Good suppressor campaign

[inventurkey]

Random picture from the net here so I don't know whose this is exactly, someone in the US obviously.

sound-suppressors.jpg (69.83 KiB) Viewed 8508 times

Good to see more logical, calm approaches coming out in pro-shooting these days. I just thought this was a good ad for the point.

[MeccaOz]

Random picture from the net here so I don't know whose this is exactly, someone in the US obviously.

sound-suppressors.jpg

Good to see more logical, calm approaches coming out in pro-shooting these days. I just thought this was a good ad for the point.

+ 1

[Chronos]

"Situational awareness?"

That sounds way to much like military/law enforcement speak for Australia's political environment. Currently handguns are for target shooting only here (unless you live in states where primary producers can carry a sidearm for defence/animal destruction

Now is if showed an Aussie hunter with a string of rabbits and a suppressed .22 rifle, that would be more appropriate to us.

Chronos

[inventurkey]

Yeah, I realise it's an American ad which wouldn't necessarily work here. Just the spirit of the thing I thought was good.

[SendIt]

"Situational awareness?"

That sounds way to much like military/law enforcement speak for Australia's political environment.

I think 'suppressor' alone sounds way to much like military/law enforcement speak for Australia's political environment.

The word 'gun' barely scrapes in as it is.

[Chronos]

I think 'suppressor' alone sounds way to much like military/law enforcement speak for Australia's political environment.

The word 'gun' barely scrapes in as it is.

Too true

Let alone the picture of A) a female and B) someone under 40 holding it


Chronos

[MeccaOz]

Too true

Let alone the picture of A) a female and B) someone under 40 holding it

Maybe we should get Mick Taylor ( Wolf Creek ) on board ?

[on_one_wheel]

I think 'suppressor' alone sounds way to much like military/law enforcement speak for Australia's political environment.

The word 'gun' barely scrapes in as it is.

We need to call them a muffler, You wouldn't run your car without a muffler, Why would you run a rifle without one ?

Someone needs to take on the government with a law suit for hearing damage, or costly accident caused by lack of
awareness due to wearing hearing protection.

I bet you are not allowed to wear hearing protection when your driving a car, you might not here someone signalling you with a horn or perhaps you wont hear a siren from a emergency vehicle.

In a group hunting situation, perhaps you wont hear your mates tell you to hold fire if they spot a hazard, or when your alone you might not hear a vehicle approaching.

I think not running a muffler on guns is putting us at risk in many ways. The hierarchy of control has ppe as the lowest level of protection

Elimination, substation, engineering, administration, personal protective equipment.

[Herdsman]

Maybe we should get Mick Taylor ( Wolf Creek ) on board ?

Pretty sure that's already how half the anti-gun people picture us judging by their nonsense.

[SendIt]

We need to call them a muffler, You wouldn't run your car without a muffler, Why would you run a rifle without one ?

I like it.

[cruze82]

I get this stupid triangle drilled in to us at every induction to site I do
if you follow the procedure and call the noise that a gun makes a hearing hazzard a suppressor is a engineering control and the first control on that list that is practical
PPE is the last form of control and only used if all other avenues have been exhausted

[bigfellascott]

I reckon suppressors should be called mufflers too, after all the motor vehicle "Muffler" came about as a direct result of ol Hiram Percy Maxim's invention of the suppressor! In so many other aspects of life we are required to reduce noise to prevent hearing damage or nuisance noise yet we have the perfect solution to the noise firearms make and yet its somehow a big scary evil thing that somehow turns us into mass murderers - FMD I drive a car yet I'm not a racing car driver! I bang sheila's yet I'm not a porn star or rapist FFS!

People in Government seriously need to bloody wake up to themselves over the way they treat us! Bloody disgrace it is.

[Oldbloke]

I think 'suppressor' alone sounds way to much like military/law enforcement speak for Australia's political environment.

The word 'gun' barely scrapes in as it is.

We need to call them a muffler, You wouldn't run your car without a muffler, Why would you run a rifle without one ?

Someone needs to take on the government with a law suit for hearing damage, or costly accident caused by lack of
awareness due to wearing hearing protection.

I bet you are not allowed to wear hearing protection when your driving a car, you might not here someone signalling you with a horn or perhaps you wont hear a siren from a emergency vehicle.

In a group hunting situation, perhaps you wont hear your mates tell you to hold fire if they spot a hazard, or when your alone you might not hear a vehicle approaching.

I think not running a muffler on guns is putting us at risk in many ways. The hierarchy of control has ppe as the lowest level of protection

Elimination, substation, engineering, administration, personal protective equipment.

I like that.

[Oldbloke]

I get this stupid triangle drilled in to us at every induction to site I do
if you follow the procedure and call the noise that a gun makes a hearing hazzard a suppressor is a engineering control and the first control on that list that is practical
PPE is the last form of control and only used if all other avenues have been exhausted

It should be implanted in the brain at birth.

Sorry couldn't help myself.

[Westy]

Well don't tell us about it,get in touch with your local M.P.I did and he was open to the idea!!!!! PPE for the hunter works for me.

[Chronos]

some of you may find this interesting, and it's australian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSWRBSOM4Lo

Chronos

[MeccaOz]

some of you may find this interesting, and it's australian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSWRBSOM4Lo

Chronos

That was pretty good, thanks Chronos

[Oldbloke]

My understanding is that suppressors only work on sub-sonics. I had a look and it looks like the Federal .308 tactical is rated at 2700 fps so a silencer will not work. Speed of sound is about 1125 fps. For it to work the ammo would need to be loaded to less than 1125fps

[on_one_wheel]

My understanding is that suppressors only work on sub-sonics. I had a look and it looks like the Federal .308 tactical is rated at 2700 fps so a silencer will not work. Speed of sound is about 1125 fps. For it to work the ammo would need to be loaded to less than 1125fps

I don't want my rifle to be silent, We only need to reduce the noise to a acceptable level that wont stuff my ears or my mates ears and have everyone within 10 kms calling the police because they are hearing gun shots.

[Chronos]

My understanding is that suppressors only work on sub-sonics. I had a look and it looks like the Federal .308 tactical is rated at 2700 fps so a silencer will not work. Speed of sound is about 1125 fps. For it to work the ammo would need to be loaded to less than 1125fps

FYI I shot a couple of 1" 200y groups last Thursday with them......3000fps +

Chronos

[WesleySnipes]

My understanding is that suppressors only work on sub-sonics. I had a look and it looks like the Federal .308 tactical is rated at 2700 fps so a silencer will not work. Speed of sound is about 1125 fps. For it to work the ammo would need to be loaded to less than 1125fps

They won't work? Of course they will, but what you're referring to is impossible. You can't suppress a sonic boom of a super sonic projectile, but you can suppress the bang quite effectively. Obviously is you are using subsonics you won't get the crack, but a .308win loaded down to sub sonic will be liking throwing stones at the target aha.

Even with supersonics loads it suppresses the escaping gases good enough to bring it down to comfortable and safer decibel levels without sacrificing your sense of hearing, which is great.

In the land of regulations where you can't drive a car down the road without a muffler due to noise pollution and frankly annoying everyone else and quite possibly even damaging their hearing, I don't see how a firearm is any different.

[Oldbloke]

Just watched the video again and he only mentions 156.2 dB (no mention of the method for measurement mentioned, but not disputing it) for the first round no mention what the suppressed (second) shot was. So the test is a non-conclusive to me without repeatable, measurable test results.

[MeccaOz]

My understanding is that suppressors only work on sub-sonics. I had a look and it looks like the Federal .308 tactical is rated at 2700 fps so a silencer will not work. Speed of sound is about 1125 fps. For it to work the ammo would need to be loaded to less than 1125fps

They won't work? Of course they will, but what you're referring to is impossible. You can't suppress a sonic boom of a super sonic projectile, but you can suppress the bang quite effectively. Obviously is you are using subsonics you won't get the crack, but a .308win loaded down to sub sonic will be liking throwing stones at the target aha.

Even with supersonics loads it suppresses the escaping gases good enough to bring it down to comfortable and safer decibel levels without sacrificing your sense of hearing, which is great.

In the land of regulations where you can't drive a car down the road without a muffler due to noise pollution and frankly annoying everyone else and quite possibly even damaging their hearing, I don't see how a firearm is any different.

Because the media would drone on about giving dangerous people "silencers" and they will look soft even pro firearm if they allow it. Plus they hope it will scare people away from shooting.

[WesleySnipes]

Because the media would drone on about giving dangerous people "silencers" and they will look soft even pro firearm if they allow it. Plus they hope it will scare people away from shooting.

Sad, but probably true. Pro firearm? Pro common sense and OH&S. As the picture at the top says, why not reduce noise at the source rather than wearing hearing protection? Especially with other people around, being dangerous if you can't communicate effectively.

[Oldbloke]

Meccaoz.

I just would have liked to see all the numbers, that's all I'm saying. That would then clearly indicate the reduction and if it is a worth while improvement. Doesn't sound like much to me but what you hear can be very deceiving.

But to be clear, I agree it is better to reduce the noise level at the source, if it can be achieved.

[WesleySnipes]

Meccaoz.
I just would have liked to see all the numbers, that's all I'm saying. That would then clearly indicate the reduction and if it is a worth while improvement. Doesn't sound like much to me but what you hear can be very deceiving. But to be clear, I agree it is better to reduce the noise level at the source, if it can be achieved.

I know, not having a dig mate. Suppressors aren't just exclusively used for subsonic loads, and are used quite frequently on rifles chambered in .223 and .308 etc because they are an effective way of dampening the muzzle blast and making it safer on your ears. It was comfortably loud on two rifles I've shot that were suppressed while using supersonic loads, and unsuppressed was not very pleasant for more than a couple of shots!

Video cameras are quite bad at actually emulating the difference between suppressed and non suppressed too.

[Oldbloke]

"Video cameras are quite bad at actually emulating the difference between suppressed and non suppressed too"
Agreed, only a quality class 1 or 2 sound meter will give reliable/accurate results. I did a little testing a few yrs ago but unfortunately a PC crash ensured I lost the data.

But getting back to the original comments, I would welcome the re-introduction of legal silencers. Because I'm sure the criminals get them anyway if they want them.

[WesleySnipes]

"Video cameras are quite bad at actually emulating the difference between suppressed and non suppressed too"
Agreed, only a quality class 1 or 2 sound meter will give reliable/accurate results. I did a little testing a few yrs ago but unfortunately a PC crash ensured I lost the data.

But getting back to the original comments, I would welcome the re-introduction of legal silencers. Because I'm sure the criminals get them anyway if they want them.

When was the last crime that even involved the use of a suppressor? They never seem to pop up in any shootings that I've noticed, I'll have to Google it.

[Oldbloke]

Bloody good point WesleySnipes.

[Oldbloke]

Anyway, none of it effects me, I can't screw a suppressor onto my "blunder bus". LOL