# Hunting with supressors.



## buckeye dan

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText130/130_HB_234_I_Y.pdf

This does a few things for Ohioans. It'll save some hearing. We'll obviously have a legitimate use for them if they are approved for hunting so those law enforcement agencies that like to refuse applications for them may be more inclined to approve applicants.

If the latter occurs that means we will no longer require trusts or corporations to bypass them which will save people some money and time.

It's been through the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee hearings twice with no opponent testimony. Here: http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/agriculture-and-natural-resources

Contact your reps and ask them to pass this bill.

More than half the US allows hunting with suppressors in some form. They are legal to own in all but the obvious states like NY, CA, IL etc.


----------



## ostbucks98

i really dont see this being benefecial or widely used. really when you look at it the only positive is yes save some decibels. other than that? now weigh the negatives we could go on and on?

Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## buckeye dan

ostbucks98 said:


> i really dont see this being benefecial or widely used. really when you look at it the only positive is yes save some decibels. other than that? now weigh the negatives we could go on and on?
> 
> Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


What negatives? The positive "saving some decibels" is all the incentive we need to pass this.

Many hunters have hearing loss of some kind. Especially at the high end of the scale. I am sure there have been many great hunting dogs that are gun shy and miss out the opportunity to hunt because of it. I know several farmers and ranchers personally that don't allow gun hunting because it upsets their animals. **** hunters have it hard enough with the noise their dogs make. Add gunfire to the equation in the middle of the night and they lose otherwise available lands. Varmint hunters in theory could be slightly more effective.

The positives outweigh the negatives many times over, especially when there are no negatives or opponents of the bill.

Just make the calls and help this thing pass. Lack of activism is the only thing that will kill it.


----------



## catmando

Ohio has too many clueless folks hunting, and you want them to take suppressors in the woods? Explain how Ohio hunters could benefit???

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## catmando

Dan, Earplugs and properly training a dog would take care of that.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## catmando

**** dogs make more noise then the one shot it takes to put a **** down.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## ezbite

first you wanted rifles to be legal in Ohio, now supressors...

NO, i see no reason for it at all. either of them.


----------



## Mad-Eye Moody

I would like to be able to use a rifle for the single very simple purpose that ammunition is far cheaper for a rifle than modern slugs are. Otherwise they are not necessary and I agree. But then, I could always use a muzzleloader if I were worried about it right?


----------



## Boogieman

They give you better accuracy, witch woud be great for squirrel,fox,coyote,an ground hogs. On my 22s i went from 1/2" to 3/16 groups at 25 yards.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## M.Magis

Every rifle should come with a suppressor as standard equipment. We have laws against a car being too loud, when that&#8217;s nothing more than an irritation. We try to quiet everything else, why would we want to keep our guns so loud? I think too many people only know of them from the movies. That&#8217;s not reality. They don&#8217;t eliminate noise, they just lessen it.


----------



## Buckhunter1206

Yeah let's allow suppressors so when the idiots that already shoot at everything that moves can shoot your direction without you even knowing it. Sounds like a great idea to me!

Sent from my LIFE PLAY using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## sherman51

I see no purpose at all in having a sound suppressor on a gun for any reason unless it would be to commit a crime. I do all my hunting with a muzzleloader so I try to make my first shot count. it is very rare that I get or need a second shot. but just think of the 10% that would use this to make shots before or after legal shooting hours. I just see no positives to sound suppressors for hunting. I wouldn't use one if I could. but I like being able to hear when someone close to me shoots. so I know where they are hunting, and can stay away from where there hunting.

where I hunt is not that far from a shooting range and hear people shooting all through the day. I have watched deer when these shots are fired and they pay little attention to the sounds of these guns at a distance. so why would anyone want or need a suppressor on there guns??
sherman


----------



## buckeye dan

Buckhunter1206 said:


> Yeah let's allow suppressors so when the idiots that already shoot at everything that moves can shoot your direction without you even knowing it. Sounds like a great idea to me!
> 
> Sent from my LIFE PLAY using Ohub Campfire mobile app


As M.Magis pointed out...


> I think too many people only know of them from the movies. Thats not reality. They dont eliminate noise, they just lessen it.


Bingo! Suppressors suppress noise. They are not the "silencer of death" assassins weapon from Hollywood.

You'll still hear the irresponsible hunter shooting at you quite clearly. The difference is it won't hurt either of your ears so much. The addition or removal of a suppressor isn't going to change what is really wrong with this scenario.

One more positive I forgot to mention is less recoil. A lot of guys are using powerful muzzle loading inline rifles and shotguns that have been converted to rifles using a rifled barrel and sabot bullets. A suppressor will ease the recoil these guns produce. Maybe the wives will shoot them and go hunting too. Of course that may not be a good thing for some of us.


----------



## buckeye dan

sherman51 said:


> I see no purpose at all in having a sound suppressor on a gun for any reason unless it would be to commit a crime. I do all my hunting with a muzzleloader so I try to make my first shot count. it is very rare that I get or need a second shot. but just think of the 10% that would use this to make shots before or after legal shooting hours. I just see no positives to sound suppressors for hunting. I wouldn't use one if I could. but I like being able to hear when someone close to me shoots. so I know where they are hunting, and can stay away from where there hunting.
> 
> where I hunt is not that far from a shooting range and hear people shooting all through the day. I have watched deer when these shots are fired and they pay little attention to the sounds of these guns at a distance. so why would anyone want or need a suppressor on there guns??
> sherman


The deer that inhabit areas around shooting ranges are conditioned to the gunfire. That is not the case in areas away from shooting ranges.

Regardless, the animals are still going to hear the shot. Little or nothing changes from that aspect. What does change is accuracy, recoil and decibel level. All good things.


----------



## Buckhunter1206

buckeye dan said:


> The deer that inhabit areas around shooting ranges are conditioned to the gunfire. That is not the case in areas away from shooting ranges.
> 
> Regardless, the animals are still going to hear the shot. Little or nothing changes from that aspect. What does change is accuracy, recoil and decibel level. All good things.


Taking better shots will increase accuracy, don't shoot a gun if u can't control recoil and wear hearing protection to reduce decibel level. Issues solved without suppressors!

Sent from my LIFE PLAY using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## M.Magis

I&#8217;m a little surprised at some of the apparent ignorance in the subject. I thought more hunters would be familiar enough to understand the difference between movie land fantasy vs real life. Guess not. There&#8217;s not one logical reason to leave guns louder when there is a way to make them easier on the ears, not one. Once again, they are not &#8220;silencers&#8221;. It&#8217;s baffling to me how anyone could be against it.


----------



## bobk

I'm all for it. I agree with Magis, really surprised at some of the comments on the subject.


----------



## Fishingisfun

IMO I have noticed the increase of muzzle mufflers on air guns and their popularity is evident by the manufactures adding them to their line. In Europe most air guns have them on the high end models. I believe some countries require that shooters quieten their shooting by have a muffling device. A local muzzle loading club has restricted usage hours because city folk move to the country and did not like the noise the judge splits the rights of the club and takes away the noise so the city people have their quiet. If we all tread quietly with the antis we will likely keep our rights longer because the noise does not remind them we are here. IMHO


----------



## Garyoutlaw77

I often run a 24 hour trap line & sure would enjoy the stealth of a suppressed firearm.
But DO NOT think it's a tool every person should be allowed to own

but don't know who's job it is to decide..


----------



## sherman51

I can see where they would be a good idea at shooting ranges or in areas where your shooting in populated areas where the loud noise could bother someone else. I do use good ear plugs when shooting at the range and have given many pairs away to people that didn't have ear plugs. but if im getting ready to shoot even with ear plugs I have a tendency to move just a little if the person next to me shoots. that's why I wait for a good time to shoot.

I know when I shoot at the range I try to time my shot where I wont dodge from the sound of someone elses shot. but I just don't understand why people want them for hunting. its not that im so much against using them as I guess its just my ignorance as to what the gain would really be while hunting. if someone could explain to me some real pros to using them while hunting maby I could understand a little better.

I do understand that in some shooters accuracy might improve a little. but if you put your time in on the range the shot you make in the woods is over with before you hear the sound of that shot. I guess felt recoil would be the biggest advantage to using a suppressor. but like I said before it would open up a whole new world for poachers that shoot before or after legal shooting times.

but like anything else they make legal I can live with it if its legal. some places don't even allow inline ml rifles some places don't allow scopes on ml in the ml season. some places still don't allow crossbows. if its really something that's going to help hunters or get more young people involved in hunting then im all for it. but right now I see more cons than pros to using suppressors for hunting.
sherman


----------



## M.Magis

Again, I don&#8217;t think everyone understands that they are NOT silencers. They wouldn&#8217;t help poachers even the slightest. By you guys&#8217; reasoning, we should outlaw all calipers below .375, because they&#8217;re all not loud enough. Are you all saying that .22s should be made illegal? After all, they&#8217;re fairly quiet. .410s, gone. My kids BB guns are surely only for poaching? What&#8217;s okay and what&#8217;s not? apparently everyone thinks there should be some sort of decibel minimum? 
Am I making sense or is no one seeing the hypocrisy of some of the statements here?


----------



## catmando

I haven't heard anything that would make me change my mind on the subject. IMO The only thing a supressor would do for hunters in Ohio is increase the # of the anti gun supporters.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## jonnythfisherteen2

suppressors on what? slug guns and handguns right? since those are the only ones I think a supressor could go on. not too sure about muzzle loaders.


----------



## catmando

And YES I do understand what a supressor does, and try asking the guy a mile down range if he can hear little Jimmy sporting his new supressor that Daddy purchased for christmas cranking off rounds in a flat corn field becaues he's board.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## DLarrick

i feel supressor or not people that are willing to break the law are going to do so regardless. they dont care whats legal or not so saying its going to make so many more people do it if they have a supressor doesnt make much sence to me. same thing with people just shooting to be shooting. might get some more youth into hunting as well that are a little nervous about shooting shuch a loud gun or reduce the recoil so kids or some women feel more comfortable shooting. JMO


----------



## ostbucks98

still sounds like a waste of time and resources. im still listening to the arguments. but im not sold. like a said all this for a couple decibels.

Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Fishingisfun

Sherman 51 you have made some good points for the reason to allow the use of mufflers on firearms. I know that some rules for muzzle loading do not make sense to the thinking man. I agree with you on that. The problem for most of us we don't attend the wild game hearing at the ODNR once a year to change the rules. That is why for so long crossbows were not allowed for the fear that it would decimate the deer herd and allow 100 yard shots and it did not happen. Some old time bow hunters feared the deer would be thinned out before they tagged out before gun season. The Ohio hunting rules mention projecting a light aka laser for hunting being not permitted. I'm not able to see the reason for that but I believe it was thought it would enable hunters more effective aiming so it was banned. Lasers did not improve my hit ratio when I tried one. What crossbows did I think was make hunting more accessible for everyone. More hunters the better we are as a group to be strong enough to keep hunting legal. I bow hunted until I injured my shoulder. I'm glad crossbow were legal or I would had to given it up. I believe mufflers would allow access to legal hunting areas without the non hunting public being disturbed by the muzzle report. I have had the unfortunate encounter with the county sherriff after a city transplant neighbor reported my rapid firing muzzle loader. The report was many fast shots and a large group hunting. After he examined my rapid fire weapon he moved on to discuss with the caller the reality of living in the country, deer muzzle loader season and hunting and I would hope making a misleading report. The non hunting public hears a shot and it is most always too close to their home and calls law enforcement. If my 22 rifle makes a loud crack firing it may be perceived as too close for safety. A small muffled pop that is heard but does not startle the non hunters into grabbing their cell phone is better. I'm hoping we can have a good study of the facts of issue of suppressor use for hunting and target shooting and the Hollywood movie portrayal can be forgotten and the facts measured. 
Recently I went to the range to shoot and spot for shooters. I wore earplugs and over that electronic ear muffs. The muzzle break directed the blast back and to the sides after two shots I have a buzz in my ears that has not gone away. I took the precautions and still I lost something in my hearing I will not get back. I feel wearing hearing protection when hunting is a trade off if you do not hear a warning shout there may be an accident or lose some hearing when shooting at game. The trade off is not required if we lessen the report to a hearing safe level. IMO it is the term silencer and not the reality that it is a muffler of the report. It is movies and TV dramas that make us think no one will hear anything when a surppressed firearm is discharged. 
I have learned that while hunting public land if I shoot it draws other hunters like a call that says come on over. Shoot twice and it is all over. It is the same fishing swing a big fish up high in a net and you will have a new neighbor parked next to you. 
Bow hunting is quiet by nature so if it is potential for misuse were concerned about maybe we should be required to make a loud audible signal so it is know we shot at something with an arrow? I think it is something that it is time to change and allow.


----------



## buckeyebowman

M.Magis said:


> Again, I don&#8217;t think everyone understands that they are NOT silencers. They wouldn&#8217;t help poachers even the slightest. By you guys&#8217; reasoning, we should outlaw all calipers below .375, because they&#8217;re all not loud enough. Are you all saying that .22s should be made illegal? After all, they&#8217;re fairly quiet. .410s, gone. My kids BB guns are surely only for poaching? What&#8217;s okay and what&#8217;s not? apparently everyone thinks there should be some sort of decibel minimum?
> Am I making sense or is no one seeing the hypocrisy of some of the statements here?


I have to say I'm with you, Magis! I just don't get some of the negative commentary. And for you contrarians out there, should suppressors be made legal, that doesn't mean you have to use one. 



catmando said:


> I haven't heard anything that would make me change my mind on the subject.
> IMO The only thing a supressor would do for hunters in Ohio is increase the # of the anti gun supporters.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Perhaps that's because you haven't really been listening. If anything was going to increase the number of anti-gun people it would have been the passage of the concealed carry law. Along with the fact that the anti-gunners campaigned against CCW saying it would lead to a catastrophic rise in gun crime. Has it? No! I say when in doubt, vote for FREEDOM!!



DLarrick said:


> i feel supressor or not people that are willing to break the law are going to do so regardless. they dont care whats legal or not so saying its going to make so many more people do it if they have a supressor doesnt make much sence to me. same thing with people just shooting to be shooting. might get some more youth into hunting as well that are a little nervous about shooting shuch a loud gun or reduce the recoil so kids or some women feel more comfortable shooting. JMO


Yep, there was plenty of poaching going on with loud guns, and I don't think legalizing suppressors would change the numbers. If that were the case then we should outlaw all bowhunting. After all, bows are the quietest method of hunting available, one of the reasons that I like them. And not because I'm a poacher! 

And, for Fishingisfun, not only were crossbows outlawed for quite some time, but mechanical releases were outlawed for vertical bows. I once asked a local Game Protector why that was so. He thought that it would make bowhunters "too accurate"! First, I asked him what in the world "too accurate" meant. Then I asked him which scenario the ODNR would prefer. Bowhunters wounding, and not recovering, many deer, or bowhunters making accurate shots on deer, recovering them, thus using up the tag! Which way impacts the deer herd more? Eventually, the ODNR saw logic, and allowed the use of mechanical releases.

Again, when in doubt, vote for freedom!


----------



## Lundy

buckeybowman,

Just because someone doesn't agree with YOUR opinion it does not mean they are not listening. "Vote for freedom" means that others have the freedom to disagree with you, right? It is not just a catch phrase to use when it convenient is it?

Are far as suppressors I don't really care either way. I don't think it will make any significant difference about anything. If I had a vote, I could vote either way knowing it will not make any difference in my life or anyone else's most likely.

I do personally think the hearing loss argument is pretty funny, not that hearing loss is funny, just as a argument for legalization.


----------



## buckeye dan

I still have seen no legitimate reason to to keep suppressors unlawful for hunting purposes save one minute thing that is probably due to misunderstanding what it entails to legally obtain a suppressor.

In order to obtain a suppressor you must comply with federal NFA law. That means filling out the application, paying the $200 tax and submitting to finger printing and background checks. You must also obtain "written authorization" from your local law enforcement agency. Or you can bypass that last step by forming a corporation or trust to transfer the suppressor into which doesn't require a LEO to sign off on your application but costs more.

With that known, I would say it is a pretty safe gamble that the folks that would misuse them would be weeded out by the application process alone. 

Once you start down that road to owning this equipment you are pretty much committed to obeying all applicable laws unless you like losing your rights and getting prostate exams by the feds.


----------



## buckeye dan

I felt the need to add that hunting with suppressors will not change the hunting safety or ethics of anyone.

If there were a "silent death homing bullet for non humans, protect your fellow hunters from stupidity equipment option" it would be required now.


----------



## Gills63

I personally don't have a problem with this, except where do we draw the line? It seems we (as in the public) are always trying to find new items for the regs. Maybe we should let the DNR focus on fine- tuning our basic regs instead of wasting time/money on non essential reg changes.

If the process to get a silencer is elaborate then why bother? It sounds like a novelty item that only a few people would use. If you are going deaf from deer hunting you may want to spend more time at the range. 



Sent from my XT907 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Boogieman

I think some people dont realize that suppressors are legal, just not to hunt with in ohio. Also not anyone can get one,witch i agree with. Also if you want one have to go through a class 2 dealer alone with F.B.I. ,A.T.F. ,an local sheriff finger prints an a very extensive background check,witch takes about three months. So to those who think your local idiots will have them,most likely not. Also the cost your looking at a minimum of 700 for all, that is transfer fee tax stamp, an suppressor. It is more for gun enthusiasts than anything.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Boogieman

An also on the subject. You must use subsonic ammo, so bigger calibers that would be a problem,an very weak for other calibers like 22s. Other wise it defeats the purpose, can still do it but you will very much hear the sonic crack an that is pretty loud.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ostbucks98

ok now you cleared it up. ITS A BIG WASTE OF TIME WITH VERY LITTLE BENEFIT TO THE AVERAGE HUNTER!!!

Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## M.Magis

So because it doesn&#8217;t benefit you, you&#8217;re against it? Nice attitude, unfortunately all too common these days.


----------



## buckeye dan

I have no real involvement with this particular project other than I support it. As I understand it, a suppressor is a dangerous ordnance that cannot be used for hunting. In order to rectify that, the legislative process must be used to first change existing law. Once that is done, the ODNR can add the tool to the hunter's tool box.

I am not sure if the ODNR can make this change on their own or if there is no other way than the legislative process first. From the testimony links I provided in the OP there is no opposition from anyone or agency (yet). So that indicates to me, this is the correct process to move forward with the changes.

If my assumptions are correct then it is not a big waste of time or money. It is the natural process to move forward with this type of change. Beside that, it is nonsensical to categorize a suppressor as a dangerous ordnance so this change would go a long way towards correcting that. If a tube with baffles in it is a dangerous ordnance then they shouldn't be required for vehicles and such. I guess it got lumped in with "evil" from public perception because it is a firearm accessory. Either that or some legislators decided they didn't want us to have them because "it's good for us".

For whatever the reasons, I don't like the existing outcome. Apparently enough others didn't either hence the bill and passing through two committee hearings with no opposition. It just needs a little encouragement to move forward from there. So call your reps!


----------



## ostbucks98

M.Magis said:


> So because it doesnt benefit you, youre against it? Nice attitude, unfortunately all too common these days.


you know the saying about "assume"? 
i havent said im for or against it. its almost laughable that the only real argument here is to make it easier on hearing but yet make the same argument that it doesnt help that much. as far as hunting use what rifles are you gonna suppress thats legal to hunt with?

this sounds more about eye candy and bragging rights then an actual resource for "real" hunters. we all know the guy who spends $1000's on the newest and baddest but is always around camp and never in the woods.

Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## monsterKAT11

whether i agree with it or not, i believe the people of Ohio should have the freedom to have that option if they would like to utilize it. I like freedom.


----------



## bobk

M.Magis said:


> So because it doesnt benefit you, youre against it? Nice attitude, unfortunately all too common these days.


Best to just throw up the white flag sometimes Mike. Just can't win with people that have the mindset if they don't like it no one should.


----------



## M.Magis

bobk said:


> Best to just throw up the white flag sometimes Mike. Just can't win with people that have the mindset if they don't like it no one should.


Yep, youre right. I should know that by now. I always hold hope that logic and common sense will prevail. I seem to be disappointed a lot.


----------



## Mr. A

My local dealer has a bunch of silencers in their case. I asked about them and was told I could order one thru them, or I could be put on a list for "next available." I was looking at 20 of them; the salesperson said all of the current ones are sold and waiting for approval which takes 6 months and the tax stamp. 

Personally I can understand people wanting one for sport and game shooting. It would be nice to have one when hunting yote's and raccoon's at night. Using them for deer doesn't seem illogical to me either if you're a pistol hunter like me. Just my 2 cents.....

Mr. A


----------



## ostbucks98

bobk said:


> Best to just throw up the white flag sometimes Mike. Just can't win with people that have the mindset if they don't like it no one should.


or the mindset that if people dont see things the way you do must mean they are disadvantaged or just plain stupid. stop beating around the bush boys you always talk like you are superior or much more intelligent than people who have a different opinion. you say cant win with people who have "dont like it then nobody should" attitude but whats the other side of the fence? since i like it then everyone else should? i dont care if they ok it or not. i think money and resources could be used on something way more important.

Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## buckeye dan

@ostbucks98,

There were several legitimate reasons given. A suppressor reduces the decibels from ear damaging to ear tolerable. A lot of the noise in the immediate vicinity of the shooter is reduced to safe levels. When non subsonic ammo is used there is still the cracking report of the sonic boom as the projectile moves away from the shooter. Depending on the velocity of the bullet, this will occur at an ear safe distance from the shooter. All good things for your hearing. This is the most immediate and obvious reason.

Suppressors can reduce recoil and in some cases much better than a comparative muzzle breaks that allow all the noise to report within feet of the shooter.

I mentioned that a gun shy hunting dog may no longer be gun shy when a suppressor is used. With baby steps and a suppressor, in theory a gun shy dog could be gradually exposed from subsonic to hypersonic with this tool and their gun shyness overcome. Or subsonic ammo can be used exclusively for problem dogs.

Suppressors exist for every firearm. Shotguns, muzzle loaders, handguns and rifles.

A suppressor can increase accuracy from gas channeling, barrel harmonics and recoil reduction. That is great for the first shot or subsequent followup shots.

People that are recoil sensitive (like folks with pacemakers) may be able to hunt with a more effective weapon when a suppressor is an option. This was a key argument for hunting deer with pistol caliber rifles. Less recoil with same performance of what we are allowed to use now. 

Flinching and shot anticipation can be overcome more easily with a suppressor. It certainly is a tool that would be useful for the learning phase of someone's early hunting experiences. Or maybe even someone's later hunting experiences with nerve issues and such.

The opposition I have seen here is:
Unethical and unsafe hunters will still be unethical and unsafe. Well DUH! There is no magic tool other than education and experience to fix that.

Criminals and poachers will utilize them in some unscrupulous way. Statistically unlikely as I explained in the application process post above. Also that could be done illegally now so nothing changes for them. What does change is you and I can comply with the law and add suppressors to our hunting tool box when they are legalized.

You can use what I use and be a man or learn to deal with it because I can. Or you should have to jump through all of the hoops that I had to in order to hunt the way I think you should hunt. I am not even going to comment on that attitude. Other than DITTO! When suppressors are legalized for hunting. At least your choices will increase. Unfortunately that sort of infighting and divisiveness has plagued hunters for decades and does nothing more than fuel the antis. I guess we'll never fix that.

The process is a waste of time and money. Who's time? If it's a waste of your time then stay uninvolved. As for money...Any changes to the law require that our legislators earn their pay but they were going to be paid anyway. The least we can do is keep them busy expanding our freedoms and choices instead of limiting and taking them away.


----------



## M.Magis

Like I said, if it doesn&#8217;t benefit you&#8230;..


----------



## ostbucks98

well ty buckeye dan for taking the time and laying it out with much needed information. i think this will help alot of people understand. 

as for mr. magis keep your big spoon and stir that boiling pot. 



Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## sherman51

after reading all the posts on this subject and from what little I know about suppressors I just don't see any harm in making them legal and letting those who choose to spend the money to quiet down there guns for whatever reason they choose. if its something that will get a few more younger people or some women into shooting. what is it going to hurt to make them legal?? then each of us can make the choice if we want to use them. I personally have no use for them. but if it makes someone else feel better whats it going to hurt??

I did have the question about poachers. but now I understand poachers are going to do it one way or the other.

I guess I feel that just about any time we get more rights for hunting or fishing it is a win for all of us. and we shouldn't fight amongst ourselves.
sherman


----------



## ezbite

M.Magis said:


> I&#8217;m a little surprised at some of the apparent ignorance in the subject. I thought more hunters would be familiar enough to understand the difference between movie land fantasy vs real life. Guess not. There&#8217;s not one logical reason to leave guns louder when there is a way to make them easier on the ears, not one. Once again, they are not &#8220;silencers&#8221;. It&#8217;s baffling to me how anyone could be against it.


I happen to love the crack of the .300 win mag and making those around me jump out of their boots when I kill a deer, so.. No, I'm not for it on my rifles and I'm not ignorant either as to what and how a suppressor works.

by the way, silencers and suppressors ARE the samething. youre just spliting hairs calling a devise that reduces noise and muzzle flash 2 different names AND im pretty sure you need an FFL to even have one.


----------



## bobk

ostbucks98 said:


> or the mindset that if people dont see things the way you do must mean they are disadvantaged or just plain stupid. stop beating around the bush boys you always talk like you are superior or much more intelligent than people who have a different opinion. you say cant win with people who have "dont like it then nobody should" attitude but whats the other side of the fence? since i like it then everyone else should? i dont care if they ok it or not. i think money and resources could be used on something way more important.
> 
> Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


I never said a word about people being stupid or disadvantaged. Those are your insults not mine.


----------



## inrll

monsterKAT11 said:


> whether i agree with it or not, i believe the people of Ohio should have the freedom to have that option if they would like to utilize it. I like freedom.


I couldnt have said it it better myself. This isnt a question of who needs it or whether or not its a frivolous luxury item. I think a lot of things are a waste of money but if a man or woman legally buy an item and have passed background check then they should be aloud to use it for doing what guns are used for.


----------



## angler69

For Hunting naw probable not, but for fun shootin heck yes !
Waiting on my paper work to clear so I can go pick my suppressor up!


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## buckeyebowman

Lundy said:


> buckeybowman,
> 
> Just because someone doesn't agree with YOUR opinion it does not mean they are not listening. "Vote for freedom" means that others have the freedom to disagree with you, right? It is not just a catch phrase to use when it convenient is it?
> 
> Are far as suppressors I don't really care either way. I don't think it will make any significant difference about anything. If I had a vote, I could vote either way knowing it will not make any difference in my life or anyone else's most likely.
> 
> I do personally think the hearing loss argument is pretty funny, not that hearing loss is funny, just as a argument for legalization.


Lundy, 

Yes I am quite aware that catmando and others on this thread disagree with me, and they have the FREEDOM to do so, as I have the FREEDOM to disagree with them. Sometimes in the discussion, or argument if you prefer, a meeting of the minds may occur and concurrence can be reached. Sometimes not! That's one of the reasons I decided to get in on this thread. And, no, "vote for freedom" is not a catch phrase I use, as you seem to assume, it's an attitude I carry with me daily! 

And, believe it or not, I agree with you to some extent. If suppressors are made legal, I probably won't go out and buy one. But, I believe that other hunters should have the FREEDOM to do so should they choose to.

And, as you say, hearing loss is not funny. As someone suffering from tinitis, I can attest to this first hand. You know what it sounds like when the 17 years locusts (properly Cicadas) are on hand? Well, that's what it sounds like in my head 24/7! Believe me, it's no fun! 

I wear hearing protection when on the range, but, I do not like it when hunting. I need to have my ears open (at least as much as possible), when hunting. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard game sneaking around long before seeing them.



monsterKAT11 said:


> whether i agree with it or not, i believe the people of Ohio should have the freedom to have that option if they would like to utilize it. I like freedom.


Oh, mercy! There's that word again. FREEDOM!! Would that the government restrict the bad guys and leave the rest of us alone!


----------



## sherman51

bobk said:


> I never said a word about people being stupid or disadvantaged. Those are your insults not mine.


I have to agree with you. the name calling should be kept at home. even if we disagree with anything someone says it doesn't make either one of us stupid. name calling is what gets these threads closed.

at first I couldn't understand why anyone would want to use a suppressor. but after much reading and thinking I decided it really doesn't matter why. if people want to use them then they should have that right. even tho I would never spend the money for one myself. I say live and let live.
sherman


----------



## bad luck

The poaching argument is hogwash....what's next, make drugs and people won't do them


Great idea, I can get headaches shooting my shotguns without ear muffs, and those are just not feasible to hunt with.


As usual, OH is last in line....no rifles, no suppressors..... I have yet to hear of the mass accidents over in IN since they allowed rifles...it's flatter than OH and there's a lot of hunters there too.


----------



## Lundy

Buckeyebowman,

I only questioned you because you addressed a member with a opposing opinion with "Perhaps that's because you haven't really been listening". Maybe not your intent, hard to read tone and intent in the written word sometimes, but that to me seems to display a lack of tolerance of a opinion in opposition to yours. Only you really know what you meant with that comment.

The more I read through this thread and think about the idea the less likely I would be to support a change in the law permitting the use during hunting. I want and need to know if someone is one my property shooting. I also want and need those that would violate the law to know that I can hear them shooting.

If it were already the law in Ohio I certainly would see no need whatsoever to repeal the law but I also, personally, see no real or perceived need today for change either


----------



## Fisherman 3234

bad luck said:


> The poaching argument is hogwash....what's next, make drugs and people won't do them
> 
> 
> Great idea, I can get headaches shooting my shotguns without ear muffs, and those are just not feasible to hunt with.
> 
> 
> As usual, OH is last in line....no rifles, no suppressors..... I have yet to hear of the mass accidents over in IN since they allowed rifles...it's flatter than OH and there's a lot of hunters there too.


Having to use shotguns, muzzleloaders, and some hand gun calibers make hunting deer a little more challenging then plinking one at 300 yds with a high caliber rifle equipped with a supressor, it gives the deer a fair chance. Why do you think people travel from all over the U.S. to hunt in Ohio? I will tell you, because we have some monster deer here due to the current rules and regs set down by the ODNR. 

On a side note if you don't think poachers wouldn't take advantage of using a suppressor your crazy. I think we can honestly all say poaching is already bad enough in Ohio as it is.


----------



## Dovans

To use a suppressor, doesn't the rifle have to have a threaded barrel?


----------



## buckeye dan

Dovans said:


> To use a suppressor, doesn't the rifle have to have a threaded barrel?


The short answer is no. There are bolt on options that utilize the front sight as a retainer for some models of firearms. There are muzzle breaks and flash hiders that work this way too. Also there are barrel integrated suppressor options for some firearms. Just swap barrels and the suppressor is integral to the new barrel.


----------



## Boogieman

If someone is going to poach with a suppressor they will all ready be doing it now since you can buy one now. So dont think that it would change anything after the hunting law changes. I also dont think anyone would get a suppressor strictly for hunting, i got one for targeting for fun like everyone i know with one.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## buckeye dan

Fisherman 3234 said:


> On a side note if you don't think poachers wouldn't take advantage of using a suppressor your crazy. I think we can honestly all say poaching is already bad enough in Ohio as it is.


I would like to point out that making them illegal for me or you to use does not prevent suppressors from being used by poachers. It only prevents you and me from using them legally to hunt with.

If banning every tool that a poacher uses or might use fixes poaching, then everything that all of us hunt with are on that list.

As I pointed out in a prior post, the application process pretty much weeds out the folks that would misuse them. Their price point helps with that too. There has never been a hunting conviction for suppressors in Ohio that I am aware of.

Yes it could happen but my willingness to surrender my access to them isn't strong enough to cast them aside in self sacrifice. Poachers will get caught eventually and justice will be served. If I catch the poacher you can rest assured I will aid in that process.

I believe the best source for information in a poacher investigation is fellow hunters. If poaching is a problem then do your duty and turn them in.


----------



## Fisherman 3234

buckeye dan said:


> I would like to point out that making them illegal for me or you to use does not prevent suppressors from being used by poachers. It only prevents you and me from using them legally to hunt with.
> 
> If banning every tool that a poacher uses or might use fixes poaching, then everything that all of us hunt with are on that list.
> 
> As I pointed out in a prior post, the application process pretty much weeds out the folks that would misuse them. Their price point helps with that too. There has never been a hunting conviction for suppressors in Ohio that I am aware of.
> 
> Yes it could happen but my willingness to surrender my access to them isn't strong enough to cast them aside in self sacrifice. Poachers will get caught eventually and justice will be served. If I catch the poacher you can rest assured I will aid in that process.
> 
> I believe the best source for information in a poacher investigation is fellow hunters. If poaching is a problem then do your duty and turn them in.


What positive's would allowing the use of suppressor's have on the deer population? You don't think that allowing suppressor's might sway someone to break the law that normally wouldn't to get that big buck because it would be harder to prosecute? I'm all about gun rights and freedom, but I'm also into giving deer a fair chance, that's why it's called hunting. The current regs. ensure a good deer population, and a good amount of trophy deer to be had.


----------



## Dovans

buckeye dan said:


> The short answer is no. There are bolt on options that utilize the front sight as a retainer for some models of firearms. There are muzzle breaks and flash hiders that work this way too. Also there are barrel integrated suppressor options for some firearms. Just swap barrels and the suppressor is integral to the new barrel.


Hmmm... interesting. Place up by Alum creek that has few suppressors. Couple rifles I'd like to target shoot in the back yard. But the noise usually gets my neighbors all fired up. (Well just one.) Be worth two hundie to shoot in the back yard again. I was always under the impression the barrel had to be threaded. Last time I asked about it at the gun store, They said I had to fill out same type of paperwork that one fills out for a machine gun and it would take 6 to 9 months for response. Glad this thread popped up. Might go look at them again now knowing they can be affixed to the barrel without paperwork hassle.


----------



## Dovans

How long do these suppressors last?100 rds? 50 rd? forever?


----------



## buckeye dan

Fisherman 3234 said:


> What positive's would allowing the use of suppressor's have on the deer population? You don't think that allowing suppressor's might sway someone to break the law that normally wouldn't to get that big buck because it would be harder to prosecute? I'm all about gun rights and freedom, but I'm also into giving deer a fair chance, that's why it's called hunting. The current regs. ensure a good deer population, and a good amount of trophy deer to be had.





Fisherman 3234 said:


> What positive's would allowing the use of suppressor's have on the deer population? You don't think that allowing suppressor's might sway someone to break the law that normally wouldn't to get that big buck because it would be harder to prosecute? I'm all about gun rights and freedom, but I'm also into giving deer a fair chance, that's why it's called hunting. This ensures a good deer population, and a good amount of trophy deer to be had.


Deer hunting is not the focus here as the change proposed is for all lawful hunting purposes.

If I had to validate the negatives in some way regarding poaching then...A poacher using a suppressor wanting to take full advantage of it's sound dampening capabilities would need subsonic ammo. That would be the least effective cartridges for hunting large game like a deer. That would also limit many calibers across the board.

A combination of broken laws would need to be taken advantage of. You'd want a large caliber slow moving bullet at close range. Incorporate spotlighting, off road vehicles or road hunting and sure you could shoot a deer with a subsonic large caliber firearm and be very effective. Or you could throw in a non approved cartridge like a .22 LR and get some pellet gun like quiet but how many laws are broken before the deer is even in the poachers sights before the suppressor comes into play?

If a poacher wants or requires stealth then archery is king. The problem there is a bad shot might result in a deer falling 1/4 mile away onto someones lawn and the range is limited.

What is poaching? 
Taking an animal out of season. 
Killing an animal that you do not have the license/tag or permission to kill. 
Killing an animal outside of the lawful hunting hours.
Trespassing to acquire an animal, but that falls under permission in my book.
Using an unapproved weapon, device or trap for harvesting an animal.
Exceeding the bag limit for any given animal.
Spotlighting, road hunting, using vehicles to harvest an animal.

If the addition of a suppressor is all that is needed to turn people like you and I bad and none of the other illegal game harvesting (poaching) activities are a factor... I think you just made a case to keep suppressors banned for hunting.

None of us should be allowed to use suppressors because someone will figure out that they can use a laundry list of already illegal activities to make them the most effective they can be in an effort to lengthen their illegal poaching activities.

None of us should own them because we can't be trusted with them. Hrm...I think the more effective thing to ban here is guns or weapons in general. The same argument applies.

I'm sorry but I refuse that idea. I know I can own a suppressor and be both lawful and responsible while using it. So much so that I consider it an insult to keep me from using one in the name of animal and public safety. I wouldn't be here appealing to the law abiding if I didn't give a crap about being law abiding. I want to do it legally and this is the process for that to happen.

Contact your rep and tell them that you want this thing or oppose it and reveal your reasons. It's just that simple.


----------



## Gills63

I want to hunt from the back of an elephant. Can we push for that freedom also? 

I'll also use the elephant during target shooting. The elephant would be quieter then an ATV and wouldn't disturb the neighbors. Elephants are expensive and require a permit, so only those who really want one will get one. If poachers were going to use elephants, they already would be.

This amounts to sportsman political correctness. Where every nicknack or novelty item deserves its rightful place in the regs. Those who don't agree are accused of tramping freedom. Eventually the regulations will be a three volume set.

Sent from my XT907 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Boogieman

buckeye dan said:


> Deer hunting is not the focus here as the change proposed is for all lawful hunting purposes.
> 
> If I had to validate the negatives in some way regarding poaching then...A poacher using a suppressor wanting to take full advantage of it's sound dampening capabilities would need subsonic ammo. That would be the least effective cartridges for hunting large game like a deer. That would also limit many calibers across the board.
> 
> A combination of broken laws would need to be taken advantage of. You'd want a large caliber slow moving bullet at close range. Incorporate spotlighting, off road vehicles or road hunting and sure you could shoot a deer with a subsonic large caliber firearm and be very effective. Or you could throw in a non approved cartridge like a .22 LR and get some pellet gun like quiet but how many laws are broken before the deer is even in the poachers sights before the suppressor comes into play?
> 
> If a poacher wants or requires stealth then archery is king. The problem there is a bad shot might result in a deer falling 1/4 mile away onto someones lawn and the range is limited.
> 
> What is poaching?
> Taking an animal out of season.
> Killing an animal that you do not have the license/tag or permission to kill.
> Killing an animal outside of the lawful hunting hours.
> Trespassing to acquire an animal, but that falls under permission in my book.
> Using an unapproved weapon, device or trap for harvesting an animal.
> Exceeding the bag limit for any given animal.
> Spotlighting, road hunting, using vehicles to harvest an animal.
> 
> If the addition of a suppressor is all that is needed to turn people like you and I bad and none of the other illegal game harvesting (poaching) activities are a factor... I think you just made a case to keep suppressors banned for hunting.
> 
> None of us should be allowed to use suppressors because someone will figure out that they can use a laundry list of already illegal activities to make them the most effective they can be in an effort to lengthen their illegal poaching activities.
> 
> None of us should own them because we can't be trusted with them. Hrm...I think the more effective thing to ban here is guns or weapons in general. The same argument applies.
> 
> I'm sorry but I refuse that idea. I know I can own a suppressor and be both lawful and responsible while using it. So much so that I consider it an insult to keep me from using one in the name of animal and public safety. I wouldn't be here appealing to the law abiding if I didn't give a crap about being law abiding. I want to do it legally and this is the process for that to happen.
> 
> Contact your rep and tell them that you want this thing or oppose it and reveal your reasons. It's just that simple.


Couldn't have said it better!!

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ezbite

buckeye dan said:


> Deer hunting is not the focus here as the change proposed is for all lawful hunting purposes.


then you have me confused, why would i need a supressor to hunt squirells? rabbits or ground hogs??

i have to think your end game of leagalizing supressors/silencers IS for deer hunting with a rifle with a supressor/silencer. please correct me if im wrong.

i keep seeing supressors on this thread, but as ive stated before silencers and supressors ARE the same thing, wheres the line??? there isnt one and thats a fact.. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!!!

i will give you this, you sure know how to stir the pot...


----------



## Boogieman

In the laws an on the forms to get one it clearly says suppressor not silencer.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Mr. A

Gills,

I'm pretty sure after the Zanesville incident you cannot own an elephant, not could you even acquire the permit. However, I hope you were being tongue in cheek about that because elephants are not very quiet in the most place.

Ezbite,

I think what's happening is a confusion in nomenclature. Suppressor is the correct term; silencer is not. 

Suppressors will quiet the ignition of the round but not the "report" of the bullet since that happens outside and away from the firearm.

I get frustrated when I unintentionally use the term silencer but the term, while used interchangeably, is incorrect.

Also, where I live it would be helpful to use a suppressor when hunting raccoons or coyote at night. While it's legal without a suppressor, having one allows people to hunt and not bother other people quite so much.


Mr. A


----------



## I Fish

If noise suppressors are going to lead to more deer poaching, we'd better get rid of crossbows then. A couple of the last poaching cases I knew of involved crossbows. Shoot, one guy was hunting within 150 yds of the property owners back door. For how long, no one knows for sure.

A suppressed shotgun sure would be nice during dove season.


----------



## buckeye dan

Gills63 said:


> I want to hunt from the back of an elephant. Can we push for that freedom also?
> 
> I'll also use the elephant during target shooting. The elephant would be quieter then an ATV and wouldn't disturb the neighbors. Elephants are expensive and require a permit, so only those who really want one will get one. If poachers were going to use elephants, they already would be.
> 
> This amounts to sportsman political correctness. Where every nicknack or novelty item deserves its rightful place in the regs. Those who don't agree are accused of tramping freedom. Eventually the regulations will be a three volume set.
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


I don't know how difficult it is to get an elephant these days but it is already legal to hunt from horseback on private land.


----------



## buckeye dan

ezbite said:


> then you have me confused, why would i need a supressor to hunt squirells? rabbits or ground hogs??
> 
> i have to think your end game of leagalizing supressors/silencers IS for deer hunting with a rifle with a supressor/silencer. please correct me if im wrong.
> 
> i keep seeing supressors on this thread, but as ive stated before silencers and supressors ARE the same thing, wheres the line??? there isnt one and thats a fact.. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!!!
> 
> i will give you this, you sure know how to stir the pot...


As I said before, I have no involvement in this project other than I support it. So for me the endgame is just legalizing their use for hunting. I would like the option for everything I hunt but I realize it may not be cost effective for certain types of hunting. But that is my financial problem and not necessarily the problem of others.

As someone else already pointed out, the correct legal term is suppressor. Silencer is just a label that stuck. Its a term that stuck like clip and magazine. The law defines what the difference is between a clip and a magazine. Modern crossbows use short arrows but we still use the term bolt even though that no longer describes what we actually hunt with.

I can still use the terms clip, bolt and silencer and everyone knows what I am talking about but from a legal standpoint the nomenclature matters because the terms are defined.


----------



## ostbucks98

Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## buckeye dan

Dovans said:


> How long do these suppressors last?100 rds? 50 rd? forever?


That depends on the suppressor. It ranges from disposable to forever. Disposable would fall into the category of the oil filter units like the ECONO CAN. You use it until it stops doing a good job then screw on a new oil filter and toss the old one. $75 for the unit + $200 for the tax stamp:
http://www.americanspecialtyammo.com/Class_III.html (3rd item down)

Some suppressors are sealed units and need special cleaning methods periodically like ultrasonic cleaning. These typically last the life of the gun it is used on or longer.

Some suppressors can be fully disassembled and will last forever with proper care.

Some suppressors use a packing or wadding that needs replaced from time to time but will also last almost forever with proper maintenance.


----------



## buckeye dan

As popularity increases we'll become as innovative as the Europeans with them. This system looks really cool and they even have one for over and under shotguns:
http://www.saddleryandgunroom.co.uk/Gunroom/SG_Hushpower.htm


----------



## bobk

buckeye dan said:


> As popularity increases we'll become as innovative as the Europeans with them. This system looks really cool and they even have one for over and under shotguns:
> http://www.saddleryandgunroom.co.uk/Gunroom/SG_Hushpower.htm


That sucker looks like it would be rather heavy on the woods.


----------



## buckeye dan

bobk said:


> That sucker looks like it would be rather heavy on the woods.


Maybe heavy for hunting but I wonder how it would perform on the trap field? I could see something like that improving my game. I must admit that I am not willing to fork out $1300 or so to find out however.


----------



## buckeyebowman

Lundy said:


> Buckeyebowman,
> 
> I only questioned you because you addressed a member with a opposing opinion with "Perhaps that's because you haven't really been listening". Maybe not your intent, hard to read tone and intent in the written word sometimes, but that to me seems to display a lack of tolerance of a opinion in opposition to yours. Only you really know what you meant with that comment.
> 
> The more I read through this thread and think about the idea the less likely I would be to support a change in the law permitting the use during hunting. I want and need to know if someone is one my property shooting. I also want and need those that would violate the law to know that I can hear them shooting.
> 
> If it were already the law in Ohio I certainly would see no need whatsoever to repeal the law but I also, personally, see no real or perceived need today for change either


I can understand and appreciate your reasoning, Lundy. I only used that phrase because, at least to my mind, many of the pro-suppressor arguments have been well thought out and reasonably presented. Now that you mentions it, I can see how my remarks may have seemed to be intolerant. 

As I said before, even though I may not choose to use one, I would fully welcome other, LAW ABIDING, hunters and firearms owners, having access to suppressors. I've noticed a tendency in this thread for some to continue to refer to them as "silencers". Sorry folks, but there really ain't no such thing. Not, at least, as they are presented in movies and TV shows. 

buckeye dan, who, as far as I can see, started this thread, has mentioned "muzzle brakes" several times. Well, I fired a shotgun (at least, I think it was a shotgun) with a muzzle brake (the series of slots cut in the barrel at the muzzle end) exactly one time! When I touched the round off I thought my brains had been knocked out of my skull! Why anyone would want a "muzzle brake" is beyond me! 

However, a suppressor may be a different argument. Allow me to put it in more "everyday" terms. I suffer from sinus problems, as did my Mom & Dad before me. The otc meds that I found to work the best for me contained 200mg Acetaminophen, 30mg Pseudoephedrine HCL, and 2 or 3 mg Chlorpheneramine Maleate. This formula would clear me up perfectly and not send me into orbit around Jupiter! 

Nowadays, try buying something with Pseudoephedrine in it! It's like getting a full cavity body search! All because some goofballs cook the stuff up into methamphetamine! But, I'm not! I just have a sinus condition. Again it seems as though government policies, with politicians taking the easy way out, prefer to inconvenience and hinder law abiding citizens, while not concentrating very much on the law breakers. This is seen as "doing something" about the methamphetamine problem, while nothing really gets done!

To my mind, all these restrictions amount to an overreaching government seeking to impose it's will on the people. As I've said before, and will say again, "When in doubt, VOTE FOR FREEDOM!!!"


----------



## inrll

All this "it will cause poaching" stuff is surprising. So anyone with a supressor is guilty until proven innocent? Should we take away all things considered over the top by some? How about we do away with Corvettes because they can be used to travel at speeds over the legal limit? Or maybe we should make coolers illegal on boats because they might be used to hold beer and the driver of that boat may become intoxicated.
We could find illegal uses for a lot of things but in the end the ownership of any object does not make someone more likely to commit a crime. I have yet to hear a truly valid reason why this should not be made legal in Ohio.


----------



## buckeye dan




----------



## buckeyebowman

inrll said:


> All this "it will cause poaching" stuff is surprising. So anyone with a supressor is guilty until proven innocent? Should we take away all things considered over the top by some? How about we do away with Corvettes because they can be used to travel at speeds over the legal limit? Or maybe we should make coolers illegal on boats because they might be used to hold beer and the driver of that boat may become intoxicated.
> We could find illegal uses for a lot of things but in the end the ownership of any object does not make someone more likely to commit a crime. I have yet to hear a truly valid reason why this should not be made legal in Ohio.


Terrific post. There are many things in our daily lives that can be used illegally. I can take a hammer and drive a nail, or I can knock somebody's brains out. It would be interesting to ask, "What causes poaching now?" Reduced circumstances? An inability to feed one's family? Or a generally lawless attitude? 


It's something like the discussions I have with people about drug legalization. The usual argument is is something like, "Well, if the government legalizes drugs, everybody will be out there buying coke, and crack, and heroin and God knows what else!" I ask them if they will be out there buying. They say, "Hell, NO!" Well, me neither, nor anyone else I know! 

The availability of a product that would allow me to circumvent the law, absolutely does not mean, that I would use it.


----------



## ODNR3723

This an interesting thread. I would like to see this law passed but not for the purpose of deer hunting. Let me clarify, i could care less about the deer hunting aspect but would like to be able to use a suppressor while hunting coyotes and groundhogs. I use my AR for predator hunting and i do not like to wear hearing protection. An AR is rather loud. If a poacher was going to use a suprressor they would already be doing so. They are breaking the law already so why would a law about not using a suppressor stop them? Defies logic. Current wait time on a suppressor is 12-15 months. My last one took 11 months. Little Johnny will not be receiving one for Christmas and cranking rounds into the corn field. I may be wrong on that subject, i have been wrong once before. (humor) In conclusion, I see more positives than negatives. Hope it passes.


----------



## ostbucks98

i think the poacher references are saying this will make it easier for poachers to attain a suppressor and may be used by more poachers then law abiding hunters. As for hearing loss im sure i do more damage to my hearing watching Ohio st. games every saturday than i do shooting guns during "hunting".

Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## inrll

ostbucks98 said:


> i think the poacher references are saying this will make it easier for poachers to attain a suppressor and may be used by more poachers then law abiding hunters.


This law will change nothing about the way a suppressor is attained.


----------



## ostbucks98

how do i purchase a suppressor from another individual?

Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

buckeye dan said:


> I still have seen no legitimate reason to to keep suppressors unlawful for hunting purposes....


They can lull the unknowing hunter into thinking his firearm is now "silenced" or sufficiently muffled and proceed with inadequate hearing protection.

Adding substantial weight to the muzzle of the gun could introduce fatigue and cause bad shots.

Like that video shows, good silencers DO work well and like Lundy said, we need to be able to hear people shooting around us and on our land.


----------



## Boogieman

Ostbuck98,
You must go through a class three dealer. You can't buy from an individual alone.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## bobk

ostbucks98 said:


> how do i purchase a suppressor from another individual?
> 
> Sent from my ZTE-Z990G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Very quietly.


----------



## Mr. A

MassillonBuckeye said:


> They can lull the unknowing hunter into thinking his firearm is now "silenced" or sufficiently muffled and proceed with inadequate hearing protection.
> 
> Adding substantial weight to the muzzle of the gun could introduce fatigue and cause bad shots.
> 
> Like that video shows, good silencers DO work well and like Lundy said, we need to be able to hear people shooting around us and on our land.


You're stirring the pot here. Nothing you posted is supported as far as I know. Inadequate hearing protection only hurts the moron shooting. Using a suppressor for hunting at night is more a courtesy for the people around your land than a cause for increased concern.

(The rest of this post was edited out because apparently I thought it was a good idea to post it, on second thought, it wasn't)


----------



## buckeye dan

For those of you wondering what is involved to purchase a suppressor, here is an article that explains it: http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=21559

For those of you that actually read the article, now you understand what I meant when I said the application process alone will both deter and prohibit the kind of people that would misuse a suppressor.


----------



## Sharp Charge

Ok, I'm going to step into this ring of fire for a min. I own several suppressors and I'm waiting on another. I agree with the OP's intent on this thread and I would also like to be able to hunt coyotes with my can; especially since hunting at night can be disruptive to the surrounding properties near where I hunt. 

The difference in the report of my AR with the can on it sounds more like a 22 mag. Huge difference from without it. It's not "movie quiet" despite what many would like you to think. I also own the SilencerCo Osprey 45 that OSTBucks98 posted on pg 4, it makes the 45 very quiet but it's also a subsonic bullet to begin with. 

Some have asked how long they'll last. Barring a baffle strike from an improperly attached can, they'll last your lifetime. There is some minor cleaning to do but unless it's a removable baffle stack (most 22 cans are removable because the ammo is so dirty) then you just spray in some cleaner and shake it out. 

Suppressors are not easy to come by. The cost alone is about equal to that of the host gun, + the stamp. The current wait on class 3 items (suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, etc) is 6-9 months from when the application goes pending with the ATF. You may buy a suppressor from an individual who already owns one, you do not need to go through a dealer. But the process is identical. You still have to fill out the ATF form 4, submit to the same individual requirements (pics, prints, CLEO signature) or entity requirements (trust, corporation) and send it to the ATF. You may not take possession of the NFA item from the seller till your stamp comes back approved, still 6-9 months currently. 

I think that's it for now.


----------



## Mad-Eye Moody

I don't have much of an opinion either way, but will say, having been around suppressed rifles before, there are a lot of people on here that have not. They are still fairly loud. I can't speak to handgun supressors and frankly didn't know they existed for shotguns.

When I was in Africa, my guide had a suppressed 7 mm mag. He offered me a try at it. I found it awkward and unwieldy. 

I think if something like this passed there would be very little notice taken in the overall scheme of things.


----------



## Boogieman

Sharp Charge,
Thanks for the imput, i didn't know you could buy from individual like that. I also would love to hunt fox an coyote with a can.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Mad-Eye Moody said:


> When I was in Africa, my guide had a suppressed 7 mm mag. He offered me a try at it. I found it awkward and unwieldy.


There ya go Mr. A. Some evidence to support my claim. It's one thing to speculate when you aren't sure about something. It's another to speculate someone is wrong when you simply aren't sure. It seems common sense that adding weight to the front of a gun is going to change several characteristics.

Now that's not to say someone could take that new attachment and get used to it, but it no doubt adds a learning curve. While obviously not a deal breaker to many, it's definitely worth mentioning when someone can't find a single CON in regards to using a suppressor to hunt 

also, from wikipedia(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor):


> Real-world data
> 
> Live tests by independent reviewers of numerous commercially available suppressors find that even low-power, unsuppressed .22 LR handguns produce gunshots over 160 decibels.[14] In testing, most of the suppressors reduced the volume to between 130 and 145 dB, with the quietest suppressors metering at 117 dB. The actual suppression of sound ranged from 14.3 to 43 dB, with most data points around the 30 dB mark. A notable example is the De Lisle carbine, a British World War II suppressed rifle used in small numbers by Special Forces. This was recorded at 85.5 dB in official firing tests.[15]
> Firearm silencers including the SilencerCo Osprey 9, SWR Octane 45, and SilencerCo Saker 5.56
> 
> Comparatively, ear protection commonly used while shooting provides 18 to 32 dB of sound reduction at the ear.[16] Further, chainsaws, rock concerts, rocket engines, pneumatic drills, small firecrackers, and ambulance sirens are rated at 100 to 140 dB.[17]
> 
> While some consider the noise reduction of a suppressor significant enough to permit safe shooting without hearing protection ("hearing safe"), noise-induced hearing loss may occur at 85 time-weighted-average decibels or above if exposed for a prolonged period,[18] and suppressed gunshots regularly meter above 130 dB. However, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration uses 140 dB as the "safety cutoff" for impulsive noise, which has led most U.S. manufacturers to advertise sub-140 dB suppressors as "hearing safe". Current OSHA standards would allow no more than sub-single-second exposure to impact noise over 130 dB per 24 hours. That would equate to a single .308 round fired through a very efficient suppressor. This result effectively requires all users of suppressors to wear additional ear protection.


Hearing safe? Not for me! Additionally:


> Limitations of dB meter effectiveness
> 
> Decibel testing measures only the peak sound "pressure" noise, not duration or frequency. Limitations of dB testing become apparent in a comparison of sound between a .308 caliber rifle and a .300 Winchester Magnum rifle. The dB meter will show that both rifles produce the same decibel level of noise. Upon firing these rifles, however, it is clear that the .300 Winchester Magnum sounds much louder. What a dB meter does not show is that, although both rifles produce the same peak sound pressure level (SPL), the .300 Winchester Magnum holds its peak duration longer&#8212;meaning that the .300 Winchester Magnum sound remains at full value longer, while the .308 peaks and falls off more quickly. Decibel meters fail in this and other regards when being used as the principal means to determine suppressor capability. In a physical sense, dB meters essentially take a short-time average (RMS intensity of a sonic signal or impulse) over a specified period of time (sampling rate), and do not take into account the rate of increase of the sound wave packet (first derivative of packet envelope), which would in practice provide a better sense of the human perception of sound.[19]


----------



## Sharp Charge

Boogieman said:


> Sharp Charge,
> Thanks for the imput, i didn't know you could buy from individual like that. I also would love to hunt fox an coyote with a can.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Sure thing. Say I was going to sell you one of my cans, if we were to go through a dealer I would have to sell it to the dealer and transfer it to them via a form 4, then you would have to buy it from them via a form 4. That would take nearly 2 years to complete. Even dealer to dealer transfers (form 3) which used to take just a few weeks since they're both FFL/SOT holders now takes a few months. The NFA branch of the ATF is a very slow and backlogged branch.


----------



## Boogieman

Massillon buckeye,
Your post says ear protection is an average of 18 to 32 db reductions, while the average suppressor is 30 db rating reduction, let alone up to 40 db, an that is more than ear protection. 
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## TheKing

An issue for many it appears. Noise isn't an issue with bows, and I personally don't see a fundamental difference in view of the hunter's orange requirements for guns. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

But I gotta admit - I like a big boom when I pull the trigger.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Boogieman said:


> Massillon buckeye,
> Your post says ear protection is an average of 18 to 32 db reductions, while the average suppressor is 30 db rating reduction, let alone up to 40 db, an that is more than ear protection.
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


It also says that the equipment they use to test are flawed and the results are skewed.


> Limitations of dB testing become apparent in a comparison of sound between a .308 caliber rifle and a .300 Winchester Magnum rifle. The dB meter will show that both rifles produce the same decibel level of noise.


It also said:


> Current OSHA standards would allow no more than sub-single-second exposure to impact noise over 130 dB per 24 hours. That would equate to a single .308 round fired through a very efficient suppressor. This result effectively requires all users of suppressors to wear additional ear protection.


----------



## Ring

Boogieman said:


> Ostbuck98,
> You must go through a class three dealer. You can't buy from an individual alone.
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


sure u can, same form to the ATF... but no one sells a used can, you lose so much $$$ its not worth it...


----------



## Ring

i have 3 cans, and use them all the time. i HATE shooting non suppressed guns...


----------



## Ring

ezbite said:


> then you have me confused, why would i need a supressor to hunt squirells? rabbits or ground hogs??
> 
> i have to think your end game of leagalizing supressors/silencers IS for deer hunting with a rifle with a supressor/silencer. please correct me if im wrong.
> 
> i keep seeing supressors on this thread, but as ive stated before silencers and supressors ARE the same thing, wheres the line??? there isnt one and thats a fact.. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!!!
> 
> i will give you this, you sure know how to stir the pot...



#1... why not?... it allows me hunt without bitchy anti hunting neighbors harassing me. not to mention, i hate warring muff's/plugs when hunting

#2... its for ALL hunting... so yes.. you sould put a can on your pistol to deer hunt.. so what?

#3 semantics... and?


----------



## Ring

ezbite said:


> first you wanted rifles to be legal in Ohio, now supressors...
> 
> NO, i see no reason for it at all. either of them.


why?.......... 
please respond with facts, not emotion...


----------



## Ring

Buckhunter1206 said:


> Yeah let's allow suppressors so when the idiots that already shoot at everything that moves can shoot your direction without you even knowing it. Sounds like a great idea to me!
> 
> Sent from my LIFE PLAY using Ohub Campfire mobile app


WOW... and i thought the anti-gun people were clueless about guns....

how many of you anti suppressor people have ever used a suppressor?... other then playing COD?


----------



## Ring

Dovans said:


> How long do these suppressors last?100 rds? 50 rd? forever?


unless you're running it on a full auto, pretty much forever...


----------



## Ring

Gills63 said:


> I want to hunt from the back of an elephant. Can we push for that freedom also?
> 
> I'll also use the elephant during target shooting. The elephant would be quieter then an ATV and wouldn't disturb the neighbors. Elephants are expensive and require a permit, so only those who really want one will get one. If poachers were going to use elephants, they already would be.
> 
> This amounts to sportsman political correctness. Where every nicknack or novelty item deserves its rightful place in the regs. Those who don't agree are accused of tramping freedom. Eventually the regulations will be a three volume set.
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


do you know of some ORC rule that says i cant hunt from a elephant , horse, camel, llama?


----------



## Ring

MassillonBuckeye said:


> It also says that the equipment they use to test are flawed and the results are skewed.


not if they, and most companies do, follow the standard.. as per "mil-spec" testing criteria

http://www.silencerforum.com/forum/...-TESTING-EQUIPMENT-PROCEDURES-amp-METHODOLOGY


----------



## hedhunter72

im doing the paperwork for a can now for my ruger mk3,dont like meeting the sherrif at my truck after dispatching **** on the trapline after dark


----------



## ezbite

Ring said:


> why?..........
> please respond with facts, not emotion...


Since you called me out, Why should I get into a petty arguement as clueless as you think we all are? its obvious youre the suppressor expert of Ohio, so what would be the point?

This is and will be my last response to this thread, I got better things to do with my time.


----------



## Ring

so, no facts then?... check...


----------



## Fisherman 3234

Some of you pro-suppressor guys have done way more harm then good for your cause......


----------



## Ring

Fisherman 3234 said:


> Some of you pro-suppressor guys have done way more harm then good for your cause......


how? 

lets recap this thread... and make a comparison...

anti... NO... we dont like it.. it will cause poaching.... we dont like it, so u shouldnt have one. .... we see no legit purpose... 


pro.... its a safety device, no different then a car muffler... 38 others states use them, no problems.. 

now lets compare....

CCW 
anti... there will be shoot outs in the streets!... no one needs one... it was cause people to get in shoot outs over minor arguments...


see a pattern?

what it dose show is the FUDD mentality of "my gun/way of hunting" is morally superior to yours, so it ok to pass laws on any gun we dont "think" is good for hunting..


----------



## Lundy

Ring said:


> so it ok to pass laws on any gun we dont "think" is good for hunting..


Absolutely it is OK. Everyone has an equal right to form an opinion based upon their own set of criteria and standards. You , me, anyone, as individuals

You seem to expect, almost demand, understanding and acceptance of your position but offer no similar consideration in return. 

You seem to "think" that your position is "morally superior" to anyone with a dissenting opinion.

It is certainly plausible to see how some may view the displayed lack of tolerance of a persons right to form and have their own opinion as hurting the message.

So is it OK to pass laws on any gun that we "think" is good for hunting?


----------



## Ring

im speaking to gun bans, not hunting rules... as in "gun owners" that believe in "assault" weapon bans... the ones that believe that if it dont look like a "traditional" hunting gun, then you dont need it. that would be a FUDD


----------



## buckeye dan

It looks like this one died in committee. I don't think the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee has any scheduled meetings left in this session. Even if it made it to the House floor for a vote, I don't think there is enough time left to get it through the Senate.

With no opponent testimony this time around, it is almost certain to pass in an upcoming session. It looks pretty good for the 131st General Assembly. It just has to be placed high enough on the priority list to make it through the process in time.


----------



## Ring

FYI, JUST got this from about current status.. 

[email protected]
To Me
Today at 1:58 PM
Ready to vote on it in committee I think; just need to wait for committee to have a hearing &#8211; probably not until mid January. They&#8217;re waiting for a bill from the Senate to be sent over so that there is more than one bill during the hearing. I will keep you posted!

Thanks for following up.
Alisa


----------



## buckeye dan

Ring said:


> FYI, JUST got this from about current status..
> 
> [email protected]
> To Me
> Today at 1:58 PM
> Ready to vote on it in committee I think; just need to wait for committee to have a hearing  probably not until mid January. Theyre waiting for a bill from the Senate to be sent over so that there is more than one bill during the hearing. I will keep you posted!
> 
> Thanks for following up.
> Alisa


I spoke to an aide to Rep Hall who is the Chair of the committee it's sitting in and she wasn't sure there were going to be any more hearings scheduled for this session. She did mention if one occurred then it would be in January but nothing was on her calendar at this time.

If they run the Senate bill concurrent then it might make it in time before the session ends but I am skeptical this late in the game. Things like this usually fall pretty low on the priorities list this late in the session.


----------



## Sharp Charge

hedhunter72 said:


> im doing the paperwork for a can now for my ruger mk3,dont like meeting the sherrif at my truck after dispatching **** on the trapline after dark


Yeah, you probably don't want that on a public site at this point in time...


----------



## TomC

I've got my paperwork in for mine! Its going on the front of my ar-15 varmint. You can get a 5.56 suppressor for 500-1300.00 bucks depending on the brand. Its quiets the weapon down but doesn't eliminate the sound completely, now with a .22 and the right ammo with will about do movie quiet. Best suppressed weapon to shoot in my opinion H&K MP5sd with navy trigger group, best day at the range ever!


----------



## Sharp Charge

TomC said:


> Best suppressed weapon to shoot in my opinion H&K MP5sd with navy trigger group, best day at the range ever!


I completely agree with this. That was the first suppressed weapon I fired back in 1999 and it was sweet! My most recent can went pending last month, let the 9 month wait continue...


----------



## buckeye dan

Recent BFA article regarding suppressors:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/9236


----------



## treefrog

I dont understand?dont they both say Ohio illegal to hunt with supressor?


----------



## Sharp Charge

treefrog said:


> I dont understand?dont they both say Ohio illegal to hunt with supressor?


Right now it is illegal to hunt with a suppressor, you are correct. There are a few groups lobbying to get that changed through the legislative process.


----------



## fallen513

Pass this, next step, remove them from the NFA list altogether.


Win! 


About time the masses started speaking up.


----------



## buckeye dan

fallen513 said:


> Pass this, next step, remove them from the NFA list altogether.
> 
> 
> Win!
> 
> 
> About time the masses started speaking up.


Amen! But I don't see that happening. There are too many people in office that don't want you to have a firearm to use with a suppressor.


----------



## handloader

I am in awe the attitudes I read here. So many years of brainwashing has had strong effects on many of the posters. I have multiple suppressors, shoot competitively, and generally leave the state of Ohio to hunt with suppressors. 
To argue against a suppressor is like saying we should not muffle a car because what if we didnt hear the car coming. Using a suppressor takes shooting to the next level. We can call our shots better, enjoy the dampened recoil pulse of the rifle, lower the noise pollution to those owning homes around where we hunt, and help to preserve our hearing. 

Ownership of suppressors are not cheap, after the $200 tax stamp, they cost as much as a rifle (just like a good scope). I have suppressors that range from $300-$1300, and each one was well worth the cost. People are arguing about the use when deer hunting. That said, there are very, READ VERY, few suppressors that can be used with a shotgun or muzzleloader (secondary to baffle strikes). Suppressor use would be limited (as of current regulations), to handguns, and rifles for hunting non-deer or waterfowl (an I think turkey).

Anyway, my two cents.


----------



## TomC

Ring is my hero! I love a bolt gun with a suppressor! Especially the one in the top pic he posted! 

So exactly how many of the non supporters have ever shot a suppressed weapon?


----------



## Ring

Chairman David Hall has announced that the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee will be hearing all testimony on Representative Cheryl Grossman's (R-Grove City) HB 234 today, Tuesday January 21, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Statehouse Room 116. This will be the third hearing for this important bill.

Chairman Hall has indicated that a vote is possible.

Buckeye Firearms Association has previously provided testimony in support of the bill, and leaders will again be on hand at the hearing today.

The use of suppressors while hunting is rapidly growing in the United States. Over thirty states allow the use of suppressors for some form of hunting, with most allowing them for all types of hunting. All states contiguous to Ohio, except Michigan, allow the use of suppressors for all types of hunting. Indiana passed their bill earlier this year.

The use of suppressors will greatly benefit predator and varmint, coyote and groundhog, hunters. Coyote hunting is primarily done in the early morning, late evening or even into the night. The use of suppressors will not only offer hearing protection for the hunter but allow him/her to be a good neighbor. Trappers may find suppressors a useful tool. They often trap close to developed areas or where streams run along a roadway. Should they be required to dispatch an animal, they can do so using a suppressor-equipped firearm quickly and in an environmentally-friendly way.

The use of suppressors while hunting is a valuable tool as an aid in hearing protection and being a good neighbor. It is making another safety tool available to hunters, and we encourage supporters to contact their state representatives and encourage them to vote yes on HB 234.


----------



## Sharp Charge

Hope something positive comes from it.


----------



## brakeshoe1

Lets try air rifles. Less noise. Good power. Shorter range. Good for urban areas with large deer populations. Handicap friendly


----------



## Ring

"Those" air guns are more then a high power rifle...


----------



## brakeshoe1

Although these rifles are powerful to the point of a slug gun at a shorter range is my point. They would be ethical to dispatch game humanely. They are used in many countries where firearms are banned. As far as powerful as a high powered rifle no, nowhere near. A .50 cal. slug on the average is aprox. 800 fps. That is from a quality air rifle. The knock down power comes from the shear mass of the bullet. This proposal merely gives us as hunters another tool to use. Please explain to me how you determined your comment that these air rifles are as powerful as a high powered rifle? I honestly expected arguments that they are not powerful enough. I am presenting this issue this year. Thanx for your comments. Look forward to your future help support.


----------



## Mr. A

brakeshoe1 said:


> Although these rifles are powerful to the point of a slug gun at a shorter range is my point. They would be ethical to dispatch game humanely. They are used in many countries where firearms are banned. As far as powerful as a high powered rifle no, nowhere near. A .50 cal. slug on the average is aprox. 800 fps. That is from a quality air rifle. The knock down power comes from the shear mass of the bullet. This proposal merely gives us as hunters another tool to use. Please explain to me how you determined your comment that these air rifles are as powerful as a high powered rifle? I honestly expected arguments that they are not powerful enough. I am presenting this issue this year. Thanx for your comments. Look forward to your future help support.


There is a YouTube video of a guy using an ait gun hunting in Africa. He has a lot of videos of him taking game with the gun. It fires a projectile at least the size of a .357 round and he is taking big game. That is a heck of an ait rifle. Seems the biggest drawback is price.....

Mr. A


----------



## Ring

brakeshoe1 said:


> Although these rifles are powerful to the point of a slug gun at a shorter range is my point. They would be ethical to dispatch game humanely. They are used in many countries where firearms are banned. As far as powerful as a high powered rifle no, nowhere near. A .50 cal. slug on the average is aprox. 800 fps. That is from a quality air rifle. The knock down power comes from the shear mass of the bullet. This proposal merely gives us as hunters another tool to use. Please explain to me how you determined your comment that these air rifles are as powerful as a high powered rifle? I honestly expected arguments that they are not powerful enough. I am presenting this issue this year. Thanx for your comments. Look forward to your future help support.


"Those" air guns *are more* then a high power rifle...


http://www.pyramydair.com/a/Air_guns/Air_rifles/150/calibers_0_357

as in COST... not power.... 

and im all for actual rifle use in ohio.. the "to flat" argument is total BS..


----------



## brakeshoe1

pricey they are. sorry I misunderstood. Quackenbush air rifles are reasonably priced. Check out their website. Its filling the rifles with air that is pricey. I submitted the proposal Saturday at District 3 Open House. This was the second time. I'm hoping we sportsmen can push this proposal through.


----------

