The Case for Hunting with Suppressors
Article Hunting - 12.29.2011
While common in places like New Zealand and some European countries, the use of a silencers for hunting here in the United States is rare but on the rise in areas where feral pigs… alright. Let’s just back up here for a minute for the safety of those gun trolls out there about to have an aneurism.

We know that “silencers” for firearms don’t actually silence anything. There is always going to be some noise when the trigger is pulled no matter how good your “silencer” may be. In truth, your silencer would more appropriately be called a suppressor, but Guns.com isn’t in the habit of calling something a silencer for 30 years and then having to switch gears.

By way of examples, a suppressed .223 round still sounds like a .22 Long Rifle round, and a .308 Winchester round is a bit louder than a .22 Magnum. While suppressors are legal to own in most states here in the US, you do have to complete a background check and pay a $200.00 fee to the tax man. From beginning to end the process may take up to three or four months, but what are the advantages for hunters?



The simple answers are, you won’t go deaf, the recoil may be slightly reduced and you may actually relax enough to shoot a little better as that thunderclap of noise and thump will be absent for the most part. It’s also, as alluded to in the cagey little intro to article, found a place among wild hog hunters who have found a quiet first shot often delays the inevitable “sounder stampede” when stalking boars, allowing for more follow up shots (with invasive hogs, the more pigs dead in the dirt the better). But there’s one important reason you may not have thought of that I can personally attest to this.

After going through some extensive surgery three weeks ago, I was sitting home alone and began to get some tingling sensations in my left hand and fingers. It wouldn’t go away no matter what I tried. I went to the computer and typed in “stroke symptoms.” Sure enough, that tingling sensation was some of them. While typing I got a really bad nosebleed, another stroke symptom, and something that rarely happens to me. 

I panicked somewhat and got to the ER. Once there I was told that the nosebleed was due to the post-surgery blood thinners they had me on, and the tingling sensation was due to extensive crushed vertebrae on the left side of my neck.



What caused the crushed vertebrae? I shoot a rifle left-handed and after shooting .50 caliber rifles for almost four decades the doctors told me the only explanation was that shooting had taken its toll on my body.  For a lifelong shooter, the news that you can’t do one of the things you love the most in the world like you used to is devastating yet suppressed weapons allow me to continue to reach out and touch targets at 800 yards, well into my old age.  They can also prevent younger shooters from ending up in the same condition I’m in today.

The bottom line here is that getting a suppressor for your hunting rifle may not be a bad idea. You sure don’t want to end up like me, sitting in some ER afraid of what they’re about to tell you. They do reduce the recoil slightly, and it most definitely will help your hearing.

So then, how many of us are sitting on a small wad of cash ready to head to the local gun shop and fill out the necessary paperwork for the right to have suppressors? It’ll be too late for a Christmas present, but if you start now by the spring you could be doing some quiet hunting in the lower forty.
Tags: Guns, Hunting, Rifle
Thursday, December 29, 2011 Flemer - View Profile
I know there are plenty of people out there thinking the "ethical" side of hunting is giving the animal a chance to escape or get away.  The reality of it all is that suppressors still make noise.  ( Go to the sites for Gemtech, Advanced Armament Corp., Surefire, Silencerco or many of the other mfg companies and you can find plenty of info on the sound reduction)  The animal still has to be stalked or found, the person still has to be quiet and stealthy, the conditions for the shot still has to be favorable and you still has to pull the trigger with confidence.  On a short range hunt, 200yrds and in, you really are not gaining any favor except hearing protection.  For Long range hunts the animal would never hear the shot anyway.  So the argument over "ethical use" is really a farce.  For me,  I have 2 suppressors, the immediate benefit for me was the noise reduction.  I have shot for over 40 yrs...  and yes plenty of that was without ear protection and military was some really big guns that make lots of noise.. The noise reduction makes it much easier for me to enjoy shooting and maintain my hearing ...  I know many of the European countries REQUIRE suppressors.  There is even more evidence that suggests that suppressors are better for the environment..  The expulsion of gas, lead and other waste from the shot is caught in the suppressor.  We all know it's a pain to get a suppressor (totally over controlled for no good reason)  but the benefit is a hearing and body shock reduction that can keep you and your kids shooting for years with out damaging the body,.
Thursday, December 29, 2011 bluefalcon - View Profile
i KNOW i am going to catch lots of hatred for this... but i think firearm hunting (muzzle loaders partially excluded) is not ethical whatsoever unless all you were a complete sustenance hunter and the only things you ever ate were the only things you killed. that is why i switched over to a bow. with a rifle once you see the animal the hunt is already over. with a bow when you first see the animal the hunt has barely began. now i am not trying to be condescending... that is my opinion.
as for the suppressor issue,  not only do they really do not reduce sound a whole lot but they also play with accuracy. you owe that animal a clean, quick death and if your shot is not true you are not giving it one.
Thursday, December 29, 2011 BAM - View Profile
"you owe that animal a clean, quick death..."
That coming from a bow hunter?  
I'm not questioning your skills with a bow.  But there is no comparison-  a rifle is far more clean and quick than a bow.  There is just nothing clean and quick about a punctured lung death for the animal.  
There should be a required accuracy test certification for bow hunters.  I see at least 1 deer a year with an arrow in it running around.  There is no question more deer are lost after a hit, to die days later (whether from the wound or coyotes etc.), from a bow than a rifle.  I don't mean to give you a hard time about it.  It's just a touchy subject for me cause I see it every year.

Friday, December 30, 2011 bluefalcon - View Profile
i dont blame you man. i dont like it much either. two years ago a took a bull elk and when i was cleaning and dressing him i found a broadhead broken off in his hind quarters, nowhere close to the vitals.
as it is, however, more often than not i have seen my kills that i double-lunged with a broad head not make it nearly as far once they start running as opposed to whenever i double-lung them with a bullet. and normally whenever i find my kills after shooting them with a .30-06, they are still alive and screaming... as opposed to my bow where they are actually usually dead by the time we get them. i would venture to say that means that bows cause a quicker death with a well-placed shot, considering bullets crush everything in their path and also partially cauterize their wounds, and arrows slice everything in their path and let it all bleed out freely.
just my 0.02
Friday, December 30, 2011 BAM - View Profile
Well, you do have a point.  I hunt but I wouldn't call myself an "experienced" hunter.  Maybe I just have to witness more bow hunting for myself.  
Thursday, December 29, 2011 rockout1980 - View Profile

When it comes to hunting and ethics, regardless of the hunter's chosen equipment, the hunter is ethically obligated to provide a clean, quick death to whatever game they are chasing.  That means a couple things.  A hunter has an ethical obligation to attain proficiency with thier chosen equipment, and to learn the vital areas of the game they are chasing.  Also, ethically speaking, if there is a piece of equipment (i.e. a supressor) that improves existing skills, it would be more ethical to use it than not.  However, many states (including my own, Indiana) do not allow the use of suppresors for hunting, and proper ethics also dictates obeying any applicable laws.

Thursday, December 29, 2011 John Elliott - View Profile

All the arguments pro and con for suppressors have merit and are worth consideration. The bottom line for some is the level of comfort one experiences with the use of a suppressor (reduced noise and less recoil punch). In my own case, had I used suppressors for those 40 years I wouldn't now have the hearing issues I have and, quite possibly, I wouldn't be experiencing the unfortunate issues with my neck, something I never knew I had up until the last month or so. We don't all shoot .50 rifles, so that may be a non-issue for most, but a suppressor, no matter what we shoot, does indeed help. And, yes, of course, we must follow the laws of our states, and there's no doubt we all do.

 

All the comments being made regarding this issue, whether we use suppressors for hunting or target shooting, you name it, are great. Insofar as the accuracy issue is concerned, I have to say that that was never much of a consideration, as I have never found any decreased accuracy while using a suppressor at all.

Thursday, December 29, 2011 BAM - View Profile
The only down side to suppressors-  If someone is hunting illegally (not rifle season, or just not in season) it won't be as noticeable if anyone is in the area and pays attention to it.  
The last stand I found I my property, I took it down and sold it for a case of beer.  I have no problems with hunting and population control, but they have to ask before just going out and setting up.

Friday, December 30, 2011 rockout1980 - View Profile

Someone hunting illegally is already breaking the law without the silencer.  Trespassing is a crime, and with a rifle becomes poaching, even if a shot isn't fired.  Sure, the report is quieter, but by that logic everything is hunky dorey as long as they don't pull the trigger.  It isn't, it's still a crime, and if you have property you still have to watch it.  Also, I doubt that someone would bother to do the paperwork and pay the taxman for a legal silencer to go poaching.

Friday, December 30, 2011 BAM - View Profile
That wasn't the point.  The point I was making was that (my previous comment) is the only possible down side to suppressors.  Meaning other than the point I was making, I don't see any con's to using suppressors. 
Monday, January 2, 2012 flogger42 - View Profile
As someone that has had tinnitus (ringing in the ears) since he was 12 because he had been told that ear protection was for wimps.  I am fully behind using anything that reduces muzzle blast.  Yeah, I know that it was stupid, but I had my choice, buy ear muffs, or buy bullets.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 John Elliott - View Profile
In reference to the issue about ear protection, the points made are good. For those in combat or in situations where there is the threat of weapons being used, however, the luxury of using protection to save our hearing is absent. I was speaking about those 40 plus years of using .50 caliber rifles and other heavy calibers, not so much on a range or in training, but the times when lives (my own by way of example) were on the line and we were sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away from the United States. All those years of punching heavy caliber holes in something nasty, and without the use of ear muffs,  resulted in hearing loss, along with the resulting stress of the recoil; something we become almost numb to, but a significant factor in long-term physical damage.