Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Supressors.

Seriously, is there anything in the world that makes a rifle more ugly or clunky?
They're just gross.

Shooting without one is simply uncivilized. Plus, my tinnitus doesn't care how the rifle looks.

It depends on your point of view. They mitigate sound and recoil very well if constructed right. The only problem is their weight will cause thinner barrels to shoot low. The illegal NFA makes them expensive and deters a lot of competition. They're legal in almost all of Europe and can save you're hearing from damage of muzzle blast. They are probably the second thing behind AR's for misinformation in government speak. The government is not your friend.

There are rifles that I am fine with being ugly, and then there are rifles you would never dream of putting on a suppressor……

Spoken like someone with little experience with them. I guess in a perfect world guns would be quiet without them but I'd hardly call them ugly and clunky. It's like calling a scope ugly and clunky. Don't use one if you don't like them, but it makes shooting way way better to have them. They should be sold as accessories and require no background check. Prices would plummet and volume would soar. Regulating them is asinine.

You're doing it wrong.

Most of them aren’t nearly as heavy as what people would think. I love shooting with them especially on pistols and PCC’s neither of which are typically blued and walnut type guns to begin with. Even on more traditional firearms they don't look any worse than a scope and weigh less.

My tinnitus has simple origins. My office was frequently in the left seat, ears about 3-4' from the muzzle. I would not have cared one whit about ugly, but surely would have appreciated a muffler on that little dragon.

Dang, I'd better take the suppressors off my Holland and Holland Royal Double rifle.....

I used to think/say the same thing – then I tried one while coyote hunting.
And......now own a bunch of them.

Taint a fashion show in the field – when you hunt, do you ask your hunting partner if your Wranglers make your butt look big?
If you can force yourself to get passed the look, I'm sure you'd be impressed with the function.

No idea how it looks but mine aren’t clunky, heavy or gross. Just put another one in jail on tuesday and registered a lower for an SBR.

Sal, on this we agree! I know they have a purpose but they’re butt ugly and ruin the balance of the rifle.

Most people don’t see the need until they do. Every person who has shot my suppressed guns now owns multiple suppressors. I still shoot many guns without, but by round count it’s easily 2 to 1 in favor of suppressed.

And no, if paired correctly they don’t interfere with balance or handling.

He lives in California. He's not allowed to own a suppressor.

I have a suppressor on my ruger 10/22 that I use for squirrel hunting. I can sit near a big hickory tree and get 5-7 before the survivors wake up and leave the tree. I also use it to shoot coons at night in my back yard when they raid my squirrel feeders. I have no use for suppressors on my big game rifles. Everyone is different, not right or wrong, just different.

You say that in jest but......

With a little thought and planning (barrel length/contour), they can be used so the rifle balances nicely. If a guy is thinking, well, I'm just gonna keep the length of my current 24" mountain rifle barrel and just thread it, hell yeah, it's gonna suck for balance.

Well, there is indeed that.
So this is purely a "I wouldn't put a suppressor on my uber-refined Tikka Hunter because THE CAN is ugly" thread.

They're great for making BLM rioters rethink their dedication to the cause. .22 caliber holes in kneecaps and the crotch area have a tendency to take all the fun out of a "mostly peaceful protest".

If that's what you worried about is LOOKS. Pleases don't buy one. Some of us use rifles as tools. Not safe queens.