Silencer, Good Idea or Bad

[TheSheWolf]

If suppressors are used frequently in actual hunting, I'd say it'd be okay to reduce the range of rifle spooking when shot. If they aren't used, then I'd say to stay away, for realism's sake.

[Hawkeye]

Huge difference between arguing about the legal silent nature of a bow that is a Legal short range weapon compared to the very illegal use of a silencer for hunting!

What would you like next, plastic covered windows the night before deer season opens? Or maybe Live pen traps to hold your trophy deer in place till you can bother to walk up too it to shoot it....

Hunting with suppressors is legal in at least 40 states (as of 2017) including your home state of Wisconsin. So no, it is not "very illegal", as you have stated. It is very much legal in your own back yard. It might even be more popular than you think. Among our group of hunters, there are only a couple of us that don't hunt with suppressors. It's less about giving you some sort of advantage over the game, and more about ear protection in a situation where wearing ear plugs can be counterproductive while hunting, for obvious reasons. High quality suppressors might also increase accuracy slightly and reduce recoil a bit.

You might gain a slight advantage by not making as much noise with the shot, but IRL hunting is not the same as in-game hunting. Animals don't always run from the sound of gunfire IRL, for example, so it's not accurate to say that by making less noise, you won't spook other "incoming" game, and therefore harvest more game. Also, the vast majority of hunters don't stay on-stand after killing something. They get out and take care of the downed game. The only reason that I never jumped on the suppressor bandwagon myself is because you have to pay for it up-front, then wait months for all the legal shenanigans before you can actually take it home. Considering how expensive they are, (around the cost of your rifle most of the time) I'm not comfortable with that process.

In-game, it would have to offer some advantage, like reduced spook radius, since protecting our pixelated ears isn't really an issue. Maybe it could provide a slight accuracy increase & recoil reduction. As long as that advantage was well-balanced, I would support it.

[Sulfurblade]

Huge difference between arguing about the legal silent nature of a bow that is a Legal short range weapon compared to the very illegal use of a silencer for hunting!

What would you like next, plastic covered windows the night before deer season opens? Or maybe Live pen traps to hold your trophy deer in place till you can bother to walk up too it to shoot it....

Hunting with suppressors is legal in at least 40 states (as of 2017) including your home state of Wisconsin. So no, it is not "very illegal", as you have stated. It is very much legal in your own back yard. It might even be more popular than you think. Among our group of hunters, there are only a couple of us that don't hunt with suppressors. It's less about giving you some sort of advantage over the game, and more about ear protection in a situation where wearing ear plugs can be counterproductive while hunting, for obvious reasons. High quality suppressors might also increase accuracy slightly and reduce recoil a bit.

You might gain a slight advantage by not making as much noise with the shot, but IRL hunting is not the same as in-game hunting. Animals don't always run from the sound of gunfire IRL, for example, so it's not accurate to say that by making less noise, you won't spook other "incoming" game, and therefore harvest more game. Also, the vast majority of hunters don't stay on-stand after killing something. They get out and take care of the downed game. The only reason that I never jumped on the suppressor bandwagon myself is because you have to pay for it up-front, then wait months for all the legal shenanigans before you can actually take it home. Considering how expensive they are, (around the cost of your rifle most of the time) I'm not comfortable with that process.

In-game, it would have to offer some advantage, like reduced spook radius, since protecting our pixelated ears isn't really an issue. Maybe it could provide a slight accuracy increase & recoil reduction. As long as that advantage was well-balanced, I would support it.

You sir are talking Apples and Oranges! You are correct Suppressors are legal but Silencers are not.... They are different products Suppressors eliminate muzzle flash and have a side effect of (Slightly) lowering the decibels of the shot. Silencers nearly completely eliminate noise and are very much illegal as I stated above! Suppressors again eliminate muzzle flash and have a side effect of lowering noise but they do not eliminate it... granted when you use it with a weapon like a .22 that is already fairly silent it sounds pretty much silenced but when you attempt to Suppress a 30.06 for instance you still end up with a fairly noticeable bang!

So if you want to quote law's with me then please talk about the correct piece of equipment this post is referring too...

And yes of course they reduce recoil a suppressor is siphoning away the gases coming out of the muzzle break and as such will eliminate a lot of the recoil kick. Again they are two different pieces of equipment....

The states of Connecticut and Vermont allow for suppressor ownership but prohibit using silencers while hunting.

Silencers and Suppressors are for many the same thing, the first silencer was called a Silencer, latter attempts to produce a similar product were done using a different focus the elimination or disbursement of the muzzle break gas's aka A suppressor.
Now bye legal standards Suppressors are not allowed to be manufactured to the degree of sound reduction that would constitute a "Silencer" and the two terms are legally different inside a court of law.

Silencers eliminate sound and are typically only legal for use bye Military and or Police.
Suppressors eliminate muzzle flash and lower sound In fact the technology has become so good that they can in fact be considered a silencer but those are illegal to manufacture and sell to the population. The Suppressor's available to Hunters do indeed protect hearing and help with recoil all the things you listed but they do not meet the sound lowering level to be considered a silencer, thus they are legal to use, the OP used the Term Silencer!

[Fletchette]

Hunting with suppressors is legal in at least 40 states (as of 2017) including your home state of Wisconsin. So no, it is not "very illegal", as you have stated. It is very much legal in your own back yard. It might even be more popular than you think. Among our group of hunters, there are only a couple of us that don't hunt with suppressors. It's less about giving you some sort of advantage over the game, and more about ear protection in a situation where wearing ear plugs can be counterproductive while hunting, for obvious reasons. High quality suppressors might also increase accuracy slightly and reduce recoil a bit.

You might gain a slight advantage by not making as much noise with the shot, but IRL hunting is not the same as in-game hunting. Animals don't always run from the sound of gunfire IRL, for example, so it's not accurate to say that by making less noise, you won't spook other "incoming" game, and therefore harvest more game. Also, the vast majority of hunters don't stay on-stand after killing something. They get out and take care of the downed game. The only reason that I never jumped on the suppressor bandwagon myself is because you have to pay for it up-front, then wait months for all the legal shenanigans before you can actually take it home. Considering how expensive they are, (around the cost of your rifle most of the time) I'm not comfortable with that process.

In-game, it would have to offer some advantage, like reduced spook radius, since protecting our pixelated ears isn't really an issue. Maybe it could provide a slight accuracy increase & recoil reduction. As long as that advantage was well-balanced, I would support it.

You sir are talking Apples and Oranges! You are correct Suppressors are legal but Silencers are not.... They are different products Suppressors eliminate muzzle flash and have a side effect of (Slightly) lowering the decibels of the shot. Silencers nearly completely eliminate noise and are very much illegal as I stated above! Suppressors again eliminate muzzle flash and have a side effect of lowering noise but they do not eliminate it... granted when you use it with a weapon like a .22 that is already fairly silent it sounds pretty much silenced but when you attempt to Suppress a 30.06 for instance you still end up with a fairly noticeable bang!

So if you want to quote law's with me then please talk about the correct piece of equipment this post is referring too...

And yes of course they reduce recoil a suppressor is siphoning away the gases coming out of the muzzle break and as such will eliminate a lot of the recoil kick. Again they are two different pieces of equipment....

The states of Connecticut and Vermont allow for suppressor ownership but prohibit using silencers while hunting.

Silencers and Suppressors are for many the same thing, the first silencer was called a Silencer, latter attempts to produce a similar product were done using a different focus the elimination or disbursement of the muzzle break gas's aka A suppressor.
Now bye legal standards Suppressors are not allowed to be manufactured to the degree of sound reduction that would constitute a "Silencer" and the two terms are legally different inside a court of law.

Silencers eliminate sound and are typically only legal for use bye Military and or Police.
Suppressors eliminate muzzle flash and lower sound In fact the technology has become so good that they can in fact be considered a silencer but those are illegal to manufacture and sell to the population. The Suppressor's available to Hunters do indeed protect hearing and help with recoil all the things you listed but they do not meet the sound lowering level to be considered a silencer, thus they are legal to use, the OP used the Term Silencer!

Wrong.....Silencer = Suppressor = Muffler. They are all the same thing.

Now there are things called "Flash Suppressors, Muzzle Brakes & Compensators" which are different.

Federal Law uses the word "Silencer" because that's what it was originally called when it was invented and patented. Whichever term is used, they are all the same type device, and all require a Federal License to own which costs $200. They are legal in 40+ states now.

There is no Military or Police "Super Silencer" that is illegal for citizens to own.

[caledonianblues]

You sir are talking Apples and Oranges! You are correct Suppressors are legal but Silencers are not.... They are different products Suppressors eliminate muzzle flash and have a side effect of (Slightly) lowering the decibels of the shot. Silencers nearly completely eliminate noise and are very much illegal as I stated above! Suppressors again eliminate muzzle flash and have a side effect of lowering noise but they do not eliminate it... granted when you use it with a weapon like a .22 that is already fairly silent it sounds pretty much silenced but when you attempt to Suppress a 30.06 for instance you still end up with a fairly noticeable bang!

So if you want to quote law's with me then please talk about the correct piece of equipment this post is referring too...

And yes of course they reduce recoil a suppressor is siphoning away the gases coming out of the muzzle break and as such will eliminate a lot of the recoil kick. Again they are two different pieces of equipment....

The states of Connecticut and Vermont allow for suppressor ownership but prohibit using silencers while hunting.

Silencers and Suppressors are for many the same thing, the first silencer was called a Silencer, latter attempts to produce a similar product were done using a different focus the elimination or disbursement of the muzzle break gas's aka A suppressor.
Now bye legal standards Suppressors are not allowed to be manufactured to the degree of sound reduction that would constitute a "Silencer" and the two terms are legally different inside a court of law.

Silencers eliminate sound and are typically only legal for use bye Military and or Police.
Suppressors eliminate muzzle flash and lower sound In fact the technology has become so good that they can in fact be considered a silencer but those are illegal to manufacture and sell to the population. The Suppressor's available to Hunters do indeed protect hearing and help with recoil all the things you listed but they do not meet the sound lowering level to be considered a silencer, thus they are legal to use, the OP used the Term Silencer!

A suppressor is a "silencer". If I'm not mistaken, "silencer" is just the Hollywood term for a suppressor, and the sound reduction effects have been grossly exaggerated in cinema for decades. But, essentially when someone refers to one or the other, they're referring to the exact same thing. Other common terms are sound suppressor or sound moderator. All one thing though, and none of them silence.

Edit: Fletchette beat me to it.

[Sulfurblade]

And you are both wrong if courts of law consider there to be a definable difference.

"The states of Connecticut and Vermont allow for suppressor ownership but prohibit using silencers while hunting."

Infact the American Suppressor Association has worked very hard to muddy the Symantec's on this issue to make most people think they are the same thing.

Silencers Elimate Noise - This comes with drawbacks like no ballistic crack which means a far lower muzzle velocity which also means NOT ethical for hunting!

[Sulfurblade]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFhIXPZwdJ0

[Fletchette]

And you are both wrong if courts of law consider there to be a definable difference.

"The states of Connecticut and Vermont allow for suppressor ownership but prohibit using silencers while hunting."

Infact the American Suppressor Association has worked very hard to muddy the Symantec's on this issue to make most people think they are the same thing.

Silencers Elimate Noise - This comes with drawbacks like no ballistic crack which means a far lower muzzle velocity which also means NOT ethical for hunting!

No....You are on the internet, all you have to do is Google. They are the same thing. There is no distinction in law or court cases.

[Sulfurblade]

Maxims Silencer design works differently the reason the Suppressor is superior is because it lowers sound while maintaining muzzle velocity.

The VSS Vintorerz is a Silenced weapon is fire a sub Ballistic Round
A suppressor put on the end of a .50 caliber sniper rifle is a suppressor why because Maxims Silencer technology did not work it has a detrimental effect on muzzle velocity....

The US Military, refer's to a Supressor as such and a Silencer as such they are used on very different weapons...
Silencers get put on short range weapons in which the loss of muzzle velocity can be accepted for the use of the weapon.
Long range weapons like a .300 Magnum for instance would use a Suppressor as the point of the weapon is to be effective at long range and "Silencers" have a detrimental effect because they are Technically different then a Suppressor!

[caledonianblues]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFhIXPZwdJ0

That video just confirms exactly what Fletchette and I said

Click here to jump to 5:51 to hear him say exactly what we said in our posts.