silencers/supressors

[Leeper]

It is possible to make a suppressor which is less unattractive than those commonly used and is nearly as effective. In appearance, it ends up looking much like the barrel sleeve on a Remington Model 8 autoloader or the Model 88 Mauser. There is a limit to how large a cartridge can be suppressed this way and the 308 probably exceeds the limit. So, while a 308 can be suppressed, it is not suppressed to the extent which might be possible with a somewhat homlier can on the end of the barrel. Leeper

[winger7mm]

Originally Posted by OverTheHill

So thats also why criminals that are prohibited from carrying any firearms actually follow the law and don't carry handguns and such anymore.... By making it illegal for the law abiding people????. Jeeeesh....

Criminals have MORE access to prohibited stuff than we do PERIOD

And way way way cheaper too , But crime will happen regardless and to think that legalizing suppresors will make the crime go up is just wrong. I would bet that more then 75% of criminals that use guns dont have a pal/pol or a rpal (I think thats what its called, you get the point though)

[LongBomber]

deleted

[kayaker]

The irony is that in countries with far more draconian gun laws, like the UK, parts of Europe and RSA they are legal and popular, especially in the former.

I would use one for sure if they were legal. I wouldnt put one on a dedicated lightweight/MTN rig or dangerous game rifle but for a general all-purpose mid-bore hunting rig - I am 100% in favour of using them. Ugly - who cares. Dont put them on fine rifles then. They save your hearing amongst other benefits, like making rifles more appelaing to new shooters who dont like muzzle blast.

They could simpy be legalized for long guns only (even ommitt rimfies if 'poaching is a concern). In addition, I doubt there is credible evidence that their legalization results in a spike in poaching. Maybe John Lott has data on this?

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by kayaker

The irony is that in countries with far more draconian gun laws, like the UK, parts of Europe and RSA they are legal and popular, especially in the former.

I would use one for sure if they were legal. I wouldnt put one on a dedicated lightweight/MTN rig or dangerous game rifle but for a general all-purpose mid-bore hunting rig - I am 100% in favour of using them. Ugly - who cares. Dont put them on fine rifles then. They save your hearing amongst other benefits, like making rifles more appelaing to new shooters who dont like muzzle blast.

They could simpy be legalized for long guns only (even ommitt rimfies if 'poaching is a concern). In addition, I doubt there is credible evidence that their legalization results in a spike in poaching. Maybe John Lott has data on this?

I have head the poaching thing many times, and for me it is simply not an issue, I really cannot see the beinfet of it for a poacher, because of the excess bulk of the rifle.
As far as hearing goes, ear plugs work fine, and the only muzzle blast that bothers me is that coming from a braked rifle so I don't shoot next to the.

That being said, they are not evil pieces of technology that will turn eerybody into a criminal, and I'm sure many hunters and shooters would love to be able to own them.
Cat

[Hjortejeger]

A poacher will probably use suppressor.

Criminals and suppressors are not a issue in Norway.

Suppressor will reduce the recoil.

Suppressor will reduce the blast. Bigger is better.

Mirage is a problem.

You need earplugs at the range (target shooting).

It will not reduce the effective range of the projectile.

It is not a problem to get a nice balanced rifle. 308, short barrel and a small suppressor is a good combination.

[gitrdun]

Yeah, but they're ugly.