Suppressor Advice

[rob_s]

They may be dumb.
They may be heavy.
They may be dirty.
They may affect function.

But they will also go a LONG way toward keeping you from suffering unbearable tinnitus and other, more sinister effects of hearing loss, should you actually USE your firearm. Friend of mine shot a guy the other week, and when I asked how he was "My hearing's all jacked up" was his answer. You don't appreciate it until it happens.

Another friend of mine takes down meth labs for a living. He wants a suppressor for entirely other reasons, as well as hearing-loss/nerve damage potential.

Still others look at it from a liability standpoint...what happens if an officer in a school lets of 5-6 rounds near some student's heads? hearing-loss, vertigo, tinnitus, many other nasty things. In some places, the PD would be responsible for those medical bills...

Blah blah SHTFantasy blah

[1slow]

Blah blah SHTFantasy blah

Depends on your situation and tasking.
Having tinnitus 24/7 I can appreciate part of this. Also being able to hear for the rest of the situation after the first shot would be handy.

[rob_s]

Depends on your situation and tasking.
Having tinnitus 24/7 I can appreciate part of this. Also being able to hear for the rest of the situation after the first shot would be handy.

Of course it does.

Which is ALWAYS the response to my take on cans. "well, I have this special snowflake condition/situation/issue that means I *need* a silencer!"

There's nothing wrong with just owning that fact that it's farcical nonsense. Guns are allowed to be fun and silly.

[LittleLebowski]

Of course it does.

Which is ALWAYS the response to my take on cans. "well, I have this special snowflake condition/situation/issue that means I *need* a silencer!"

There's nothing wrong with just owning that fact that it's farcical nonsense. Guns are allowed to be fun and silly.

I think that you are mainly right (but there are a few practical applications for cans such as varmint control and hunting) That being said, there's not a thing about Unobtanium's statement regarding officers who use carbines for a living as being contrived reasons to have a can while on duty. Cans just make sense for LEOs in my opinion if one discounts the predictable hysterical outcry from certain parts of our society.

[rob_s]

I think that you are mainly right (but there are a few practical applications for cans such as varmint control and hunting) That being said, there's not a thing about Unobtanium's statement regarding officers who use carbines for a living as being contrived reasons to have a can while on duty. Cans just make sense for LEOs in my opinion if one discounts the predictable hysterical outcry from certain parts of our society.

I don't disagree.

But for the average-joe gucci-gun can-buyer, they're a toy at best, which is where my list of criteria comes in.

If someone else has themselves convinced that they *need* a can to repel the mongol hordes, have at it.

[LittleLebowski]

I won't hunt again without a suppressor if I can help it. I'm taking the plunge and taking Uncle Pat's carbine class with a suppressed carbine and I know it will add weight and filth to the carbine. However, why not? It adds data to my personal knowledge and might as well see if it works in a carbine class. Shooting stuff is fun, shooting suppressed is still cool for me, and others might enjoy reading about it. I harbor no illusions about me ever using a suppressed carbine in a SHTF situation but it's nice to know if mine will run suppressed.

[rob_s]

I won't hunt again without a suppressor if I can help it. I'm taking the plunge and taking Uncle Pat's carbine class with a suppressed carbine and I know it will add weight and filth to the carbine. However, why not? It adds data to my personal knowledge and might as well see if it works in a carbine class. Shooting stuff is fun, shooting suppressed is still cool for me, and others might enjoy reading about it. I harbor no illusions about me ever using a suppressed carbine in a SHTF situation but it's nice to know if mine will run suppressed.

I took Pat's class with a 300 BO upper Silvers sent me with a bunch of free ammo (subsonic and super) and a free can. It's not a bad way to see what you think of suppressed shooting (it, ironically, led to me considering the 300 BO as the "300 wTF"). I think I ran the class about 50/50 suppressed and non, if memory servers (this was Dec 2010). Obviously, when you're doing the line-dancing the only thing you're really learning is how the gun handles/feels with the added weight and whether or not it runs, since the noise attenuation isn't useful on a line of 10 other hosers.




Mod Navy Qual vid. I think I was high shooter here, can't recall for sure


[pbvideo]http://vid134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/EAG%202010/IMG_0916.mp4[/pbvideo]

[joshs]

I don't disagree.

But for the average-joe gucci-gun can-buyer, they're a toy at best, which is where my list of criteria comes in.

If someone else has themselves convinced that they *need* a can to repel the mongol hordes, have at it.

I have a ton of hearing loss from hunting. Suppressors probably would have prevented that. There is also pretty good evidence that wearing only one type of ear pro is not sufficient protection for center fire rifles. The only reason suppressors are viewed as you mention is their inclusion in the NFA. They are way more common (relatively speaking) in a number of European countries where they are regulated the same as most firearms.

[rob_s]

I have a ton of hearing loss from hunting. Suppressors probably would have prevented that. There is also pretty good evidence that wearing only one type of ear pro is not sufficient protection for center fire rifles. The only reason suppressors are viewed as you mention is their inclusion in the NFA. They are way more common (relatively speaking) in a number of European countries where they are regulated the same as most firearms.

This is also true. There is definitely a factor of juice:squeeze that would be a lot different if there weren't legal restrictions on them. Among other things, I'd wager that the prices of the items themselves would be way lower.

But, again, this isn't what we're talking about. what we're talking about is a guy adding a can to his 7.62x39, <8" barreled, piston AR. I may well be out of line, but I think he falls much more into the "gucci" realm with me than the "I'm going to hunt so much, so often, for so many years that my hearing is going to be damaged" camp.

[Grey]

This is also true. There is definitely a factor of juice:squeeze that would be a lot different if there weren't legal restrictions on them. Among other things, I'd wager that the prices of the items themselves would be way lower.

But, again, this isn't what we're talking about. what we're talking about is a guy adding a can to his 7.62x39, <8" barreled, piston AR. I may well be out of line, but I think he falls much more into the "gucci" realm with me than the "I'm going to hunt so much, so often, for so many years that my hearing is going to be damaged" camp.

Rationale is that the gun is a fun toy and I value my hearing since it's loud as hell with a brake. If that makes me Gucci then that's what I am.