Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles News for Suppressor Haters

When the really high-end makers start offering threaded rifles, perhaps they sense an exploding market?

Anschutz offers Squirrel Assasins another Choice

Wait, What?! Even plebian American gunmakers introducing more suppressible models? Must be a fluke:

Click link for picture:

Ruger FTW Hunter introduced today
FOR RELEASE: May 20, 2016
For further information contact:
Ken Jorgensen, Director of Media Relations


Ruger Introduces Hawkeye FTW Hunter Models
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) announces the addition of the Ruger® Hawkeye® FTW Hunter to its line of Hawkeye bolt-action rifles. This new rifle was designed by working closely with the instructors of the Sportsman’s All-Weather, All-Terrain Marksmanship (SAAM) school at the highly regarded FTW Ranch in Barksdale, TX.

The Hawkeye FTW Hunter features a Natural Gear™ Camo, laminated wood stock and a stainless steel, cold hammer-forged barrel for exceptional accuracy, longevity and easy cleaning. The hinged, solid steel floor plate is engraved with the FTW Logo and allows for easy unloading of the rifle without the need to chamber each cartridge. Offered in seven calibers, including three left-handed options, the Hawkeye FTW Hunter is sure to be a popular choice among hunting enthusiasts.

Each rifle comes with the Ruger® Muzzle Brake System, which includes a removable, radial-port muzzle brake that significantly reduces felt recoil. For times when the brake is not preferred, it may be replaced by the included dynamically-matched muzzle weight. Switching between the brake and the weight will not change the bullet’s point of impact for a particular load. The included thread protector may be used if neither the brake nor the weight is desired.

Not sure about Germany, but use of suppressors in the UK has been De Rigueur for a number of years. Even on the high powered pellet rifles.

Picked up a gun rag while in London about 10 years ago. Got the impression that the suppressor was an over the counter type item, and highly encouraged.

Now, if we could just get Anschutz to import some Left Hand .22 rifles into the U.S. market. The 1416 AV T6M shown in the blog post above would interesting to play with in left hand.

Doubt there are many "haters" just folks, like me, that do not desire one.

And folks like me that wouldn't mind one, but have no desire to do the paperwork/trust/blood donation etc to own one.

This ----

Yep.

I think most would be surprised really how easy it is to get into a suppressor if they actually looked into it. I waited a few years to even go talk to the local dealer and had my trust set up and ready to go by the next day. I bought 2 suppressors that day, one of which I got my stamp back about a month ago. Still waiting on the other and have two more that I just bought a week ago. Shooting suppressed really makes shooting that much more enjoyable!

I guess folks are happy giving the government more money, I ain't one of them.

I don't like giving the government money any more than the next guy but lifes too damn short. Suppressors are a ton of fun! $200 for the stamp is soon forgotten once you shoot with them a bit. To each his own...

Interesting how those who don't own suppressors "know" how much of a hassle it is to get one.

Once you get your trust setup (extremely easy), there is no hassle. Just wait a few months. Now I would love for it to be easier and not have to pay the $200 tax but it is what it is. All I know is they make shooting much more fun and hunting no longer requires ear pro.

[/quote]

I guess folks are happy giving the government more money, I ain't one of them. [/quote]

Don't want to give back any of what you have taken from them?

Jim

Rick has it right. Easy and chump change compared to hearing aids.

Act quickly though as in a few months trusts will also require photos and fingerprints.

300 B/O with subsonics and a can, the most noise is the AR's action cycling

Well worth the $200 price of admission...

They're like pairs of Air Force Ones..... "You might not have three or four.... but you gotta have one man...."

The paper work isn't nearly as tough as it sounds. Maybe if you live in a firearm unfriendly state it could be different? It probably takes more time, research, and more wait time to order and receive a McMillan stock...

I sold a scoped rifle to free up some cash for a suppressor and have never once wished I had the rifle back, but every time I touch off a round suppressed I'm glad I made the move.

I guess folks are happy giving the government more money, I ain't one of them. [/quote]

Don't want to give back any of what you have taken from them?

Jim [/quote]

I haven't taken anything from them, you socialist SOB.

So in short, you can't tell me for sure that you wouldn't enjoy sucking cock until you've actually given it a go?

PlayStation bleed over. Never quite understood why loud guns are ok but quite ones aren't.

All this talk about these threaded rifles, I may just have to buy one of these POS things....
I don't know why all the hate on a threaded suppressed rifle...they're more accurate, better for teaching young kids to shoot,

If you guys are so worried about the weight, I suggest you spend a little more time hitting the gym instead of the keyboard.....

+10 but the suppressor haters can't hear you......

Many red states have legalized them for hunting.

Blue states hate them, deaf people make better Democrats.

Many countries mandate them for hunting as their socialist healthcare systems are burdened enough without more deaf people.

Suppose Steelhead will refuse Medicare and Social Security when he gets old enough ? (before the rant: most SS and MC receipents get far more back than they pay in.)

What ? Can't hear you !

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.

This thread is seriously mis-titled. Unlike brakes, I've never heard anyone complain about suppressors, only about the expense and trouble required to get one.

Both ranges I frequent require eye and ear protection at all times, regardless of who's shooting what. As far as I know, they're still illegal for hunting in my state, although I haven't checked lately. Those factors make a suppressor a waste of money for me. If I had a place to shoot where I could use one, sure, I'd take the plunge, even if just for plinking. My hunting rifles are already long, heavy, and bulky enough, so it's unlikely I'd add one to any of them for the couple of shots I take during deer season. They make a lot of sense where legal, on private land to help keep the peace with neighbors.

Is a 270 with a suppressor OK or is that tacti-gay?

My 375 AI came with a recoil reducer. It works ok I guess. Luckily it is a screw on model. I just need to put thread protectors on and I'll set the recoil reducer in a drawer to be reused in the estate sale.
The good news is the barrel is threaded which means less expense with a suppressor.

But for me the suppressor will be best used on prairie dog rifles. Where my shooting buddies are nearby.

We all have our own shooting ranges so that's no issue.

The suppressor saves one's hearing. Only a complete idiot would want to destroy their hearing. But then Obama got elected twice -- there's a lot of idiots in this country.

Turns it into The 6.8 JOC Uber!

Nope my BOSS 270 wears a can. Just screw off the Boss, screw on the can. (5/8x24)

GemTech can is rated up to 300 WM, yet to find a BOSS 300WM for the same giveaway $ I bought the 270 M70 for.

I agree.

Ha ! no sooner said than found ! Browning A Bolt Stainless 300 WinMag w/BOSS $537.00. Never hunted.

Stock will get changed as plastic is ugly.

Internet is good (sometimes)

If 200 hurts, you are in the wrong game... but I agree, I'm not happy about it, but I can look past some things. At least its not giving money to Ruger.

I'd rather give money to Ruger for a product than the government for a privilege.