Here are reasons for use of a sound suppressor/silencer.

clivej

Here are some reasons to use a moderator if your asked when submitting your Firearms form.


• Health and Safety. To prevent hearing damage to me and others nearby.
To be aware of what and who is around me when hunting in the ‘field’ and to be able to hear people giving me instructions and warnings.
Hearing protection is not an option under these conditions.

• Improved accuracy of bullet placement on animals and thereby given a humane kill.
This is one proven enhancement of using a sound suppressor.

• Public Safety and Peace. To reduce the noise pollution to the public if and when they are within hearing of shots being fired.
I have shooting permissions on lands where this can happen.
On occasion the night shooting of vermin is needed and again the use of a sound suppressor will reduce the noise pollution to the public.

• I have permissions to shoot on lands for the control of vermin where horses are kept and at time in foal and also other livestock.
The sounds of shooting will stampede the horses and a sound suppressor is required on these occasions.

Sparks

Not sure if "here are the approved excuses" is the best line to take there clive.

Especially when it depends on the local Super (even with the guidelines, when they're released, the Super still makes the rules).

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

Not sure if "here are the approved excuses" is the best line to take there clive.

Especially when it depends on the local Super (even with the guidelines, when they're released, the Super still makes the rules).

In fairness he isn't saying these are the "approved excuses" he is just gathering together the reasons used by people when seeking permission to use a moderator.

Sparks

See, if he was saying "X% of people have mods granted for Y", I'd be completely of that opinion as well Veg, but the way clive wrote it, it comes across more as "put this down and you'll get a mod from your super".

rrpc

clivej wrote: »

• Improved accuracy of bullet placement on animals and thereby given a humane kill.
This is one proven enhancement of using a sound suppressor.

Are you sure that's correct Clive? I was always of the impression that a moderator affected the flight of the bullet and not in a good way.

Grizzly 45

Nope! RR in fact it will actually improve[according to those who make these ]bullet accruacy!Only way THICS it wouldnt work is if the threading is out of true and/or somthing touches the bullet in it's flight.

Sparks

That's not quite right though Grizzly - every sound suppressor out there takes away from the velocity of the bullet, pulling it further down towards the transsonic speed region and when the bullet hits that region, it destabilises. So the supressor doesn't affect accuracy within a certain range, even if all else remains the same.

(And I still want to see the studies on subsonic .22lr rounds and suppressors btw).

edit: (And improve? Suppressors can't improve accuracy unless they impinge on the bullet in some way, and the only way they can do that involves loud noises and flying shards of ex-suppressor metal.)

Rew

IMHO its the effect of the moderator on the shooter not the bullet that improves accuracy.

BornToKill

By cutting down on recoil it could be argued that a moderator allows you to get back on target faster for a second shot. That is not the same as first-shot accuracy. I can't see how a first shot would be helped by a moderator - you'd be better off getting in some practice.

Sparks

I can see how it'd help someone with a flinch problem allright - but like BTK said, that's something you train to fix, not buy a moderator for.

Vegeta

Just a hypothetical here

When the bullet leaves the barrel, it is at is most susceptible to the wind. Slight deviation at muzzle could be large deviation at target.

Would a moderator be considered enough to "shield" it from the wind for long enough to make a difference? I know its only a small protrusion but wonder what effect it has?

We need some scientific studies on this. Anyone have a wind tunnel and a shooting range combined?

Sparks

But in that case a barrel shroud would do the same as a suppressor. So it's not the suppressor doing the accurising.
And frankly, if there was anything to that idea, you'd never see a "naked" barrel on the firing lines of the Olympics. The fact that the medallists are split fairly evenly between those who do and those who don't have a shroud on the barrel says to me that there's no advantage there.

foxshooter243

Vegeta wrote: »

Just a hypothetical here

When the bullet leaves the barrel, it is at is most susceptible to the wind. Slight deviation at muzzle could be large deviation at target.

Would a moderator be considered enough to "shield" it from the wind for long enough to make a difference? I know its only a small protrusion but wonder what effect it has?

We need some scientific studies on this. Anyone have a wind tunnel and a shooting range combined?

Thats one of the arguments thts used by our brethren on the other side of the pond, the bullet leaves the barrel into "still" air and aids in accuracy. its also reckoned to reduce recoil.

Sparks

Yeah, I call shenanigans on that one fox, those factors are too easily replicated without using a moderator for the mod itself to be the accurising factor; not to mention, that the recoil thing isn't going to make any difference if the shooter knows how to shoot.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

But in that case a barrel shroud would do the same as a suppressor. So it's not the suppressor doing the accurising.
And frankly, if there was anything to that idea, you'd never see a "naked" barrel on the firing lines of the Olympics. The fact that the medallists are split fairly evenly between those who do and those who don't have a shroud on the barrel says to me that there's no advantage there.

Obviously half the medallists think you're wrong though

Anyone know of any students in Mech or Aero Eng who want to do a super cool Final Year Project?

Sparks

Vegeta wrote: »

Obviously half the medallists think you're wrong though

Thing is, the reason they use a shroud isn't for the "still air" idea, it's to get a longer sight line. With the shroud, they can push the foresight that few inches further out without adding on the weight that merely extending the barrel would require.

clivej

I sure started something here.

They are the reasons that I used to get the mod. Every Super will be different.

I read on the Jackson Rifles site that a mod can improve the accuracy of bullet so I'm only quoting that, and it sounds like a good reason to use a mod.

BUT lets hear what excuses/reasons you have used to get a mod from your Super. I know of some people don't even need a reason and just ask for permission.

Sparks

Cheers Clive, that clears that up nicely

BornToKill

clivej wrote: »

Improved accuracy of bullet placement on animals and thereby given a humane kill.
This is one proven enhancement of using a sound suppressor...

I read on the Jackson Rifles site that a mod can improve the accuracy of bullet so I'm only quoting that, and it sounds like a good reason to use a mod.

Was reading the claim on the website the basis for saying 'proven enhancement' or is there other scientific poof?

Grizzly 45

[

quote=Sparks;61816357]That's not quite right though Grizzly - every sound suppressor out there takes away from the velocity of the bullet, pulling it further down towards the transsonic speed region and when the bullet hits that region, it destabilises

Novel concept Sparks,how can it take away from the velocity[IE reduce speed] by passing thru a can??All the can does is catch the[1] fwd air from the barrel [2] the explosive gases,and cool and bleed them out into the athmosphere.Thus reducing the muzzle blast and noise.There is no can out there that will drop a supersoniuc bullet to sub sonic or trans sonic,not a silencers function,never is or was.

So the supressor doesn't affect accuracy within a certain range, even if all else remains the same.

Correct100%,and this is why it isnt a std issue piece of kit to each soilder around the world.

(And I still want to see the studies on subsonic .22lr rounds and suppressors btw).

edit: (And improve? Suppressors can't improve accuracy unless they impinge on the bullet in some way, and the only way they can do that involves loud noises and flying shards of ex-suppressor metal.)

[/QUOTE]
Depending on your outlook,that could be an improvement.:)

Some light reading on all of the above
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/suppress.html
http://guns.connect.fi/rs/summary.html
While geared more towards noise levels.There is some valid points on accruacy etc.

foxshooter243

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I call shenanigans on that one fox, those factors are too easily replicated without using a moderator for the mod itself to be the accurising factor; not to mention, that the recoil thing isn't going to make any difference if the shooter knows how to shoot.

I agree with you there sparks, i didnt need a supressor to vapourise a greycrow at 525 yards with my 243, or hit clays at 1k last saturday, its all in the practise;)

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Novel concept Sparks

Not really!

how can it take away from the velocity

By letting the gases bleed out from behind the round in the moments after it exits the barrel, and by forcing the air in front of the round in the barrel to go through the can, thus giving more resistance in the barrel. It's not much, but all it does is slow the bullet down.

There is no can out there that will drop a supersoniuc bullet to sub sonic

Not at the muzzle, no; but there's not a can out there that won't shorten the distance from the muzzle to the point where the bullet falls back from super- to sub-sonic speeds. Maybe it's only the difference between 1000m and 990m, but depending on your application, that can be all that's needed.

clivej

As this reason is stated as a "Valid Reason for use" in the Garda Commissioner's guidelines then I would suggest that you use it as your first reason for the use of a mod, as well as as many others that you can come up with.


Or what's stated in the Garda Commissioner's guidelines:

Quote:
Silencers are designed to reduce the report of the firearm so as to conceal the position of the shooter, and also to reduce the felt recoil. Silencers have traditionally been used on rimfire rifles of .22 calibres when shooting rabbits. This allows the shooter to kill other animals who are not alarmed by the low report of the rifle. This justification may not apply in the case of the shooting of other less numerous and less sociable animals such as foxes.

endasmail

i got a phone call of the local sargeant asking me about the moderator ,if i had one before and wot i wanted it for

i quoted some of the reasons given by Clive ,and i also backed it up by a letter with the names and phone numbers of farmers that have asked me stop by and help with problem foxes

he seemed happy enough with my answers so will just have to wait and see wot happens

jwshooter

BornToKill wrote: »

By cutting down on recoil it could be argued that a moderator allows you to get back on target faster for a second shot. That is not the same as first-shot accuracy. I can't see how a first shot would be helped by a moderator - you'd be better off getting in some practice.

the use of the mod allows me to see the strike perfectly ,know the animal is down to stay and move quickly on to the next one .

also i always have a dog lying beside me and it does not blow her ears off.

jwshooter

i had a guy out this week ,he was using a tikka t3 in .270 no mod on.

we stalked a stag into a 170 yards he was rutting strong and had good few hinds with him ,also there was other stags trying to steal a hind.

we got a good snug rest and i ranged to ground ,i picked a range that looked right to me and where it would give me the longest view of the animal after the shot.
i loaded the rifle and waited ,i i ran through the dos and don'ts again , don't shoot until i say OK .

i never let them shoot at a animal walking in or walking away ,on the " shot clock "they should be standing at quarter past 3 ideally.

the stag chased a another stag into us ,hear he comes "i pushed down my ear muffs and so did he"

he walked into a 100 yards and never stopped and turned to walk back to the hinds ,i seen my man letting of the safety .

the stag was walking at 5 past 7 on the shot clock, NO not yet . "BOOM" .

the stag went down on the spot.

to say i was a bit thick was a under statement ,i asked him why did you shoot when i said not to .sorry he said, i only could not hear you and decided to fire.

if we were using a mod ,ear plugs would have done .

on reflection it was not his fault more mine ,he was not experienced and the excitement took over .
i do think moderators have a place on stalking rifles and it should be a matter of choice for the user .

the main reason the cops give for not giving a note for one is that other users of the country side cant hear you out.
just goes to show you that they have no interest in learning about what the talking about.

clivej

jwshooter wrote: »

..........................the main reason the cops give for not giving a note for one is that other users of the country side cant hear you out.
just goes to show you that they have no interest in learning about what the talking about.

Again it is the officers that do not know that a mod will only reduce the sound by about 30db, that's from an unmodded 145/150db to somewhere around 115/120db which is still loud but not in the bust your ears loud.

So joe public will still hear the report of a shot when using a modded gun.

And again it's not Hollywood where the gangster can shoot his modded handgun in a crowded room without being heard which is the perception that the Garda seem have.

I was told when speaking to a guy at the FPU that the new license will have a "S" on it to show that a mod, silencer, permission has been given.

Jonty

I was told to apply for a mod after the new license has been issued by FO

jwshooter

Jonty wrote: »

I was told to apply for a mod after the new license has been issued by FO

this is wrong information jonty,

Jonty

jwshooter wrote: »

this is wrong information jonty,

I know. Basically I'll have to pay €80 twice. How do I get around it?

jwshooter

Jonty wrote: »

I know. Basically I'll have to pay €80 twice. How do I get around it?

did you have a note form your super for the mod ? ,if so photo copy it and stick it in with your application .