Exactafuckenly!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Exactafuckenly!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A couple of weeks ago Brian and I shot 2 spikers out of a group of 3 with my suppressed .243 and his suppressed 30.06. They were 220 yards away. They didn't have a clue what was going on or where the shots came from, and the 3rd one just trotted off out of sight. When we got over to them and they were back in sight, the 3rd one was back there standing next to his dead mate. Quite un-disturbed.
The other benefit was that we could take our shots with real precision. No recoil or blast to worry about, or each other's blast washing across us. Shooting with a suppressor gives me a sense of stillness. Combining that with an accurate rifle and a good rest, and you have all of the ingredients for a humane kill.
I did the same about 3 weeks ago, shot a stag at 300m, got up, mate got behind the same rifle and shot another stag at 425m, could of shot the third as well but wouldnt of been able to carry it, none of the deer had a clue where the shot came from. When we got over there another spiker had come up for a look at the 425m stag while we were dealing to the 300m stag. That deer had obviously not heard a shot and stayed around for 5mins watching us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
This was with a 300wsm with no can.... I think it depends on the country terrain more than if the rifle was suppressed or not in terms of animals hearing/spooking
And also how often they get shot at or what kind of hunting pressure is on that mob... That plays a key role!
I think that they just felt safe being shot at by that calibre. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PerazziSC3
All I can say is lucky you had a real calibre, read:30 cal, to back up your little pea shooter... :thumbsup:
Given some of the comments I have heard Bout how important hunting success relies on suppressors, makes me wonder how the older generations got on with hunting.
They never used them and there are heaps now that don't use them, so effectively they are an unnecessary luxury.
The older generation are largely stone deaf. As are all their hunting dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim160
Thats great. I was wondering who I could swap my old 303, Swandry, hob nail boots, army trou and kidney roaster pack with. I will send you all that stuff, and you send me your modern stuff thats no better. Fair swap?Quote:
Originally Posted by jim160
:D
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
They may be deaf. Well some are but I would say its not from shooting, most likely work related, but they probably fired more rounds than we ever will and they never thought to have something to stop the noise.
We don't really need them as most only fire one shot. yes it causes damage but not more than a few minutes on a disc grinder or chainsaw with no earmuffs.
Ive seen people who say they must use a suppressor on a rifle due to the noise but will use a chainsaw without earmuffs
its all about looks and image, nothing about effectiveness of the suppressor.
If it was really a huge issue and all that, then the Police and Army would have suppressors on their rifles. But they don't and they fire a lot more rounds than you ever will.
It's stupid to do either, the fact that some people are stupid enough to use power tools without hearing protection doesn't meant it's not stupid to fire a rifle without itQuote:
Originally Posted by jim160
Entirely your opinion. A suppressor does reduce sound pressure level to near or below hearing safe, does reduce severity of felt recoil, does disturb animals in the immediate and wider vicinity less, and does reduce muzzle blast. I personally think they look quite ugly but I put up with it because life is much more pleasant with them.Quote:
its all about looks and image, nothing about effectiveness of the suppressor.
NZSASQuote:
If it was really a huge issue and all that, then the Police and Army would have suppressors on their rifles. But they don't and they fire a lot more rounds than you ever will.
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/171...ctive/978x.jpg
NZ Police
http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1398630263/363/9984363.jpg
You're also making assumptions, I would say that I fire about an order of magnitude more rounds than any normal police officer does in a work related capacity, and those institutions presumably mandate use of other hearing protection wherever practical
Fair enough.
But the SAS & AOS are not the only ones that are armed.
I haven't seen any front line cops with suppressors and soldiers don't have them either.
So the less that 100 soldiers out of over 3000 have suppressors and the less that 500 out of 3500 cops have suppressors.
Not really a fair representation of numbers.
Besides, when was the last time a cop fired a rifle at someone. So of course you have fired more shots than them. Even I have.
But I understand your point.
No-one is suggesting that a suppressor is necessary for hunting success, that's a strawman. A suppressor is a useful tool for protecting the hearing of those that hunt in situations where other forms of hearing protection aren't practical, and they have useful properties for shooting besides.
The whole legal case in the UK that got them legalised was based on health concerns about hearing loss. They do work and work well if you get a good one.
A better comparison would be using a chainsaw without a muffler. Or driving a noisy straight piped vehicle. The earmuffs are protection but the convenience is the suppressor doesn't stop you haearing other sounds where muffs will. In saying that use a chainsaw without muffs (or grinders etc) and you wont be hearing much else anyway.........Once damage is done it cannot be undone. Once you are deaf- you stay deaf! Suppressor or ear protection- I dont care which, but I make sure I do use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim160
If you hunt without a suppressor you also risk the hearing of your companions. Often they are the ones that end up in a worse position for the muzzle blast and get more hearing damage than the bloke behind the butt.
I was at the range again on friday arvo and had a guy with a .308 on my left and another guy had his new .270 on the right of me none of them suppressed. When the .270 went off you could feel the shock wave. My suppressor was worth every cent.
I wont be owning another center fire again without one.
All of the NZ Police training rifles are fitted with suppressors as well. They also shot a guy not to long ago in Thames, with a suppressor.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim160
Have you ever fired a large centrefire with a suppressor? It's one of those thing where ignorance is bliss, but once you try it you wont go back.
I'm in the process of suppressing all of my rifles, even my deer stalking rifle, as I already have some slight tone deafness in my left ear from shooting, and I'm only 31!
I find them so much more pleasant to shoot and stops a flinch from developing.
Yes their training rifles have suppressors and they wear earmuffs as well.
Much like the army wear earmuffs when doing the awq.
The guy shot in Thames was shot by aos and they all have them.
I have a suppressor on my 260 but I certainly won't be doing any other rifles I have.
I'm not going to ruin them by adding a can to it.
Suppressors are good for noise reduction to a point but muzzle brakes reduce recoil more and would reduce the flinch. If the recoil is too much.
Muzzle brakes increase volume by more than earplugs/muffs can attenuate, to a degree depending on the cartridge and brake of course
Yep they certainly do wear ear muffs as well, crazy not to if firing a glock and lots of super sonic rifle rounds in an enclosed area.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim160
I find the blast far more likely cause a flinch than recoil.
Glocks are rubbish no wonder why cops cant hit shit
I finally get to say that after using one
Thats not the police thats the Taliban.... If those guys were storming up my street I would think we were being invaded..........Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
If you think the one you fired is bad, then you should try a Police issue one with the heavier trigger pull, I think it's called a Chicago trigger and is something like 12lbs. So don't laugh straight away when you see cops training with the Glocks, I couldn't believe how much better I could shoot with a standard Glock and CZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Otherwise the Glock is pretty good for what they're designed for.
Back on topic, I just bought a ASE Utra can, ever heard of them giving way?
NYPD trigger
Steel cans rust out eventually
I think they are good for what they are designed for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I have seen them shoot really well in the right hands. I much prefer a 226 or shadow. They feel and handle like a pistol should.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
I've fired one and I thought the safety was left on. Though I must say the Army Steyr had an even heavier one!!
yup I cant hit shit with a glock but do quite well with a cz75 or 1911 frame but a mate of mine is the opposite shoot well with a glock horrible with a 1911 it really pissed him off as he liked the 1911 much betterQuote:
Originally Posted by R93
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by jakesae101
Spent a few thousand rounds trying to learn to shoot the glock, that said, it's new owner out shoots me with it so it really is about what fits me rather than glocks being inherently bad.
I can see why the police use them though, but not the extra heavy trigger-that just seems counterproductive
look after your ears. I only have 405 hearing in both ears, born that way. But having a career as a commercial diver and being keen on gun sports, doesn't help either. Allways shake my head when I hear cars going by with their stereos turned up to that thump thump sound. Dumb fcks
Attachment 38780
doesnt this guy look like a young chuck norris
Probably because of events like these.Quote:
Originally Posted by res
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkDN66XBm2I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1_7g3PcvD0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPiM2l4w6Qc
Chuck Norris? Yeah that's his poof cousinQuote:
Originally Posted by gamereaper
Re video 1- A Pitbull name Precious! That's classic :XD:Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Oh yes so much for the trigger safety on Glocks. Why don't the police just use 226s or something with a normal safety and a decent trigger.
Putting a suppressor on their pistols would probably be a good idea too. Preferably one that wont blow up!
Do you have an understanding of how many hundreds of millions are being paid yearly by various MIL/LE organizations around the world for hearing damage complaints?Quote:
Originally Posted by jim160
Explosions etc. do play a factor, especially on the MIL side, however the injuries are mainly caused by the individual weapon.
At a fraction of those costs, a significant quantity of suppressors could be purchased.
Some countries are more further/evolved/equipped in this than others, but many LEOs/soldiers go about with no suppressors.
Much of that is institutional inertia/slowness of adopting something new.
The question is really not about the worth/usefulness of the suppressor, but why they are not being bought more.
Best Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
