# Suppressors and Hunting



## rankhornjp

I'm researching getting a suppressor and was suprised to find out that GA doesn't allow them for hunting(I am not a hunter), while several other states do (some with restrictions on type of game).

My question:  Would you be in favor of changing the law to allow suppressor while hunting?

Thanks

ETA: I'm doing this for research, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.


----------



## c27knots

yes i would be. i have 14 acres in the middle of a suburban area and i am completely within the law and my rights to shoot a gun and go hunting on my land but all my neighbors go crazy every time i shoot so i would love to have GA change


----------



## RipperIII

yes.
If you can suppress a larger caliber rifle to the decibel  level of a .22 or less, then I would not need to carry hearing protection.


----------



## hummdaddy

yes ,why not ...


----------



## m1garand30064

Absolutely.  I would love to not have my ears ring after I shoot a deer.  Also POI shift would be a non issue as I would be able to shoot my rifle suppressed all the time!


----------



## germag

I don't see DNR changing that rule. It's an enforcement thing....one of their tactics is to sit on a road and listen for shots, then they go to the shots. It's sort of like why you can't take your orange off after you're in the stand....the orange makes it much easier for them to spot hunters in the trees.


----------



## biker13

NO NO Never.


----------



## rankhornjp

germag said:


> I don't see DNR changing that rule. It's an enforcement thing....one of their tactics is to sit on a road and listen for shots, then they go to the shots. It's sort of like why you can't take your orange off after you're in the stand....the orange makes it much easier for them to spot hunters in the trees.



It's not a DNR rule.  Currently it is State law.  And "IF" changed the DNR would have to obey the law.


----------



## rankhornjp

dlsbiker13 said:


> NO NO Never.



Would you care to explain?


----------



## chainshaw

There is not a good reason to ban suppressors from hunting. It is purely for the PC and scary factor that we cannot use them.

The pros of hunting with suppressors far outway the cons.


----------



## germag

rankhornjp said:


> It's not a DNR rule.  Currently it is State law.  And "IF" changed the DNR would have to obey the law.



It's a State game law and DNR has the majority of the input on getting those enacted/changed. Sometimes they get overruled, but not usually. DNR will recommend not changing those laws until the end of time because they make their job a lot easier.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

*Yes*

I vote "yes" to legalize all hunting with silencers, sound suppressors, moderators, firearm mufflers, or whatever else they're called.

Some people might want to only legalize them for varmint and non-game species hunting.  I can see where certain kinds of hunting are about sport and "fair pursuit" of game, but other critters just need killin' and it's more important to reduce their population than it is to give them a sporting chance. (Think coyotes, armadillos, kudzu... J/K)

I would legalize them for everything.

Keep in mind that for all rifles or pistols that shoot supersonic bullets at over 1200 f.p.s. velocity, the "silencer" will not eliminate the sonic boom or "crack" from the shot.  The animals will still hear the shot, but it will sound more like a firecracker or a .22 rimfire instead of an ear-splitting explosion.

Subsonic bullets, like maybe you might find if you used a .44 special pistol or carbine and 250-grain bullets for hunting, can be made very quiet.  But even then they make some noise.  It might sound like smacking your thigh hard with the flat palm of your hand.

The only silencers that are "movie quiet" are the .22LR ones with subsonic ammo.  Bigger bullets fired through larger bores just don't get that quiet.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

*hearing damage*

In my 30+ years of shooting, I've only fired centerfire guns a handful of times without ear protection.  Most of those times have been hunting. One hunt a few years ago involved me shooting from a treehouse stand with a .308.  Even though I had the barrel outside of the hut's window when I fired, the blast was way too loud. My ears were ringing for days afterward and I know I lost some high frequency hearing from those couple shots that day.


----------



## willsm89

Dont really understand why they are illegal.  Except for the locating a hunter from the sound.  That makes sense but its just one more thing where our rights are being stepped on.


----------



## deadend

dlsbiker13 said:


> NO NO Never.



What's you argument?


----------



## biker13

I see no place for "Silencers" in hunting.Opens a whole new can of worms.Suppressors I am sure have their place,I just don't feel hunting,esp deer hunting is ready for it.


----------



## DYI hunting

Suppressors/silencers do nothing to quieten the sonic crack of a bullet.  A suppressed rifle is still pretty loud unless shooting subsonic which makes little sense for hunting.  Suppressors/silencers do help reduce recoil (great for young kids/recoil sensitive), reduce noise for the shooter to hearing safe or near hearing safe, and reduce complaints from neighbors.  I can't understand why the DNR wouldn't embrace them with the urban sprawl it just make sense to keep neighbor's happy.

Gunfire is around 120 dB to 160 dB.  Most silencers only reduce the noise by around 30 dB.  That means the shot is still as loud as a lawnmower on the quieter guns to as loud as a military jet take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft for louder larger caliber deer rifles.


----------



## ASH556

I'd wager that the folks voting "no" have never personally fired a suppressor and, just like the government, believe that they are "Hollywood" quiet.  As others have said, the pros far outweigh any cons that might exist (though I can't think of any).  In some European countries, "moderators" as they are called over there are required for hunting and are sold at hardware stores...not even regulated.  The US has the silencer thing backwards.


----------



## DYI hunting

dlsbiker13 said:


> I see no place for "Silencers" in hunting.Opens a whole new can of worms.Suppressors I am sure have their place,I just don't feel hunting,esp deer hunting is ready for it.



Silencers and suppressors are the same thing.  They are nowhere near Hollywood quiet.  A "silenced" .308 using an $800 AAC Cyclone "silencer" will still make your ears hurt.


----------



## dtala

I've shot a Ruger 243Win with a suppressor, loaded with subsonic 75 Hornady hollowpoints. It made no more noise than a 22cb cartridge, if that much. The guy that owned it had killed deer with it(not Ga).

I used to shoot a 22 rifle with a suppressor , loaded with subsonic long rifle lead hollowpoints. The actual muzzle bast was non-existant, the bullet hitting made a pretty good pop. I used it for killing sick coons and car hit deer.

I'd be opposed to making them legal simply because of illegal hunting enforcement problems.

  troy


----------



## biker13

Believe me pal I know what they are.I have been places that don't exist anymore and shot every weapon you can imagine,I still see no need for them in hunting,and no I never will.End of discussion.


----------



## ASH556

dtala said:


> I've shot a Ruger 243Win with a suppressor, loaded with subsonic 75 Hornady hollowpoints. It made no more noise than a 22cb cartridge, if that much. The guy that owned it had killed deer with it(not Ga).
> 
> I used to shoot a 22 rifle with a suppressor , loaded with subsonic long rifle lead hollowpoints. The actual muzzle bast was non-existant, the bullet hitting made a pretty good pop. I used it for killing sick coons and car hit deer.
> 
> I'd be opposed to making them legal simply because of illegal hunting enforcement problems.
> 
> troy



That's about as good of an argument as the, "Let's make it illegal to carry a handgun because someone might get shot."  You don't make something illegal just because someone might use it to break the law.

Geeeze, what is this, Mother Russia?  It's ok Comrade, the Government will keep you and your deer safe with their laws.


----------



## ASH556

dlsbiker13 said:


> Believe me pal I know what they are.I have been places that don't exist anymore and shot every weapon you can imagine,I still see no need for them in hunting,and no I never will.End of discussion.



I doubt that.  Oh, wait, are you the guy that works at the gun shows?  You know, the former Delta/Seal/Swat/Sniper/Ninja who tried to sell me the AK instead of the AR because you ran over the AK with a tank and it still shot?


----------



## biker13

Josh Vibert said:


> I doubt that.  Oh, wait, are you the guy that works at the gun shows?  You know, the former Delta/Seal/Swat/Sniper/Ninja who tried to sell me the AK instead of the AR because you ran over the AK with a tank and it still shot?



I don't.And no I'm not that guy.Look you can have all the suppressors you want I just don't see a need for them in hunting.


----------



## bfriendly

Surely they must be less damaging to the ears............YES, Here


----------



## germag

dtala said:


> I'd be opposed to making them legal simply because of illegal hunting enforcement problems.
> 
> troy



I don't think anybody suggested that. What I said was that's the only reason I can see that they are illegal. The reasons for making them legal far outweigh the reasons for keeping them illegal.


----------



## DYI hunting

dlsbiker13 said:


> Believe me pal I know what they are.I have been places that don't exist anymore and shot every weapon you can imagine,I still see no need for them in hunting,and no I never will.End of discussion.



Sounding a little defensive there...I don't know why as this was a nice polite discussion.  I must admit my experience is pretty limited and I have not shot every weapon imaginable in places that don't exist anymore.  I have however fired several thousand suppressed and subsonic rounds out of .30 cal, 6.8 and 5.56 suppressors and owned a couple of them.  

If we are going to include the problems with guys shooting subsonic and killing deer quietly, you might as well include crossbows and compound bows.  The crossbow has about the same effective range as a subsonic load and is just as quiet.


----------



## biker13

My position is I see no need for them while hunting,that ain't changing,its how I feel about it.Your opinion is yours and how you feel about it,and we are fortunate that we have the right to an opinion.So we have the right to disagree,kind of like the baiting mess.


----------



## DYI hunting

Dlsbiker13 then we will agree to disagree.  Lord let's not get started on baiting...


----------



## ASH556

DYI hunting said:


> Dlsbiker13 then we will agree to disagree.  Lord let's not get started on baiting...



Hey, I have a question, where's the cheapest place to buy corn?  I've got a new suppressor I need to try out!


----------



## Luke0927

Yes they should be would help a lot for kids and all of us.


----------



## biker13

DYI hunting said:


> Dlsbiker13 then we will agree to disagree.  Lord let's not get started on baiting...



Thanks


----------



## germag

DYI hunting said:


> I must admit my experience is pretty limited and I have not shot every weapon imaginable in places that don't exist anymore.



I have. Yep, it's true. I've shot every single weapon imagineable, from muskets to mini guns. In fact, I _invented_ the gun....yeah, that's the ticket, I _INVENTED_ the gun...and those places that don't exist anymore, well, that's because I used my inventions on them....now there's just a big vacuum there because the place actually doesn't exist any more. I was a Seal/Scout-Sniper/Green Beret/Delta/Ninja/and a 17th degree black belt...in fact, I formed the groups...yeah, that's the ticket! I _INVENTED_ the Special Forces.....and Karate...I invented that too.

Have you seen the new gun that can fire a million rounds a minute? I invented that, too.


----------



## biker13

germag said:


> I have. Yep, it's true. I've shot every single weapon imagineable, from muskets to mini guns. In fact, I _invented_ the gun....yeah, that's the ticket, I _INVENTED_ the gun...and those places that don't exist anymore, well, that's because I used my inventions on them....now there's just a big vacuum there because the place actually doesn't exist any more. I was a Seal/Scout-Sniper/Green Beret/Delta/Ninja/and a 17th degree black belt...in fact, I formed the groups...yeah, that's the ticket! I _INVENTED_ the Special Forces.....and Karate...I invented that too.
> 
> Have you seen the new gun that can fire a million rounds a minute? I invented that, too.


You have certainly been busy.I'm hunting with the Phlanax weapon system this deer season,wish me luck.Think I spelled it wrong,I will have have to check the writing on the crate.Its not suppressed.


----------



## ASH556

germag said:


> I have. Yep, it's true. I've shot every single weapon imagineable, from muskets to mini guns. In fact, I _invented_ the gun....yeah, that's the ticket, I _INVENTED_ the gun...and those places that don't exist anymore, well, that's because I used my inventions on them....now there's just a big vacuum there because the place actually doesn't exist any more. I was a Seal/Scout-Sniper/Green Beret/Delta/Ninja/and a 17th degree black belt...in fact, I formed the groups...yeah, that's the ticket! I _INVENTED_ the Special Forces.....and Karate...I invented that too.
> 
> Have you seen the new gun that can fire a million rounds a minute? I invented that, too.



Wow, I thought maybe dlsbiker was really Chuck Norris, but it turns out, you are!!!!


----------



## dtala

DYI hunting said:


> Sounding a little defensive there...I don't know why as this was a nice polite discussion.  I must admit my experience is pretty limited and I have not shot every weapon imaginable in places that don't exist anymore.  I have however fired several thousand suppressed and subsonic rounds out of .30 cal, 6.8 and 5.56 suppressors and owned a couple of them.
> 
> If we are going to include the problems with guys shooting subsonic and killing deer quietly, you might as well include crossbows and compound bows.  The crossbow has about the same effective range as a subsonic load and is just as quiet.



You are talking out of lack of actual experience if you are saying that a subsonic 243 and a crossbow have the same effective range....

crossbow=40-50 yards(on a good day).
suppressed 243=100 yards, and yes I've shot one at 100 yards

if ya lik em ok, just don't make up stuff to support yer side....

  troy


----------



## germag

Josh Vibert said:


> Wow, I thought maybe dlsbiker was really Chuck Norris, but it turns out, you are!!!!



Chuck Norris sends me Christmas cards.


----------



## germag

dlsbiker13 said:


> You have certainly been busy.I'm hunting with the Phlanax weapon system this deer season,wish me luck.Think I spelled it wrong,I will have have to check the writing on the crate.Its not suppressed.



Yeah, you spelled it wrong. It's the MK 15 Phalanx system. It's essentially a radar guided 20mm Gatling gun. I invented it too.


----------



## biker13

germag said:


> Chuck Norris sends me Christmas cards.



He does my laundry


----------



## germag

dlsbiker13 said:


> He does my laundry



I just got off the phone with him. He said he's never heard of you.


----------



## biker13

Yeah Chick Norris little guy in Sandy Springs has a dry cleaners,he must know me


----------



## Sterlo58

Cheech Norris is my cousin and he said he don't know any of you. 

But seriously, anything that can be done to protect our hearing would be welcomed.


----------



## slightly grayling

Everyone seems to be associating this thread with deer hunting and large caliber rifles.  I would think using a silenced weapon on small game would be a fair chase issue.


----------



## Sterlo58

slightly grayling said:


> Everyone seems to be associating this thread with deer hunting and large caliber rifles.  I would think using a silenced weapon on small game would be a fair chase issue.



How so ?

You can use bows, crossbows and subsonic ammo for small game.


----------



## DYI hunting

dtala said:


> You are talking out of lack of actual experience if you are saying that a subsonic 243 and a crossbow have the same effective range....
> 
> crossbow=40-50 yards(on a good day).
> suppressed 243=100 yards, and yes I've shot one at 100 yards
> 
> if ya lik em ok, just don't make up stuff to support yer side....
> 
> troy



Crossbows I know little about, but I have heard of 50 and 60 yard kills with them.

.243 is not the ideal subsonic round.  There is just so much empty case volume in a .243, it seems it would be hard to get consistent velocity.  Also getting a subsonic .243 bullet to stabilize would require a faster twist than most .243 rifles have.  For killing deer, we are talking what?  100 grain projectile that will punch a nice .243 sized hole at 1050 - 1100 FPS or so depending on temperature.  According to some quick calculations, we are talking a whopping 200 pounds of energy and 959 FPS at a hundred yards.  The old timers golden rule was 1000 pounds of energy to kill a deer.  I am not sure that 200 pounds of energy would be enough to punch through the ribs and if it did, the bullet would not expand any.  308 is a different story.

There is also always the chance of a stuck bullet in the bore.  It is not easy to get a subsonic stabilized bullet with a high enough ballistic coefficient to deliver enough energy and that will expand in deer. Another problem I had with subsonic is vertical stringing with temperature change and dirty/clear bore that could vary 2-3 inches at 100 yards.  Add the vertical stringing with a misjudgement of range of just 10 yards and you have yourself a wounded deer.

Another thing to consider is autoloaders are a bit louder because of the escaping gas as the rifle cycles.  Bolt actions are always quieter.

Can someone get a suppressor and hunt deer Hollywood quiet?  Yes.  But it would require $1000 worth of suppressor (cost+tax stamp), picking the right caliber/bullet combo, reloading and working up a subsonic recipe, very limited effective range, and a pretty good chance of long tracking if anything went wrong.


----------



## DYI hunting

slightly grayling said:


> Everyone seems to be associating this thread with deer hunting and large caliber rifles.  I would think using a silenced weapon on small game would be a fair chase issue.



Are .22 CB Cap legal?  I don't know if they are, but unsuppressed they are about as quiet as a pellet rifle with more knockdown.


----------



## germag

Sterlo58 said:


> How so ?
> 
> You can use bows, crossbows and subsonic ammo for small game.



And slingshots and air rifles.....


----------



## germag

Sterlo58 said:


> Cheech Norris is my cousin and he said he don't know any of you.
> 
> But seriously, anything that can be done to protect our hearing would be welcomed.



Cheech??? He used to live next door to me!!! He still owes me $20!


----------



## ASH556

slightly grayling said:


> Everyone seems to be associating this thread with deer hunting and large caliber rifles.  I would think using a silenced weapon on small game would be a fair chase issue.



Here's the hole in this argument:

The average hunting 22 load is supersonic.  That means, the bullet goes faster than the sound.  That means, the squirrel, rabbit, etc is dead before it hears the shot.  What then is the issue with making the shot more quiet?


----------



## ASH556

germag said:


> Cheech??? He used to live next door to me!!! He still owes me $20!



I think my dad had a buddy named Cheech.  He had a huge mustache and drove a van with shag carpeting and those bubble glass windows.  I must've had a really bad motor, though, 'cause it was always smoking real bad.  I never could figure out why the smoke came out of the windows instead of the tail pipe, though.


----------



## germag

Josh Vibert said:


> Here's the hole in this argument:
> 
> The average hunting 22 load is supersonic.  That means, the bullet goes faster than the sound.  That means, the squirrel, rabbit, etc is dead before it hears the shot.  What then is the issue with making the shot more quiet?



I think he's saying that it allows you to also easily kill any other squirrels in the area because they don't hear the report....which is really a crock because they just aren't that smart. All you have to do is wait 5 minutes and they'll be running around again. I've killed 9 out of one tree without the use of a can. There is no "fair chase" problem with a can. The only reason that cans are illegal is because whoever wrote the law thought that a can would eliminate any report and would take away one of the GWs techniques for locating hunters.


----------



## deadend

If I was into poaching, a firearm, suppressed or not would not be my first choice of tool for the task.  Ignorance is the only reason not to have them legalized.


----------



## slightly grayling

Josh Vibert said:


> Here's the hole in this argument:
> 
> The average hunting 22 load is supersonic.  That means, the bullet goes faster than the sound.  That means, the squirrel, rabbit, etc is dead before it hears the shot.  What then is the issue with making the shot more quiet?



No hole, less likely to scare off his buddies during the hunt.


----------



## deadend

slightly grayling said:


> No hole, less likely to scare off his buddies during the hunt.



I haven't noticed a decline in the tree rat population so I think the world would survive.


----------



## childers

c27knots said:


> yes i would be. i have 14 acres in the middle of a suburban area and i am completely within the law and my rights to shoot a gun and go hunting on my land but all my neighbors go crazy every time i shoot so i would love to have GA change



It is illegal discharge a firearm in Cobb County.


----------



## Cleankill47

*A possible solution...*

Here's an idea, why don't we make it something that benefits both hunters, outdoorsmen, and the state?


First off:
Suppressors/'silencers' do not make a firearm completely quiet. There are combinations of barrel length, ammunition type, etc, that make it more quiet, but there is going to be a noise, regardless. 

Second:
SILENCERS ARE NOT ILLEGAL TO OWN!!! All that is required is a $200 federal tax stamp and a 6-month-ish process of investigation/approval by the BATF.



Here's an example of why I would want to be able to hunt with a silencer:


If I shoot Aguila Super Colibri primer-only 29 grain pointed bullets out of my bolt action .22 rifle with a 22-inch barrel, it will be so quiet that the loudest thing you hear is the click of the firing pin and the slap on the target. Did I need a silencer for that? No, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to be able to put some Remington subsonics in that same rifle and be able to accurately hit a squirrel/rabbit/groundhog/rat/mouse/mole/vole/pigeon/starling/english sparrow/armadillo/coyote/yougetthepointbynowdon'tyou past 20 yards with only a little more noise than a CB long now, does it?


SO, *I propose a hunter's licensing fee for the use of silencers for hunting.* It would increase income for the state, (hopefully which would go directly to the DNR and all their projects), allow hunters the ability to hear between shots without needing a $500 Walker's Game Ear in each ear to amplify soft sounds and dull sudden loud ones while at the same time decreasing your ability to do those things yourself by relying on your own body, and reduce the noise that comes along with hunting. I hunt, so I enjoy the crack of a shot being fired out of nowhere on a cold fall morning, because I hope that guy got his deer or hog or whatever he was after...

But there are a lot of non-hunters (not necessarily anti-hunters) who dislike hunting simply because of the sounds of gunfire while they might be fishing, camping with their family, etc.


I think it's a good idea. I also think it'd be nice to be able to hunt squirrels & rabbits with my .625 magnum blowgun, or go after hogs or a whitetail with a decent spear, but that's another discussion. 


What do you guys think?


----------



## dtala

I'm going to disagree with your "first off".....

I have shot a single shot 22 rimfire using Rem 22lr lead hollowpoints thru a suppressor. From 10 feet away there was NO noise from the gun. NONE. If you held your ear close to the action you could hear the firing pin spring make a minute noise. I'd call that completely quiet.

Now I'll completely agree with that rule as it applies to centerfire cartridges, they all make some degree of noise depending on the suppressor and the load.

  troy


----------



## ryanh487

If a poacher is going to use a suppressed weapon to kill a deer, he's going to do it whether hunting with a suppressor is legal or not. Plus, suppressors are expensive, a weapon with a threaded barrel, suppressor and tax stamp so you can buy the suppressor would be well over $1000.


----------



## WTM45

What would concern me more is the bigger jump to a law REQUIRING the use of them.
Would be a smaller step once allowing them has been accomplished.


----------



## Forest Grump

I suspect the biggest reason they would never allow widespread use of suppressors is the fear of them becoming commonly available to criminals. A major deterrent to discharging a weapon in town is the fact that the blast is going to attract a lot of attention. If thugs can pop a cap in anybody they wish without someone 1/2 a block away even hearing it, they would be more likely to do it (they do it a lot anyway). Imagine a drive-by & the neighbors never hear a thing or call the cops. 

Yes, I know you can do that anyway, but criminals don't (yet). Add the Hollywood impression that it is a "silencer" + the idea that hunters would be sitting in the tree stacking up deer like cordwood (equally unrealistic) and such a law wouldn't pass.

Right now, you have to jump through quite a few hoops & get your name on a few permanent govt watch lists to own one, so it's still pretty uncommon. Would poachers use one? Maybe not, since it would elevate the crime from a low level one to a BATFE felony; from a slap on the wrist & a fine to jail time. Poachers seem to be able to get away with it fairly effectively now. 

Laws governing guns are not usually made by people with great knowledge of ballistics & weaponry: they are made by the same folks who brought you: "let's pass it so we can see what's in it health care"; just cause they have power doesn't make 'em smart.


----------



## germag

ryanh487 said:


> If a poacher is going to use a suppressed weapon to kill a deer, he's going to do it whether hunting with a suppressor is legal or not. Plus, suppressors are expensive, a weapon with a threaded barrel, suppressor and tax stamp so you can buy the suppressor would be well over $1000.



Just the suppressor and the stamp is generally $1k or more.


----------



## rankhornjp

germag said:


> I don't see DNR changing that rule. It's an enforcement thing....one of their tactics is to sit on a road and listen for shots, then they go to the shots. It's sort of like why you can't take your orange off after you're in the stand....the orange makes it much easier for them to spot hunters in the trees.



Spoke with my Representative, and he spoke with the DNR Commissioner.  Currently, the DNR Commissioner is NOT opposed to having the law changed.  I am planning on taking him(my Rep) to lunch shortly so we can talk about it more, but this is great news!


----------



## tv_racin_fan

germag said:


> Just the suppressor and the stamp is generally $1k or more.


 
That ought to curtail that widespread useage issue.


----------



## rankhornjp

tv_racin_fan said:


> That ought to curtail that widespread useage issue.



There are several available in the 500-700 range.


----------



## tv_racin_fan

Indeed there are, even that LOW cost will curtail the widespread useage when you add the $200 FEDERAL tax stamp.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

*Two Comments*

1-- A few posts  up, somebody wrote that it's illegal to shoot a gun in Cobb County. Last I heard, that was NOT TRUE. Their ordinance says it's unlawful to shoot a firearm unless you have a proper backstop or are otherwise not likely to have a projectile land off your own property.  (So that might apply to shooting squirrels out of trees with a .22, but with a shotgun loaded with small birdshot, you'd only need a couple acres to ensure all the lead stays on your soil.

2-- Silencers would be cheaper if they were more common.  A simple Maxim type suppressor with a set of dish-shaped baffles should cost no more than $50 to make. Everything else is either tax and /or profit.  With more units being sold, the profit per unit could be less.  

How much does the manufacturer have to pay to build a silencer and offer it for sale to distributors / wholesalers? Do they pay a $200 per unit tax, too?  No, I don't think so.


----------



## Dusty Roads

*YES-suppressors*



rankhornjp said:


> I'm researching getting a suppressor and was suprised to find out that GA doesn't allow them for hunting(I am not a hunter), while several other states do (some with restrictions on type of game).
> 
> My question:  Would you be in favor of changing the law to allow suppressor while hunting?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ETA: I'm doing this for research, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.



Absolutely-I hunt near livestock and I wonder when one day they'll just run right through the fence when I shoot.They really don't like the sudden report of a 7mag rifle nearby(200yrds).


----------



## Dusty Roads

*Perfect idea!*



Cleankill47 said:


> Here's an idea, why don't we make it something that benefits both hunters, outdoorsmen, and the state?
> 
> 
> First off:
> Suppressors/'silencers' do not make a firearm completely quiet. There are combinations of barrel length, ammunition type, etc, that make it more quiet, but there is going to be a noise, regardless.
> 
> Second:
> SILENCERS ARE NOT ILLEGAL TO OWN!!! All that is required is a $200 federal tax stamp and a 6-month-ish process of investigation/approval by the BATF.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of why I would want to be able to hunt with a silencer:
> 
> 
> If I shoot Aguila Super Colibri primer-only 29 grain pointed bullets out of my bolt action .22 rifle with a 22-inch barrel, it will be so quiet that the loudest thing you hear is the click of the firing pin and the slap on the target. Did I need a silencer for that? No, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to be able to put some Remington subsonics in that same rifle and be able to accurately hit a squirrel/rabbit/groundhog/rat/mouse/mole/vole/pigeon/starling/english sparrow/armadillo/coyote/yougetthepointbynowdon'tyou past 20 yards with only a little more noise than a CB long now, does it?
> 
> 
> SO, *I propose a hunter's licensing fee for the use of silencers for hunting.* It would increase income for the state, (hopefully which would go directly to the DNR and all their projects), allow hunters the ability to hear between shots without needing a $500 Walker's Game Ear in each ear to amplify soft sounds and dull sudden loud ones while at the same time decreasing your ability to do those things yourself by relying on your own body, and reduce the noise that comes along with hunting. I hunt, so I enjoy the crack of a shot being fired out of nowhere on a cold fall morning, because I hope that guy got his deer or hog or whatever he was after...
> 
> But there are a lot of non-hunters (not necessarily anti-hunters) who dislike hunting simply because of the sounds of gunfire while they might be fishing, camping with their family, etc.
> 
> 
> I think it's a good idea. I also think it'd be nice to be able to hunt squirrels & rabbits with my .625 magnum blowgun, or go after hogs or a whitetail with a decent spear, but that's another discussion.
> 
> 
> What do you guys think?


 Thanks man,
 Lets get this ball rollin and ALL of us write our State Legislators and tell them WE WANT SUPRESSORS and list the states that allow them for hunting as a referance for their research.
 The idea of increased funds will surely raise their eyebrows ESPECIALLY with the state funds dried up now.
Great idea,
 Thanks


----------



## Larry Rooks

NO and why?  Because it is another invitation in assisting Poachers.  Silence their weapons and they will be killing your deer right under your nose and you want know it. And
yo..u MUST use sub sonic ammo for it to work, and most hunting rifles (06--308--7 Mag--300 Mag etc) can't be down loaded enough to be sub sonic and be enough to take
larger game like deer/hog unless shot is PERFECT.  You would end up with a LOT of wounded and lost animals


----------



## germag

Larry Rooks said:


> NO and why?  Because it is another invitation in assisting Poachers.  Silence their weapons and they will be killing your deer right under your nose and you want know it. And
> yo..u MUST use sub sonic ammo for it to work, and most hunting rifles (06--308--7 Mag--300 Mag etc) can't be down loaded enough to be sub sonic and be enough to take
> larger game like deer/hog unless shot is PERFECT.  You would end up with a LOT of wounded and lost animals



This isn't entirely true. Have you ever shot a suppressed .308 Win or anything like that? You don't need to use subsonic ammo to make it work. It's not going to be like the movies, but the suppressor reduces the sound heard by the shooter by usually about 31 or 32 db....which is more than a lot of range muffs. That doesn't mean you can't still hear it in front. It also reduces recoil dramatically as well as muzzle blast and flash. Hunters rarely use ear protection while hunting....a supressor would save a lot of hearing damage. The only real downside is that it makes the rifle heavier and considerably longer.


----------



## Budda

Chuck Norris is my son. Where ya think he learnt all his fancey moves from


----------



## germag

Master Po?


----------



## nkbigdog

Josh Vibert said:


> I think my dad had a buddy named Cheech.  He had a huge mustache and drove a van with shag carpeting and those bubble glass windows.  I must've had a really bad motor, though, 'cause it was always smoking real bad.  I never could figure out why the smoke came out of the windows instead of the tail pipe, though.



Yeh and I am the one that wanted the hotdog on the dash


----------



## 270 Sendero

yes here


----------



## wareagle5.0

I say, yes.


----------



## biker13

tv_racin_fan said:


> Indeed there are, even that LOW cost will curtail the widespread useage when you add the $200 FEDERAL tax stamp.



Why not just make one yourself and avoid the taxes


----------



## germag

dlsbiker13 said:


> Why not just make one yourself and avoid the taxes



Because 5 years in federal prison is not a pleasant thought?


----------



## tv_racin_fan

LOL!!!

I was typing something and thought better of it.


----------



## deadend

Three hots and a cot can be appealing in today's economy however.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

*fair chase*

the "fair chase" issue isn't about the animal hearing the shot and moving before the subsonic bullet reaches it. That's not going to happen.

The real "fair chase" issue with a truly effective silencer and subsonic ammo is that if you miss, the animal won't know it's being shot at. So it will sit there and let you have another try.  And other animals in the area won't realize what you are up to either.

But when it comes to deer hunting, I would probably not use subsonic ammo unless it were the .300 Whisper /  .300 Blackout, with a 220 grain bullet moving at 1000 f.p.s. with hardly any loss in velocity out to 200 yards.

I'd prefer to hunt with supersonic bullets at the normal 2,500 - 3,000 f.p.s. velocity and just enjoy the fact that my high powered rifle sounds like a .22 pistol when fired.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

germag said:


> I don't see DNR changing that rule. It's an enforcement thing....one of their tactics is to sit on a road and listen for shots, then they go to the shots. It's sort of like why you can't take your orange off after you're in the stand....the orange makes it much easier for them to spot hunters in the trees.


 
This.

If OSHA rules applied to hunting, suppressors would be required, just like they are in many furrin' countries. (Those that dlsbiker13 has allowed to exist, anyhow...)


----------



## Lead Poison

I voted "YES"!

This would help reduce damage caused to everyone's hearing. 

As for the current law, what has it stopped? Criminals don't follow the law anyway!


----------



## CoopTitle2

*Comparison*

Ashton did a video comparison just as a frame of reference...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8_d9hGHkXE&sns=em


----------



## rankhornjp

For those of you interested in this topic.  SB301(Hunting; authorize the use of silencers on hunting firearms under certain circumstances) has been filed and is in committee.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20112012/SB/301

Please contact your State Senator and give them your thoughts on this bill.


----------



## Showman

Whether or not this bill passes and is signed into law doesn't phase me that much.  What does matter to me is IF it does pass, will this just make another argument to try and take away our 2A right to bear arms.  WTF45 and Forest Grump both sorta made the suggestion that this could move toward more restrictive rules and regulations in the future for hunters/sport shooters.  This just a "What If", but, what would happen to hunting/sport shooting if the the laws later down the road were changed to say since big bore hunting rifles could not be silenced enough so they could not be heard 500 feet away (or pick your distance) that they were no longer to be used in hunting, and since they were no longer allowed to be used, we must turn them in.  I'm just throwing this out there folks, don't jump my case, please.  It is something to think about.


----------



## rankhornjp

Showman said:


> Whether or not this bill passes and is signed into law doesn't phase me that much.  What does matter to me is IF it does pass, will this just make another argument to try and take away our 2A right to bear arms.  WTF45 and Forest Grump both sorta made the suggestion that this could move toward more restrictive rules and regulations in the future for hunters/sport shooters.  This just a "What If", but, what would happen to hunting/sport shooting if the the laws later down the road were changed to say since big bore hunting rifles could not be silenced enough so they could not be heard 500 feet away (or pick your distance) that they were no longer to be used in hunting, and since they were no longer allowed to be used, we must turn them in.  I'm just throwing this out there folks, don't jump my case, please.  It is something to think about.



Several other states already have laws that allow the use of suppressors while hunting  (and these are not new laws) and there has been no talk about anything like this in those states.

As far as "Sport Shooting", suppressors are already legal for any other legal use.  So, I'm not following.

While I understand your fear, I believe it is not backed up by any evidence.


----------



## 1ncamo

rankhornjp said:


> *Several other states already have laws that allow the use of suppressors while hunting  (and these are not new laws)* and there has been no talk about anything like this in those states.
> 
> As far as "Sport Shooting", suppressors are already legal for any other legal use.  So, I'm not following.
> 
> While I understand your fear, I believe it is not backed up by any evidence.



California being one of them... 

Whod a thunk it, California doing something better than Georgia when it comes to firearms!!!???


----------



## SASS249

WTM45 said:


> What would concern me more is the bigger jump to a law REQUIRING the use of them.
> Would be a smaller step once allowing them has been accomplished.



This is my real concern.  The anti-hunting crowd is not nearly as dumb as people want to believe.  Think about a advertising campaign based around:  "We need to protect our children's sensitive hearing so let's REQUIRE all hunting done by kids, or where kids are present to be done only with suppressed weapons".  Sure, it would add  500 hundred dollars or more to the cost of a rifle for a child, and for you too if you hunt with your child, but isn't $1,000 cheap to ensure their hearing is protected. Oh, by the way let's specify how much maximum report they can be exposed to and require that you suppress your rifle or handgun to that level.

Believe me, that kind of campaign could work.  For you handgun hunters, there goes your revolvers since they can't really be suppressed and don't forget shotguns.  Would pretty much require all dove hunters to use suppressed shotguns (yes I know they are not common, but they do exist).

I have no real issue with using suppressors in hunting.  I just fear it is a camel's nose in the tent sort of thing.


----------



## m1garand30064

1ncamo said:


> California being one of them...
> 
> Whod a thunk it, California doing something better than Georgia when it comes to firearms!!!???



lolwut?  Silencers are not legal for normal civilians to own in Commifornia.  Dealers and police are allowed to have them, but not the average joe.


----------



## m1garand30064

rankhornjp said:


> For those of you interested in this topic.  SB301(Hunting; authorize the use of silencers on hunting firearms under certain circumstances) has been filed and is in committee.
> 
> http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20112012/SB/301
> 
> Please contact your State Senator and give them your thoughts on this bill.



This would be awesome.  Who do I contact?


----------



## rankhornjp

m1garand30064 said:


> This would be awesome.  Who do I contact?



Your state Senator.  IF you don't know who that is you can look here: http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/senate/districts.htm


----------



## 1ncamo

m1garand30064 said:


> lolwut?  Silencers are not legal for normal civilians to own in Commifornia.  Dealers and police are allowed to have them, but not the average joe.



Theres a few who are allowed to own them... granted, not many, but those that do, can hunt with them!


----------



## rankhornjp

The bill has passed committee, unanimously!

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/g...nting-silencers-ok-lawmakers-say?v=1327561376

Next step, Rules and then to the floor for a vote.


----------



## m1garand30064

rankhornjp said:


> The bill has passed committee, unanimously!
> 
> http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/g...nting-silencers-ok-lawmakers-say?v=1327561376
> 
> Next step, Rules and then to the floor for a vote.



Well I did my part and wrote an email and called.  I hope it passes so I can use my 762SD next deer season!  

Once this passes I think I'll take my Marlin 30/30 by Accurate ordnance for threading to celebrate!


----------



## rankhornjp

m1garand30064 said:


> Well I did my part and wrote an email and called.  I hope it passes so I can use my 762SD next deer season!
> 
> Once this passes I think I'll take my Marlin 30/30 by Accurate ordnance for threading to celebrate!



That'll be an awesome way to celebrate!  You'll need to post pics, I would LOVE to see that.


----------



## 1ncamo

I like big hairy men-I like big hairy men-I like big hairy men-I like big hairy men- shame how many folks making commets on that article are advocating more and more governement intrution into our lives? Whatever happened to be a free citizen?


----------



## bfriendly

Josh Vibert said:


> I think my dad had a buddy named Cheech.  He had a huge mustache and drove a van with shag carpeting and those bubble glass windows.  I must've had a really bad motor, though, 'cause it was always smoking real bad.  I never could figure out why the smoke came out of the windows instead of the tail pipe, though.



Musta been a leak inside


----------



## Inthegarge

My concern is that this would open the door to more TAXES... The State ( I'm sure) is already thinking how they can get a new tax form of revenue from supressors..........On top of the 1k.... If they become legal I will need your info so I can come steal yours and not have to pay all the fees & Taxes......................LOL


----------



## rankhornjp

Inthegarge said:


> My concern is that this would open the door to more TAXES... The State ( I'm sure) is already thinking how they can get a new tax form of revenue from supressors..........On top of the 1k.... If they become legal I will need your info so I can come steal yours and not have to pay all the fees & Taxes......................LOL



They are already legal to own.  And no you can't have my address.


----------



## rankhornjp

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-gov...-silencers-1324854.html?cxtype=rss_news_61499

Bill has passed the Senate with a 48-5 vote.  Now on to the House.

Contact your House Representative.  If you don't know who that is: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress/


----------



## davidhawkins

I vote YES! Then when u shoot a deer the sound wont spook the deer on your neighbors property + wont damage your hearing = happy neighbors and no hearing loss.


----------



## SgtPat

dtala said:


> I'm going to disagree with your "first off".....
> 
> I have shot a single shot 22 rimfire using Rem 22lr lead hollowpoints thru a suppressor. From 10 feet away there was NO noise from the gun. NONE. If you held your ear close to the action you could hear the firing pin spring make a minute noise. I'd call that completely quiet.
> Now I'll completely agree with that rule as it applies to centerfire cartridges, they all make some degree of noise depending on the suppressor and the load.
> 
> troy



Even my hearing isn't that bad yet.


----------



## Larry Rooks

if you are worried about damaging your hearing, ear muffs
or ear plugs, no transfer fee and no approval needed from local LE or ATF  The shot spooking game on neighboring property etc, NOT.  I have been watching deer and shots going off in distance, they pay it NO attention.  My opninion, ands it's mine, NO Silencers should NOT be allowed for hunting.  Don't care what you say it WILL be a Poachers tool before the ink dries if it does go thru.  Oh yea, there are a lot of hunters out there that will be 100%
legal with it, very ethical, but it'l only take ONE to put more bad images on the hunter, and that one will show up quick.
IF silencers are approved and hunter is caught poaching or using one illegally, charges should be VERY SEVERE


----------



## J.D. Squire

Larry Rooks said:


> if you are worried about damaging your hearing, ear muffs
> or ear plugs, no transfer fee and no approval needed from local LE or ATF  The shot spooking game on neighboring property etc, NOT.  I have been watching deer and shots going off in distance, they pay it NO attention.  My opninion, ands it's mine, NO Silencers should NOT be allowed for hunting.  Don't care what you say it WILL be a Poachers tool before the ink dries if it does go thru.  Oh yea, there are a lot of hunters out there that will be 100%
> legal with it, very ethical, but it'l only take ONE to put more bad images on the hunter, and that one will show up quick.
> IF silencers are approved and hunter is caught poaching or using one illegally, charges should be VERY SEVERE


Gotta disagree with this, a poacher by definition is a LAWBREAKER. Suppresors have already been legal to own in Ga for a while, Why would they Just start using them to poach if its legal to hunt with them?


----------



## SgtPat

Larry Rooks said:


> if you are worried about damaging your hearing, ear muffs
> or ear plugs, no transfer fee and no approval needed from local LE or ATF  The shot spooking game on neighboring property etc, NOT.  I have been watching deer and shots going off in distance, they pay it NO attention.  My opninion, ands it's mine, NO Silencers should NOT be allowed for hunting.  Don't care what you say it WILL be a Poachers tool before the ink dries if it does go thru.  Oh yea, there are a lot of hunters out there that will be 100%
> legal with it, very ethical, but it'l only take ONE to put more bad images on the hunter, and that one will show up quick.
> IF silencers are approved and hunter is caught poaching or using one illegally, charges should be VERY SEVERE



Can you explain your logic in that conclusion?  Supressors are legal to posess now and there is no poaching problem with them.  The new law will not make it legal to poach with a supressor and in fact will make it an additional crime to poach with a supressor.


----------



## 2bbshot

Larry Rooks said:


> if you are worried about damaging your hearing, ear muffs
> or ear plugs, no transfer fee and no approval needed from local LE or ATF  The shot spooking game on neighboring property etc, NOT.  I have been watching deer and shots going off in distance, they pay it NO attention.  My opninion, ands it's mine, NO Silencers should NOT be allowed for hunting.  Don't care what you say it WILL be a Poachers tool before the ink dries if it does go thru.  Oh yea, there are a lot of hunters out there that will be 100%
> legal with it, very ethical, but it'l only take ONE to put more bad images on the hunter, and that one will show up quick.
> IF silencers are approved and hunter is caught poaching or using one illegally, charges should be VERY SEVERE


Poachers are going to poach period. Suppressor or not. Also fines would be severe because commiting a crime with a NFA regulated item is a big deal. But again bottom line honest people will do right and dishonest people won't. Poachers aren't going to spend a grand on a suppressor to do what they can do with  el cheapo 22.


----------



## m1garand30064

Larry Rooks said:


> if you are worried about damaging your hearing, ear muffs
> or ear plugs, no transfer fee and no approval needed from local LE or ATF  The shot spooking game on neighboring property etc, NOT.  I have been watching deer and shots going off in distance, they pay it NO attention.  My opninion, ands it's mine, NO Silencers should NOT be allowed for hunting.  Don't care what you say it WILL be a Poachers tool before the ink dries if it does go thru.  Oh yea, there are a lot of hunters out there that will be 100%
> legal with it, very ethical, but it'l only take ONE to put more bad images on the hunter, and that one will show up quick.
> IF silencers are approved and hunter is caught poaching or using one illegally, charges should be VERY SEVERE



If we ban all guns in Atlanta then there will be no more shootings there because there is a law against it.


----------



## Son

Could care less about em, but I ain't paying 200 bucks for permission to have one. Shucks, it's come to the point where government wants us to pay for almost everything we do and have. Anytime the people want something, governments sees it as a possible money making opportunity. Tired of it.


----------



## CraigM

The only problem I can see with this is that my paperwork likely won't be approved before opening weekend


----------



## Rich Kaminski

I think its a great idea and Ga did pass a law that we can now use suppressors to hunt. I can't wait to get one. The noise from my 300 Weatherby is quite loud and over time will certainly ruin my hearing.


----------



## killjoy321

it doesnt look good for this bill,



> My GA State House rep. called me to let me know he spoke with Rep. Jon Burns this afternoon about the status of SB 301 in his House committee. Rep. Burns basically said that he doesn't want to have a committee vote on SB 301 because they don't have the votes for it to pass out of committee. They don't want to go on record as appearing anti-gun or anti-hunting, so they'd rather not be faced with taking a stand on the issue. Many of the committee members have concerns over poaching, trespassing, etc.


Quote is from Arfcom
Link


----------



## SgtPat

killjoy321 said:


> it doesnt look good for this bill,
> 
> 
> Quote is from Arfcom
> Link



It appears that burns is as dumb as some of his constituents.  He needs to go.


----------



## NG ALUM

dlsbiker13 said:


> My position is I see no need for them while hunting,that ain't changing,its how I feel about it.Your opinion is yours and how you feel about it,and we are fortunate that we have the right to an opinion.So we have the right to disagree,kind of like the baiting mess.



Just because you see no need for it doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. It should only be illegal if you can prove it would leave society as a whole worse off for having it. I mean dang thats what this country was founded on..."Everything is legal until you can show it's bad for society." Not "Everything is illegal until you can prove it's for the greater good". Nothing should start off illegal based on just a hunch or an I don't "see a need" for it. 

Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Only when through the course of living something repeatedly happens that leaves society worse off that originally should it be banned.

have a nice day.


----------



## WELLS8230

sick coons and car hit deer


----------



## southernboy2147

I didnt read through all the post but i would say no just because it would make it alot eaiser for poachers to tresspass and kill animals on other peoples land. comin from somebody who has 500 acres thats private family land, its hard enough to keep poachers off as it is


----------



## SgtPat

southernboy2147 said:


> I didnt read through all the post but i would say no just because it would make it alot eaiser for poachers to tresspass and kill animals on other peoples land. comin from somebody who has 500 acres thats private family land, its hard enough to keep poachers off as it is



I keep seeing these stupid coments about poaching and trespassing.  Can you explain how you came to these conclusions other than mindless knee jerk?


----------



## bigreddwon

southernboy2147 said:


> I didnt read through all the post but i would say no just because it would make it alot eaiser for poachers to tresspass and kill animals on other peoples land. comin from somebody who has 500 acres thats private family land, its hard enough to keep poachers off as it is





SgtPat said:


> I keep seeing these stupid coments about poaching and trespassing.  Can you explain how you came to these conclusions other than mindless knee jerk?




I fail to see how someone who has ZERO regard for the law, that's already breaking multiple laws, should be judged side by side with law abiding citizens? 

What does a person who wantonly breaks laws have to do with folks who follow the law? 

Wouldn't it make sense that a poacher would have been using them weather they were legal or not to use them? 

Its as stupid n argument as anti gun folks use to pass dozens of absolutely useless gun laws that we ALL KNOW criminals don't follow and only hamstring good law abiding folks.. No wonder were in the position we are as a country with this lame thinking..


----------



## HOGDOG76

Personally i think suppressors would be great help in the eradication of domestic cows because the rest of the herd would be less likely to spook at the first shot


----------

