Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles News for Suppressor Haters

Does anyone have any numbers how much noise they suppress? Everything I have seen still shows numbers over 85 decibels. Which means you would still need hearing protection when shooting or risk damaging your hearing.

Typically -40 decibels or more.
I don't need hearing protection when shooting my 308's my 260 or any of my other smaller rifles

It's not just the "decibels" that damage hearing. You ever go out shooting, then have a dull headache, or some sinus pressure? I bet everyone has, I know I have many times, especially when shooting guns with brakes on them. That's because impact to your mastoid cavity from muzzle blast significantly effects your hearing as well.... there is essentially ZERO muzzle blasts with a suppressor.

I don't know ANYONE who's actually fired a suppressed rifle... Then immediately turned around and fired the same gun sans-can.... and preferred the unsuppressed version. But that's only a sample of about 100 people....

I really like the idea of a suppressor. However, the cost of switching over is prohibitive to me. None of my rifles are threaded, so that would be a major cash outlay, on top of the $200 tax and the cost of the suppressor. I currently don't see a need to replace any of my firearms, so probably won't be buying a whole lot of suppressor-ready guns. I'll just wear ear plugs....


Kaiser Norton

I wish I'd done a trust 30 years ago. Waiting on a Form 4 to SBR my old 10/22 right now, and wil probably do another suppressor and SBR or SBS before the deadline.

Thinkin about Snubnosing my Guide Gun and getting a SiCo Hybrid for it and a few more guns.

Fixin to buy another threaded centerfire my adult children can hunt w suppressed. Though may get a n RAR Ranch for my grandson's first deer rifle...

Hearing a mild crack-Hiss and the meat report on a WT or coyote is worth the squeeze, Steelhead.

Pretty soon a suppressor may only take 4473, tho. That'll make me happy.

Hope the bill to rescind the '86 ban on civilian sales of new manufacture FA guns gets some traction, too.

85 decibels is an OSHA number for continuous noise exposure, like working in an assembly plant. It's actually a very low noise level; closing your car door is louder. Even going by OSHA numbers, "hearing safe" levels depend on duration and frequency of exposure. Suppressed .22 rifles and pistols for example, at around 115-125 decibels, are perfectly safe for your ears. If you heard this in person, you'd realize how quiet that actually is.

Full house .260 load....

[video:youtube]NN-VtcuiUZ8[/video]

OSHA also lists an Impulse Noise limit of 140 dB, which is the category a gun shot would fall into.

Hate suppressors? No, never.

Brakes? Yeah, now those I hate!😛

Not a "hater" by any means but I have hunted a fair bit with them in the UK and came away totally unimpressed. Perhaps I could even say while I understand the benefits in populated areas of England as well as the totally wild parts of Scotland the balance and handling of top quality rifles presented to me was just plain terrible. I found the noise reduction minimal at best. That said, I admit my sampling was limited to 4 rifles all different but standard hunting calibers.
If I were to be firing 100's of rounds at a time there would be stronger incentive to reconsider my position but for big game hunting I'd pass even if the regulations and taxes were removed. JM2C

I watch the Fieldsports Channel and the Shooting Show on YouTube regularly, and like you understand why they have those big ugly cans hanging off the end of their barrels, but wouldn't want to hunt like that here. At the range or in the backyard, sure.

I saw an episode where a professional gamekeeper felt he had to call the police before he started shooting pigeons on a farm or risk attracting the local SWAT team.

Today while at the range a couple guys arrived with .223 black rifles. They were LOUD! I asked some of the other shooters if they were as loud and my braked rifle. An enthusiastic, "You bet!" was the response. I think too many are believing what "everyone" says instead of hearing it for themselves. This is the third time this has happened at the range.

I don't use a can on every rifle I own. I certainly wouldn't use one if weight and length was a concern. But just because some may not want one doesn't take away from the benefits of suppressors for other shooters.

No suppressor is going to make a centerfire rifle "quiet" without subsonic ammunition. What they do is bring the noise down to a safer level. They also reduce recoil and can boost velocity a small amount. Hard to believe some think that's a bad thing.

Ringman: "A suppressed rifle as loud as a braked one" ? LOLx10.

Wonder why Special Ops uses them instead of brakes ?

The only accurate information on this thread is from those who:

a) own them OR
b) have done their research

Wareagle, it is hard to believe but there are always naysayers if it's not their idea (ask Henry Ford)

Those 16" .223s are loud. I encourage everyone that shoots one of those to use a suppressor!

The public range near my house gets a lot of traffic fom the suburbs, most of them with ARs and such. While they're cutting loose, it can be hard to concentrate on holdin' and squeezin'. I've got another private range I can use when I want some peace and quiet.

No slander here against ARs at all, or suppressors for that matter. Neither interests me right now, but that certainly could change.

1000is,



Maybe you would document the "A suppressed rifle as loud as a braked one" ? LOLx10. Since I don't think that, I would post that.

I am positive some rifles without are louder than some braked rifles. And some folks, if they are not looking at the rifle, would not know if it was braked or not.

I love tests. When my dad, an uncle, and my brother were at my house I asked them to participate in a test. None of them knew what a brake is. All they had to tell me was which shot was louder: Shot number one or shot number two. My dad was about fifty feet behind me. My uncle was about twenty-five feet behind me, and my brother was beside me. I suggested he cover his ears, but he declined. After all he had been in the army. I was under an oak tree with branches about fifteen feet above me. The rifle was a .375-.416 Rem Mag running 88 grains of powder behind a 300 grain bullet.

All three said the shot without the brake was louder.

I'd never fire another I suppressed shot again if I could put a can on every rifle I own. I may do just that, in fact. Firing an unsuppressed rifle sucks compared to firing a suppressed rifle. TBAC Ultra series for the win.

Glad to see suppressors becoming more mainstream and rifle mfgs making it that much easier for the general population to enjoy the benefits.
The tax stamp and wait time is pure BS and that requirement should be eliminated IMO.
I've a few and never not enjoy the benefits on the rifles set up for them.

I also have rifles that I do not have set up for suppression due a more svelt blueprint and purpose.

Haters will hate, like I hate wood and blue on a rifle... ...but wood and blue look good on a fine shotgun.

I'm not a hater, I own 2 but rarely use them anymore. I personally think they should be removed from the NFA list. Like everything else that's new to the majority of folks, they are over rated. I can't stand what they do to the balance and handling of a rifle. When I'm at the range I use hearing protection. When I'm hunting I can deal with the sound of a single shot.

I don't actually. I appreciated the taxpayer support whilst running amok in 'Nam. Likewise while practicing vector craft with the FAA and ensuring planes didn't swap paint in the flight levels. Good times, thrill a minute awaits the players.

Both professions have potential in the private sector, but the cost would likely be a lot higher at the end of the day.

Napalm ain't cheap, neither is long range radar. Now that I think of it, neither is the medical care that results from Agent Orange exposure.

Rack 'em,

D

PS: I give back now and then.