You missed my second post on "Hollywood" quiet, which most of us are not going for, we just want hearing safe and neighbor friendly. In any event, you are absolutely, both the can and rifle have to be matched for performance regardless if sub's are being used or not. On a .22's or CF pistols, sub's don't present a problem with cycling so you'll end up with something that is fairly quiet; however, on larger calibers it generally falls short of the shooter's expectations because of what they have seen in the movies.TX Rancher wrote: I couldn’t agree more with you Liberty…there are some real issues with subsonic depending on the weapon you choose.
True but no matter what the load, you still have to sight the rifle for use with a suppressor to adjust for the shift which depending on the range can be fairly high.TX Rancher wrote: If it’s bolt action, there’s no real operational issues with subsonic, but there are ballistic impacts to take into account. It’s just physics that a subsonic round traveling at less than 1,000 FPS out of the suppressor will take a different ballistic path than one exiting at full speed. It also has less energy at all points along the path then the full powered load. If you’re close to your target, it may not matter as much, but if you’re farther away you may not have the knockdown power for a clean kill on the yote…and hopefully we’re all going for clean, quick kills..
Same here and I've also used them when teaching a new shooter, especially for someone that has a bad flinch because it allows me to help them focus on their skills as opposed to anticipating the crack. After they have perfected their stance, grip and aim, I'll remove the can.TX Rancher wrote: I use suppressors not so the yote doesn’t hear me, after all, if I do my part right he doesn’t hear a thing. I use them out of courtesy for the other folks that live in my area. Since much of my yote and hog elimination happens at night, greatly reducing the sound of the shot is appreciated. Loud noises at 1:00 in the morning can be a little distracting to those trying to sleep
.
One of the reasons, I suggest that they start of with something on the order of a .22 which can be had for under $200.TX Rancher wrote: If you have a need for a suppressor, go the trust route and get one. If you don’t really have the need, then spend your money on more useful toys. After a couple of sessions with the suppressor, the novelty tends to wear off, and you’re left with a $600-$2,000 hunk of metal that inhabits you safe more than your range bag..
It would be great if TX followed TN's example, were the CLEO is required to sign off which is just good politics because it gives the CLEO an opportunity to know what's in their backyard. Unfortunately, Hollywood has created more myth about suppressors and how they are used, than the benefits. I also find it strange that in some of the most anti-gun countries of the EU (such as England and France) you can buy a suppressor across the counter because it's considered a health and safety issue for the shooter and rude not to use one.TX Rancher wrote: And by the way, I completely agree with srothstein comment about we need to get away from having to ask LEO for permission to own these things.
For anyone interested a few sites that provide more information on the pro's and con's for different makes/models, etc.
http://www.silencerresearch.com/
http://www.silencertalk.com/
but if you want it as close to "Hollywood" quiet as possible, it's the only way other than firing wet.
Does anyone really believe with the limited resources that the ATF has available they are going to chase down 1'000's of individuals who have gone the trust route. Of course if you are stocking up, you may raise an eyebrow but there are individuals that I deal with that have one heck of a collection and after many years no home visit.