Is a suppressor worth it?

[RVTECH]

Tell that to the guys who are hunting long distance.

Well, unless I am missing something I don't see the connection between suppressor use and hunting long distance - I mean what difference does a suppressor make whether its 100 yards or 500? The rifle is still in the hands of the shooter.

And with regard to 'hunting long distance' I am sure it is done to a degree but most of my shots at game have been less than a 100 or so yards - even in relatively 'open' country - and most other hunters I have known have often killed game at 100 yards or less. I once shot a deer at like 20 feet.

Lastly I have never experienced hunting in a 'multiple group setting' per se, except maybe with only one other hunter close by. In Oregon anyway, unless a 'party' all get drawn for their tags a multiple group setting would not be necessary and even then most hunters I know prefer to hunt alone or with maybe only one other 'partner' nearby.

Again I often read and hear about militaristic and 'tactical' approaches applied to hunting when the reality is its not at all like this.

 

[thorborg]

If there were no ridiculous regulations, at todays ridiculous prices, they would be a fun over priced toy with marginal value.
Completely deregulate them, and watch the industry stop gouging, the prices would drop to under a hundred bucks.
All the post are fun to read the rationalizations in support of "worth it".
Once the kids were gone and the house paid off I've acquired many things of little to no real value, but I didn't seriously try to convince anyone beyond they are fun, I have the money and I wanted one, like a boat, (in my case had four over the years, five if you included the first, a home made one) still, no real value juxtaposed to all the monies spent.
Personally, from the few I've shot they didn't justify the off balance ergonomics which is important to me or the marginal sound reduction better provided for by a good pair of even electronic hearing protection, WHICH, I might add much to the chagrin of many here, at every gun range I've used, requires one to have hearing protection on anyway, suppressor or not.

 

[solv3nt]

If there were no ridiculous regulations, at todays ridiculous prices, they would be a fun over priced toy with marginal value.

Psh! It's the most fun one can have with clothes on

 

[CLT65]

A dirty little secret is that the main driver of suppressor popularity is a thing called inflation. $200 nowadays is no big deal for the average guy, but back in 1934 that $200 was more like $5,000 in today's money.

The purpose of the 1934 NFA was to take things like suppressors away from the common man completely. Class 3 toys were only for the wealthy, a rich man's game.

If the MG registry hadn't been closed almost four decades ago, all y'all would have safes full of MGs. Or maybe not; the powers that be would probably have found another way to stop it.

There was a time in the past when I thought it would be really cool to have a machine gun. Over the years I've gone shooting a few times with acquaintances who were class 3 guys with legal MGs. It was really cool, but I got the feeling that the cool factor would wear off pretty quick, or I'd go broke buying ammo. Now that I'm older, I don't think I'd buy one even if I could afford it.

Oops, now I probably offended the machine gun guys, who'll call me dumb for not wanting an MG…

 

[2506]

Can someone with hands on knowledge pipe in:

If a 45 acp is roughly 160 decibels, and a Banish suppressor reduces that by its advertised 36 decibels, you're still above the 120 decibels threshold of noise that causes pain and permanent damage—-so, why spend ~$1000 to still need hearing protection?
Am I missing something? Trust me, I think they're cool and want one if I could justify the cost.

 

[Alexx1401]

Can someone with hands on knowledge pipe in:

If a 45 acp is roughly 160 decibels, and a Banish suppressor reduces that by its advertised 36 decibels, you're still above the 120 decibels threshold of noise that causes pain and permanent damage—-so, why spend ~$1000 to still need hearing protection?
Am I missing something? Trust me, I think they're cool and want one if I could justify the cost.

There is often a problem with "stats", vs real world. You would really need to actually shoot some firearms with a suppressor. I have shot some that did NOT leave me ringing ears with no protection. There is stat's people can make say anything they wish and then there is what happens in the real world. Sounds like you are not really interested in a can. Certainly nothing wrong with that. Your money, your choice how to spend it. If you ever can get to a place where you can play with some firearms with cans on them you "may" find it changes your mind a little. Maybe not too. Again your money, your choice.

 

[Savage Jav]

Those of you who own suppressors do you still wear hearing protection when shooting with the suppressor on?

If the answer is "some times" at what level do you feel hearing protection is needed? For example:

1) All supersonic loads?
2) All supersonic loads above a certain cartridge / caliber? What is the cut off caliber / cartridge for you?
3) Subsonic loads above a certain cartridge / caliber? What is the cut off caliber / cartridge for you?
4) What suppressor do you have? Do you use it for multiple calibers (multiple bullet diameters)?
5) What environment are you in when shooting with your suppressor? Indoor range? Outdoor range? Outdoors with no one else around you shooting? Hunting?

I don't own a suppressor but have often considered making the jump... but the "which suppressor to buy" question has always gotten in my way.
It would help a lot to know how effective a certain class of suppressor is as far as no longer needing hearing protection from those that own suppressors?

I have a hard time justifying the cost of a suppressor if I still need to use hearing protection when using the suppressor. I shoot several calibers / cartridges from 22lr on up to 30-06. 22lr subsonics with a suppressor seems like hearing protection would no longer be needed? What about 22lr supersonics? What about 9mm subsonics? 300 AAC Black subsonics?

I would appreciate hearing the opinions and feed back from those that own their own suppressors.

It depends. Generally speaking yes I do (but i'm pretty strick on protecting my hearing. Had to treat too many young guys with hearing damage).

Not always subsonic
556 and 12ga. My can are advertised at being around the 135db rating which for my is acceptable.
Id like to mess around with more subsonic bird shot/slug loads as I see this as the best use for running the can without ears.

 

[Alexx1401]

A dirty little secret is that the main driver of suppressor popularity is a thing called inflation. $200 nowadays is no big deal for the average guy, but back in 1934 that $200 was more like $5,000 in today's money.

The purpose of the 1934 NFA was to take things like suppressors away from the common man completely. Class 3 toys were only for the wealthy, a rich man's game.

If the MG registry hadn't been closed almost four decades ago, all y'all would have safes full of MGs. Or maybe not; the powers that be would probably have found another way to stop it.

There was a time in the past when I thought it would be really cool to have a machine gun. Over the years I've gone shooting a few times with acquaintances who were class 3 guys with legal MGs. It was really cool, but I got the feeling that the cool factor would wear off pretty quick, or I'd go broke buying ammo. Now that I'm older, I don't think I'd buy one even if I could afford it.

Oops, now I probably offended the machine gun guys, who'll call me dumb for not wanting an MG…

MANY have trouble getting their head around that. The original stamp was set at a price that made almost all have zero interest in legally owning stuff. For some reason law makers basically ignored this for decades. Now many of them are suddenly all excited about this. bottom line still the same. The people who buy NFA stuff legally don't commit crimes with it. As with all gun law, the laws are not aimed at crime.
As for NFA stuff its always been the same to me. People who like it, as I do, great. People who don't want something? Why would I care? A lot of people pay upwards of 100K for many vehicles. I will look at some of these and say damn that is nice but no way in hell do I want one. For those who do? Why would I care?
Sadly though a LOT of gun owners will use this to support more laws. Saying since they do not want XYZ they are fine with laws passed against it. Does not effect them. Anyone with a brain knows that all this does is make law makers some day come for something they do care about.

 

[Savage Jav]

While having read similar to this with regard to suppressors while hunting I don't see this as a valid need for one.

For one, when hunting, there are relatively few shots taken, often only being one. Also hunters tend to be far and few between and what shots are heard by them are often off in the distance and muted anyway due to 'natural' surroundings of trees, hills, etc.

Also, while some may use hearing protection while hunting, I have never nor have I ever seen anyone else using it while hunting. Typically when hunting, and presented with a shot at an animal, you are usually so excited your senses are heightened to the point you don't really 'hear' the shot you took. Also I can hardly imagine hunting with hearing protection as it would dramatically inhibit my ability to hear what is going on around me - such as movement of game.

Another thing is 'game' is minimally disturbed (if at all) by shooting. I have watched deer & elk from a distance, heard shots and seen them look up, maybe move off a few step and go back to grazing.

Also a lot of hunters use firearms that are not adaptable for suppressors, or ones they would never put a suppressor on for obvious reasons. Traditional BP hunters (as I am) are one example of this.

Like I previously mentioned as a long time hunter and shooter I never heard of suppressor use for hunting until relatively recently as in the last several years. I see it as just another answer to a problem that doesn't really exist, and just applying a 'tactical' application where it isn't really needed.

I often wonder when I might read about someone wearing a 'plate carrier' when hunting.

Waterfowl hunters are at the most risk. Take a look at this article:

StackPath

Id also argue many "traditional firearms" can very easily have the muzzle threaded by a competent gunsmith. I also see threaded barrels becoming more and more common as a standard feature on new production bolt guns. They also do make a black powder silencer https://www.americanhunter.org/content/hardware-silencerco-maxim-50/

I think the reason you haven't herd of silencers being used in hunting is a combination of timing and marketing. Up until recently the $200 fee was a large chunk of cash, time and hassle to do. Now with inflation and eforms the cost and hassle has become a bit more bearable. That coupled with manufacturing marketing the suppressor game has become reachable to new shooters.

Id make the argument a silencer is way more utilitarian than it is tactical. Now a days no one would say a hunting scope is tactical even though the same one may be used by the military.

 

[TTSX]

While having read similar to this with regard to suppressors while hunting I don't see this as a valid need for one.

For one, when hunting, there are relatively few shots taken, often only being one. Also hunters tend to be far and few between and what shots are heard by them are often off in the distance and muted anyway due to 'natural' surroundings of trees, hills, etc.

Also, while some may use hearing protection while hunting, I have never nor have I ever seen anyone else using it while hunting. Typically when hunting, and presented with a shot at an animal, you are usually so excited your senses are heightened to the point you don't really 'hear' the shot you took. Also I can hardly imagine hunting with hearing protection as it would dramatically inhibit my ability to hear what is going on around me - such as movement of game.

Another thing is 'game' is minimally disturbed (if at all) by shooting. I have watched deer & elk from a distance, heard shots and seen them look up, maybe move off a few step and go back to grazing.

Also a lot of hunters use firearms that are not adaptable for suppressors, or ones they would never put a suppressor on for obvious reasons. Traditional BP hunters (as I am) are one example of this.

Like I previously mentioned as a long time hunter and shooter I never heard of suppressor use for hunting until relatively recently as in the last several years. I see it as just another answer to a problem that doesn't really exist, and just applying a 'tactical' application where it isn't really needed.

I often wonder when I might read about someone wearing a 'plate carrier' when hunting.

I carry ear plugs when I hunt and put them in when I find a place to sit and watch

You also do immediate, irreparable harm when you shoot your rifle/shotgun and it produces well north of 140dB, even if you don't realize it at the time. Hearing loss is often a slow process.

I also have suppressors that I use for hunting and would gladly use on all my guns, however the rifle I like the most doesn't have a threaded barrel so it unfortunately doesn't get to give me that benefit

 

[solv3nt]

Am I missing something? Trust me, I think they're cool and want one if I could justify the cost.

You just answered it. They're pretty cool!

I have shot some that did NOT leave me ringing ears with no protection.

Whether or not your ears are ringing, you're still damaging your hearing.

You also do immediate, irreparable harm when you shoot your rifle/shotgun and it produces well north of 140dB, even if you don't realize it at the time. Hearing loss is often a slow process.

^^^ This

 

[DunRanull]

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

Worth the effort? I dunno, only you can answer that. Personally I'd like to see suppressors removed from the Federal Firearms Act and federal supervision and regulation returned "To the States or to The People". It's not a thing I've given much thought to (like full auto) over the years, but suppressors have their legitimate uses for hunting and at the range.

 

[Alexx1401]

You just answered it. They're pretty cool!


Whether or not your ears are ringing, you're still damaging your hearing.


^^^ This

Life has no doubt damaged my hearing. Work, play, even music. Given how I have lived when young it is shocking to me that now that I am old and gray I still have hearing that is (for my age) quite good. Spent untold hours burning shotgun rounds at both live and clay and back then no protection. If I was still doing it now? Would use the electronic protection like I use at the range now. Back then this was non existent of course. First time I ever saw a suppressor demonstrated was a guy who was selling the kits. He lived with many rental units behind his home. Each one had a small area for shrubs and such. He walked out back, walked up to one of those and let a round go into the ground. No one even came out of their unit to see what that sound was. It was such a dull thud no one associated that with gun shot. Now when we would put one of those cans on something like an M3 or a Mac at full giggle, it would get attention but we were not doing that in the back yard of course.

 

[Alexx1401]

Worth the effort? I dunno, only you can answer that. Personally I'd like to see suppressors removed from the Federal Firearms Act and federal supervision and regulation returned "To the States or to The People". It's not a thing I've given much thought to (like full auto) over the years, but suppressors have their legitimate uses for hunting and at the range.

Oddly enough some other countries that make it VERY hard to buy and own a gun make buying a can for them simple for just that reason. They do have very legit use and of course laws have zero effect on the criminals as long as the "law" is going to turn a blind eye to the criminal.

 

[unionguy]

I have a few in jail and those will be my first. I haven't yet shot any firearms with one yet either. One angle is that in a true SHTF/Apocalypse scenario, suppressors can be extremely valuable as it makes it harder to locate you if you have to shoot for hunting/defense. But, maybe I just think about these things since I write apocalyptic fiction! Also, everyone I asked basically said "once you shoot suppressed, you won't want to go back." Good luck in figuring it out.

 

[Member 53328]

Well, unless I am missing something I don't see the connection between suppressor use and hunting long distance - I mean what difference does a suppressor make whether its 100 yards or 500? The rifle is still in the hands of the shooter.

And with regard to 'hunting long distance' I am sure it is done to a degree but most of my shots at game have been less than a 100 or so yards - even in relatively 'open' country - and most other hunters I have known have often killed game at 100 yards or less. I once shot a deer at like 20 feet.

Lastly I have never experienced hunting in a 'multiple group setting' per se, except maybe with only one other hunter close by. In Oregon anyway, unless a 'party' all get drawn for their tags a multiple group setting would not be necessary and even then most hunters I know prefer to hunt alone or with maybe only one other 'partner' nearby.

Again I often read and hear about militaristic and 'tactical' approaches applied to hunting when the reality is its not at all like this.

You do what you wish. And I'll do the same. I'll continue to use my suppressor. Both recreationally and hunting.

To each their own.

 

[Rkangel]

I have tinnitus because someone thought it was funny to fire a gun inches from my ear years ago. Was deaf in one ear for two days and have permanent ringing in both ears as a result. I wouldn't wish that on any of my family if I had to fire a rifle indoors. Hence my interest in a suppressor.

Just wanted to make sure the hype didn't exceed the time and cost commitment. I used think this way, but recently hearing someone shooting a suppressed 300 blackout at the range was pretty compelling and made me reconsider the question.

 

[MikeInOr]

As I shoot primarily at an indoor range, I always wear hearing protection. However, I have a can on my home defense weapon, a .300 Blackout SBR with subsonic loads. This way I don't t need to worry about dear Wife's or my own hearing if I need to shoot indoors. At competitions I use an AR with a 10" barrel and a Yankees Hill Resonator can and they need to have the shot timer right beside me to be able to pick up the sound of my shots, so it is indeed quiet. I have a Sig Rattler with a 5 " barrel and with a Dead Air Nomad is about as loud as a cough.
OTOH a5" can on an AR pistol in 5.56 with a 5" barrel was just about worthless. Supersonic ammo and a short barrel are too much for any suppressor to deal with. On .22s a silencer is a hoot especially with subsonic ammo.. Silencers are not cheap and the $200 tax stamp and the year+ wait don't make it appealing to a lot of folks but I enjoy shooting with them and with subsonic ammo they are very quiet indeed.
YMMV, but I enjoy having them in my collection.

I have a Sig Spear LT (with SBR stamp) and I am planning on picking up a 6.75" 300 AAC Blackout barrel for it or a 5.5" Rattler upper depending on what deal I can find. I appreciate your feedback on the Dead Air Nomad. I will look into this suppressor.

My biggest problem with buying a suppressor is that it is an expensive mistake if you don't get what you are expecting (like a 5.56 can on a 5.5" barrel) and there is really no way to try before I buy. I find feedback from actual owners to usually be the most reliable feedback.

 

[MikeInOr]

There is often a problem with "stats", vs real world. You would really need to actually shoot some firearms with a suppressor. I have shot some that did NOT leave me ringing ears with no protection. There is stat's people can make say anything they wish and then there is what happens in the real world. Sounds like you are not really interested in a can. Certainly nothing wrong with that. Your money, your choice how to spend it. If you ever can get to a place where you can play with some firearms with cans on them you "may" find it changes your mind a little. Maybe not too. Again your money, your choice.

Most youtube reviews on just about everything I have seen seem to have a motive for approving or disapproving of a product. Most youtube reviewers don't seem to live with a product long enough to really understand the long term pros / cons of actually owning the product.

Just like Amazon reviews most website user reviews are just as likely to be shill reviews as real reviews.

And like you said statistics are pretty much useless and easy to portray something that isn't really relevant.

Feedback on forums like this are what I usually give the most creedence to.

 

[solv3nt]

And like you said statistics are pretty much useless and easy to portray something that isn't really relevant.

Did you know that 76.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot?