Suppressing a Dangerous Game rifle - 458 lott

The trend is clear that suppressors are becoming more prevalent and legal in new states and countries, their use on dg rifles will probably continue to increase despite some people being staunchly against them being used on dg rifles for reasons I will never understand, but I also don’t understand why someone would order a steak well done. To each his own!

I offered up the concept of permissive codes as a caution against assuming that suppressors must be legal in MOZ since their firearms laws don’t mention suppressors. Might not be the case.

Woodcarver said:

I believe all of the US has wildlife regulations that are "permissive" as @Doug3006 points out. One of the clarifying provisions in the actual laws behind the regulations will specify that if it isn't listed as an "allowed" activity/quarry, it is illegal. For instance, I have not found a list of every bird in any state that is protected/illegal to shoot, only the (short) list of what is legal to shoot, and under what conditions (season, weapon, etc.).
Colorado law, the CRS (Colorado Revised Statutes), sets up those rules we see in the hunting regulations. The regs (and laws) make it very clear that if it isn't specifically allowed, by definition, it is illegal.

I would highly recommend you don't shoot the stray moose in KS or OK (or any state that doesn't have resident moose) that do occasionally wander through. Even though there is nothing in the hunting regs concerning moose, the law behind those regs (that very few people ever read) is clear that the lost moose is, in fact, illegal to shoot.

To avoid any question of legality, and to avoid the problem other states have with feral hogs, Colorado added to the law that any hog not confined/fenced in or otherwise controlled, IS fair game. I don't even think you need a hunting license IIRC. Colorado does not want feral hogs, lol. They didn't add that paragraph into the regs for a couple years after the law was passed.
I should also point out, there are some states I'm aware of, like TX, that do make it legal to shoot non-native, non-regulated, large animals. Year round even. But that is also stated in the laws that set up the regulations the DOW puts out.

Just realized the thread this is in. Talk about thread drift, lol

Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying but want to cite an example of where the opposite can also be true. A few years ago, we had a series of Cougar (Mtn Lion) sightings in my home state of KY. I have seen two in the Eastern part of the State myself. Later, one was killed by two game wardens and another killed by a KSP trooper whose dog had treed the big cat in an apple tree. A few weeks later a big one killed one of my sister's dogs and severely injured two more in back to back encounters in her yard. I became very interested in hunting that one and spoke directly to the Fish and Wildlife commissioner and his director of enforcement. Both told me that since Mtn Lions do not exist in KY that they are considered to be non-native invasive species and thus could be hunted at anytime, with any means or method and that I did not even need a hunting license to hunt them. He suggested baiting them with live chickens, lol. As ludicrous as this all sounds he was deadly serious and followed up with this in writing with an email and asked that if we killed one, they wanted to see it. So, in that specific case, it was not permitted to hunt them but because of their non-entity status it was implied to be legal. Similar but different conditions allow the year round hunting of Nilgai (a non-native species) in Texas.

I would argue that Mtn Lions once existed in KY just like Elk did and now do once again and that in reality, they should be treated like any other big game species. Since they are hard to hunt and not very many if any make residence in the state, they may not be valuable as big game today, but who knows about the future? IF I were to hunt one, I would definitely want to use my suppressed rifle, lol.

"...they are considered to be non-native invasive species and thus could be hunted at anytime..."

Key part, and spelled out in the law behind the regs. Panther, cougar, mountain lion, whatever name the locals used in the day, did live all over in the east back in the day. Kinda funny they are considered "non-native" and "invasive" now.
Hunting one in the backyard that is trying to poach the family hound would be a good reason to use a can. There's a lot of folks on the west side of Colorado Springs that wish they weren't regulated here.

I see quite a bit about added weight and length, as cons for a silencer. I would argue that there are a lot of other factors than the weight and length of a silencer that contribute to that, depending on the rifle you have and how you carry your rifle.

In my example (Blaser R8 Ultimate, .416), I have an aluminium receiver, not the steel receiver that their 'normal' big bore model comes with, that, according to AI gives is a difference of 550g (1.21 lbs). My A-Tec H3 silencer weighs a bit more than 400 g with all three modules, and I can take off one or two moduels when hunting. So, my rifle with silencer would weigh lesss than a standard Blaser big bore without silencer.

Furthermore, I have a custom 19mm barrel, whereas Blaser makes big bores in 22mm. According to AI calculations that saves me another 200g. So all in all, with full silencer I am some 2-300g (0.5 lbs) under a standard blaser big bore rifle.

As for lenght: A Blaser is at least 5cm (2") shorter than other rifles. The lenght of the silencer with all three modules is 15cm. With only 2 modules it is 11 cm. That means an added lenght of around 6 cm (a bit more than 2"). If I really wanted to, I could cut probably cut those 2" of the barrel. The impact of lenght depends on how you carry your rifle. With a sling over my shoulder, I carry it with the barrel down, in which case lenght matters a lot less. Holding it in your arms I am not sure if it would matter much, perhaps.

As for Mozambique and silencers: I am going there in August with a silencer. I do not really buy the idea that because it is not mentioned as legal, it would be illegal. Definitely not how the hunting laws (or other laws for that matter) work in Denmark. Any new invention would per this definition be illegal until all the relevant laws were rewritten.

An additional thought on legality of silencers if not expressed by law: I believe a muzzle breaker is legal in most, if not all, countries. But are there examples of countries where it is written into the laws that is legal?

The length and weight are still enough to make me avoid a silencer on a mid to large bore magnum. Yes they do reduce the recoil a lot but you really only feel the recoil at the range. When hunting, it is not very noticeable. Wear hearing protection if that is an issue.

I use a moderated rifle almost daily and the biggest frustration in my mind is how they carry on a sling. They often constantly try to rotate backwards when walking. The heavier the moderator the worse this happens. The length aspect can be offset by shortening the barrel at the expense of ballistics or to a lesser extent by using over barrel suppressors. The other disadvantage is the reduction in barrel life associated with the carbon fouling absorbing moisture pitting the bore. For a DG rifle I would not choose to use a moderator. In fact carrying a non moderated rifle for over 150km of Zim was incredibly pleasant!

SRvet said:

The other disadvantage is the reduction in barrel life associated with the carbon fouling absorbing moisture pitting the bore.

Click to expand...

Have you experienced that this happens also if the silencer is removed when not hunting?

Luminous Ham said:

Have you experienced that this happens also if the silencer is removed when not hunting?

Click to expand...

Sure have experienced this, several times in fact. The photo shows the pitting at the crown of my 7mm Rem Mag after about 400 shots. The moderator was never left on after use but the rifle was not cleaned until I had shot 30-40 shots unless it got wet. This meant the barrel could easily have been left for 4-5 weeks between cleans, possibly more. My understanding is that powder residue is hygroscopic and forms acidic compounds when water from the atmosphere is absorbed. This pitting affected accuracy significantly and cost me 2 inches of match grade barrel. More recently I bought a used Blaser R8 with a barrel that was pitted towards the muzzle but also closer to the chamber. Despite this pitting the barrel shot well with 180 grain bullets but poorly with lighter monometal bullets. I was told the barrel had not been shot much , sub 100 rounds but the barrel had not been looked after internally. Externally it was OK with no corrosion apparent. Moral of the story is that I now remove the carbon residue after each trip out and don’t leave it in the barrel for weeks.

SRvet said:

Sure have experienced this, several times in fact. The photo shows the pitting at the crown of my 7mm Rem Mag after about 400 shots. The moderator was never left on after use but the rifle was not cleaned until I had shot 30-40 shots unless it got wet. This meant the barrel could easily have been left for 4-5 weeks between cleans, possibly more. My understanding is that powder residue is hygroscopic and forms acidic compounds when water from the atmosphere is absorbed. This pitting affected accuracy significantly and cost me 2 inches of match grade barrel. More recently I bought a used Blaser R8 with a barrel that was pitted towards the muzzle but also closer to the chamber. Despite this pitting the barrel shot well with 180 grain bullets but poorly with lighter monometal bullets. I was told the barrel had not been shot much , sub 100 rounds but the barrel had not been looked after internally. Externally it was OK with no corrosion apparent. Moral of the story is that I now remove the carbon residue after each trip out and don’t leave it in the barrel for weeks.

Click to expand...

Great information, thanks a lot. I did not know it was that bad.

SRvet said:

I use a moderated rifle almost daily and the biggest frustration in my mind is how they carry on a sling. They often constantly try to rotate backwards when walking. The heavier the moderator the worse this happens. The length aspect can be offset by shortening the barrel at the expense of ballistics or to a lesser extent by using over barrel suppressors. The other disadvantage is the reduction in barrel life associated with the carbon fouling absorbing moisture pitting the bore. For a DG rifle I would not choose to use a moderator. In fact carrying a non moderated rifle for over 150km of Zim was incredibly pleasant!

Click to expand...

I agree that suppressing a DG rifle is not necessary but if you so choose, you can use the Rhodesian carry, (Muzzle down, rifle slung on weakside shoulder) to deal with the rotation aspect to a degree unless it is so long that the muzzle is dragging the ground. That carry has other benefits once you get used to it. You can go from slung to deployed onto sticks in only about 2-3 seconds with practice. And it is much safer than the African carry.

JG26Irish_2 said:

I agree that suppressing a DG rifle is not necessary but if you so choose, you can use the Rhodesian carry, (Muzzle down, rifle slung on weakside shoulder) to deal with the rotation aspect to a degree unless it is so long that the muzzle is dragging the ground. That carry has other benefits once you get used to it. You can go from slung to deployed onto sticks in only about 2-3 seconds with practice. And it is much safer than the African carry.

Click to expand...

I have always carried muzzle up on a sling- never tried muzzle down, makes sense it would be safer.

Wiley64 said:

The trend is clear that suppressors are becoming more prevalent and legal in new states and countries, their use on dg rifles will probably continue to increase despite some people being staunchly against them being used on dg rifles for reasons I will never understand, but I also don’t understand why someone would order a steak well done. To each his own!

Click to expand...

And what new states and countries would those be? We got the $200 federal fee removed in US but they are still illegal in New York, New Jersey, California, and others. Canada continues tightening firearm regulations. Hunters might get away with taking them to certain African countries where they aren’t technically legal but I don’t expect any firearm regulations being rewritten in those countries.

Wiley64 said:

I have always carried muzzle up on a sling- never tried muzzle down, makes sense it would be safer.

Click to expand...

Give it a try. Until I learned to shoot from sticks for Safari, it did not much matter, but now I do not want to carry any other way unless I am carrying a black rifle using a military style sling, but even those are muzzle down carry methods. The only caution might be to be careful not to jam the muzzle into the ground when negotiating muddy, slick or rugged terrain. I have used this method a lot and have never found it to be a problem. The really long rifles like the Weatherby's and some other magnums can be an issue but most are not.

JG26Irish_2 said:

Give it a try. Until I learned to shoot from sticks for Safari, it did not much matter, but now I do not want to carry any other way unless I am carrying a black rifle using a military style sling, but even those are muzzle down carry methods. The only caution might be to be careful not to jam the muzzle into the ground when negotiating muddy, slick or rugged terrain. I have used this method a lot and have never found it to be a problem. The really long rifles like the Weatherby's and some other magnums can be an issue but most are not.

Click to expand...

I also carry it muzzle down, much faster, and being 2 meter tall I do not get stuck in branches, door ways, etc.