using a can every single time it is an option.

 

[brucekr]

To each their own, but I shoot 10:1 subsonic vs supersonic ammo now and matched with a suppressor, I can't say I've ever had more fun going shooting. Favorite is my MPX with 147 grain subs followed closely by my 300 blackout with 220 grain subs. Every time I take someone shooting, I can tell that they have the same enthusiasm about them as well.

 

[CLT65]

Anyone who says they aren't useful is lying to themselves and frankly, dumb.

Oh yeah?! You don't like my toys? Well, then you're just DUMB, so there!








By the way, I'm in my 50s, have shot tens of thousands of rounds over the last four decades, and have excellent hearing (tested regularly at work) because I've always used good hearing protection. I'm simply not interested in suppressors, but I certainly don't judge or put down those who are. We don't all have to like the same things.

 

[kmk1012]

To the people who say nay, I can with almost without a doubt say they have never shot cci standard velocity out of ANY 22lr. A 22lr suppressor is a must, a 30 cal rifle can is a close second if they are shooting heavy 300blk's. If I'm shooting supersonic I wear hearing pro anyways and really don't see the point either though.

 

[solv3nt]

114 does not affect suppressors.

114 affects purchasing firearms and is poorly written, are you going to risk buying one now?

 

[OrPackrat]

My first can and so far, only can, I got in 22lr.

I love it, attaching to a 22lr and shooting subsonic, it's a quiet clicker I absolutely love...

I have plans for getting a 45cal can and 30cal can later on, granted most of what I have is supersonic and the can will take a lot of the bite out of the bang but I'd get into some subsonic bigger stuff to take full advantage of the bigger stuff...

 

[Rkangel]

It's the 300blk w/suppressor combo that has me intrigued. I'm not a hunter. I already have significant tinnitus and don't relish of losing more hearing, or that of my family, if I ever had to touch off some rounds indoors.

Given the wait times, how would one handle the purchase if they had to relocate within the year?

 

[Member 53328]

Simple. The answer is yes.

 

[Ducati_Meister]

I'd say they are worth it, if you're willing to wait, plunk down the money etc. Especially. 22 cal cans, very fun and quiet. I bought a Thunderchicken .30 cal can with the intent to put it on a Honeybadger, but the BS WA 1240 law prevents me from legally getting one now.

 

[solv3nt]

@Andy54Hawken has one for his Hawken, you should ask him for pictures.

 

[Member 53328]

A suppressor on a .300WM makes a world of difference.

 

[RVTECH]

I am 35 years old and I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds out the end of a barrel. As a result, I wear hearing aids in both ears and have 20-90% hearing loss at almost every measurable frequency.

I am 64, have shot most likely way more rounds than you, AND for a long time without ANY hearing protection until about 2004 when I had an ear infection that couldn't be treated and the Dr had to lance my eardrum to drain it.

As a result of this I have experienced a hearing loss in the ear that was treated however after this was resolved, and subsequent hearing tests, it was discovered I had virtually NO hearing loss from any previous reasons (such as shooting) but after that ALWAYS now wear hearing protection when shooting.

I can't imagine your excessive hearing loss is entirely due to shooting, unless it has always been at a range, inside, and maybe within a 'cubical' where the report can be deafening.

I ENTIRELY support everyone wearing hearing protection when shooting ANYWHERE but I do not see suppressors as the 'end all' to prevent hearing damage.

 

[Member 53328]

I am 64, have shot most likely way more rounds than you, AND for a long time without ANY hearing protection until about 2004 when I had an ear infection that couldn't be treated and the Dr had to lance my eardrum to drain it.

As a result of this I have experienced a hearing loss in the ear that was treated however after this was resolved, and subsequent hearing tests, it was discovered I had virtually NO hearing loss from any previous reasons (such as shooting) but after that ALWAYS now wear hearing protection when shooting.

I can't imagine your excessive hearing loss is entirely due to shooting, unless it has always been at a range, inside, and maybe within a 'cubical' where the report can be deafening.

I ENTIRELY support everyone wearing hearing protection when shooting ANYWHERE but I do not see suppressors as the 'end all' to prevent hearing damage.

You should see my hearing chart from when I joined the Marines at meps and my hearing test when I got out. A decrease of over 50 percent. And I'm only 34…..

 

[Andy54Hawken]

@Andy54Hawken has one for his Hawken, you should ask him for pictures.

Ha..I don't have one for my Hawken....
I did have one for my M21 courtesy of my Uncle Sam...

As far as the OP goes...is it worth it...?
Sure...if you want one.
While they ain't quite like they are made out to be in the movies.....they do indeed quiet things down.
And that can be useful when shooting indoors...or when even plinking...just to be nice to others within hearing distance.
Andy

 

[Ducati_Meister]

You should see my hearing chart from when I joined the Marines at meps and my hearing test when I got out. A decrease of over 50 percent. And I'm only 34…..

I'm the same age and have marked hearing loss after the service (USAF), worked in power generation and on the flight line. Just got a new set of hearing aids.

 

[CLT65]

@Andy54Hawken has one for his Hawken, you should ask him for pictures.

Say, I wonder how that would work, a suppressor on a front-stuffer…

I would make a tangential point about it also depending on what kinds of firearms you shoot. My primary interests are in older guns, surplus rifles and handguns, lots of old S&W revolvers, the type of guns that very few people would suppress, let alone molest by threading the muzzle.

Also, I would like to make it clear that I have nothing against suppressors and firmly support those who own them, even though I have no interest in owning one. A few years back, when the Hearing Protection Act was being discussed, I argued the point with a coworker. He was a longtime gun owner, but also a bit of a wokester who hated any politician with an (R) behind their name.

I told him I was solidly in favor of easing restrictions on suppressors, because they're not used in crime, and they are useful for hearing protection and reducing noise pollution. He wasn't swayed; he just replied that if they were deregulated then criminals would surely use them for dastardly deeds. Ideology overrides reason every time.