- Messages
- 115
- Reactions
- 103
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, this is a common misconception!I can surely appreciate the sound advantages in having a suppressor. My problem with them for rifles is that they have to weigh-down the muzzle and alter the point of impact versus the point of aim. Even if the barrel on the target rifle is a big & beefy batsard, the suppressor's weight will affect where the bullet will hit against that target at 1000 yards. I suppose the error can be compensated by dialing up and around the elevation and windage variations, but do we really want to institute a compromise that pollutes the sanctity of the effort we've put forward in order to shoot small groups at long distances? I doubt 1000-yard shooting tournaments are conducted with suppressers. The groups those guys shoot is what we should use as inspiration in our own long-range efforts. Of course, with me being one of The Three Stooges, I'm not going to ever equal what today's top shooters can produce. But I can shoot without a suppressor, just as do they...
You've certainly got me to thinking about it. My next build I estimate will cost about $3600 by the time the first bullet goes downrange. A suppressor and tax stamp will add another $1200 to that. I know a flash can is not a suppressor, but I'm wondering if one could affect the sound such that it wouldn't be as harsh as a round fired with nothing on the muzzle.The science has proven the gains, so get on board and enjoy!
Hopefully the hearing protection act will pass and it will be cans for every one!