The .308 and the Silencer: My South African Experience

[rblum]

I won’t put a suppressor on any of my hunting rifles. Mostly, I think they are an eyesore. If I wanted one of those things on a hunting rifle, I’d just buy a Ruger American. Yes, I am absolutely a “Fudd” when it comes to my hunting rifles.

I’ve had to use them in my professional life for the last 20+ years. I hate “tactical” stuff. But, my needs on the job are different, so function outweighs form to a certain degree. I don’t need to establish fire superiority on a deer or a rockchuck.

A few rounds without ear protection isn’t as terrible as people make it out to be. Just wait until you get into a gunfight indoors someday. Everything is a dull “pop”. My hearing is still great.

I am amazed at all of the hunters who want to go full battle rattle when out hunting. I agree with you. I hauled that crap around long enough in my life and am glad to be done with it.

 

[skydiver386]

After nearly 25 years on active duty, ai prefer things a bit less tactical, but I have no problem with what is useful.

There are some civilian items that I prefer on a hunt, and some things like the military compass that I prefer.

 

[Gomer]

I am amazed at all of the hunters who want to go full battle rattle when out hunting. I agree with you. I hauled that crap around long enough in my life and am glad to be done with it.

I know that my preferences are not reflective of the market. Companies are making what sells. And if we don’t do something to create more hunters, our way of life and heritage will die. I totally get all of that.

But when I hear people say “kit” and words like “primary, secondary, tertiary”, it kinda makes me laugh.

 

[Sabre]

I won’t put a suppressor on any of my hunting rifles. Mostly, I think they are an eyesore. If I wanted one of those things on a hunting rifle, I’d just buy a Ruger American. Yes, I am absolutely a “Fudd” when it comes to my hunting rifles.

I’ve had to use them in my professional life for the last 20+ years. I hate “tactical” stuff. But, my needs on the job are different, so function outweighs form to a certain degree. I don’t need to establish fire superiority on a deer or a rockchuck.

A few rounds without ear protection isn’t as terrible as people make it out to be. Just wait until you get into a gunfight indoors someday. Everything is a dull “pop”. My hearing is still great.

I assume you are eluding to being in the military. I have a hard time seeing how being in the military translates to it not being worthwhile to protecting your hearing when hunting.

A few rounds without ear protection isn’t as terrible as people make it out to be. Just wait until you get into a gunfight indoors someday. Everything is a dull “pop”. My hearing is still great.

Almost everything about this makes no sense at all. So you are claiming to have extensive experience of gunfights and indoors even, without hearing protection, also saying it all becomes a "dull pop". But also that your hearing is still great? It's just very confusing, and also just medically and factually completely incorrect.

 

[Sabre]

But when I hear people say “kit” and words like “primary, secondary, tertiary”, it kinda makes me laugh.

Yes, on this we definitely agree, the adoption of tacti-cool lingo in everyday talk, and especially hunting/shooting sports has become groan worthy.

 

[Gomer]

I assume you are eluding to being in the military. I have a hard time seeing how being in the military translates to it not being worthwhile to protecting your hearing when hunting.



Almost everything about this makes no sense at all. So you are claiming to have extensive experience of gunfights and indoors even, without hearing protection, also saying it all becomes a "dull pop". But also that your hearing is still great? It's just very confusing, and also just medically and factually completely incorrect.

When it comes to big game hunting, I don’t see where the typical number of shots will cause any permanent hearing loss. It hasn’t affected me yet. No tinitis, I pass all the tests without any issues, no problems. If I were shooting at a bunch prairie dogs, yeah I’d wear ear protection. But a couple shots here and there? Not worth it to me.

You might not understand if you’ve never been in a shooting. You don’t perceive gunfire the same way as you would if you went to the range and cooked off a round. Even afterward, no ringing ears or anything.

 

[Gomer]

Yes, on this we definitely agree, the adoption of tacti-cool lingo in everyday talk, and especially hunting/shooting sports has become groan worthy.

You know what else gets me? Acronyms. LPVO for example. We used to just call them “scopes”. Does anyone ever talk about their “HPVO”? Or what if they have a 3-9x? Is that a MRVO (mid-range variable optic)?

 

[Sabre]

When it comes to big game hunting, I don’t see where the typical number of shots will cause any permanent hearing loss. It hasn’t affected me yet. No tinitis, I pass all the tests without any issues, no problems. If I were shooting at a bunch prairie dogs, yeah I’d wear ear protection. But a couple shots here and there? Not worth it to me.

It can vary from person to person and from incident to incident. Meaning, some people are going to be more susceptible than others. But the same person can also get away with it multiple times and then have a time where it does permanent damage. It is accurate that sustained fire or exposure over longer duration is more damaging. But it is also true that permanent damage can be done, and tinnitus can start from even one incident of unprotected exposure. Generally it is a cumulative effect over time that people begin to notice damage.

You might not understand if you’ve never been in a shooting. You don’t perceive gunfire the same way as you would if you went to the range and cooked off a round. Even afterward, no ringing ears or anything.

This seems like you are trying to imply that you have been in at least one shooting incident and that we/I just can't understand because they've never been there. It is factually inaccurate. There are many people on this forum that have been in those situations. The forum has a higher than average population of veterans and former law enforcement.

Shooting while hunting produces a similar experience as well. Many people do not "hear" the shot when they are the one shooting. You are describing your mental state when shooting or experiencing a shooting incident. Your ear does not magically shut down or close and become immune from damage just because you are in a high stress, high excitement, adrenaline fueled state. Only your perception of the noise changes.

It is good that you did not experience permanent damage and no ringing in the ears. Many people will receive permanent hearing damage and persistent ringing from shootings in enclosed spaces, and even shooting while hunting without hearing protection. Even if you don't notice it at this time, it also most often is adding to the cumulative effect over your life.

 

[Sabre]

You know what else gets me? Acronyms. LPVO for example. We used to just call them “scopes”. Does anyone ever talk about their “HPVO”? Or what if they have a 3-9x? Is that a MRVO (mid-range variable optic)?

I have had that thought as well.

We are getting so addicted to acronyms and slang that it starts to get hard to keep track of what anyone is saying.

Also, at the risk of sounding curmudgeon-ish, when someone much younger in my family texts me nowadays, I think I need a translator for all the younger generation texting acronyms now as well.

 

[Gomer]

Yes, on this we definitely agree, the adoption of tacti-cool lingo in everyday talk, and especially hunting/shooting sports has become groan worthy.

You know what else gets me? Acronyms. LPVO for example. We used to just call them “scopes”. Does anyone ever talk about their “HPVO”? Or what if they have a 3-9x? Is that a MRVO (mid-range variable optic)

It can vary from person to person and from incident to incident. Meaning, some people are going to be more susceptible than others. But the same person can also get away with it multiple times and then have a time where it does permanent damage. It is accurate that sustained fire or exposure over longer duration is more damaging. But it is also true that permanent damage can be done, and tinnitus can start from even one incident of unprotected exposure. Generally it is a cumulative effect over time that people begin to notice damage.



This seems like you are trying to imply that you have been in at least one shooting incident and that we/I just can't understand because they've never been there. It is factually inaccurate. There are many people on this forum that have been in those situations. The forum has a higher than average population of veterans and former law enforcement.

Shooting while hunting produces a similar experience as well. Many people do not "hear" the shot when they are the one shooting. You are describing your mental state when shooting or experiencing a shooting incident. Your ear does not magically shut down or close and become immune from damage just because you are in a high stress, high excitement, adrenaline fueled state. Only your perception of the noise changes.

It is good that you did not experience permanent damage and no ringing in the ears. Many people will receive permanent hearing damage and persistent ringing from shootings in enclosed spaces, and even shooting while hunting without hearing protection. Even if you don't notice it at this time, it also most often is adding to the cumulative effect over your life.

No implications made. I do wonder why people question why people don’t like suppressors. It’s almost like when someone says they don’t drink. People always have to know why.

 

[BJH65]

Almost everything about this makes no sense at all. So you are claiming to have extensive experience of gunfights and indoors even, without hearing protection, also saying it all becomes a "dull pop". But also that your hearing is still great? It's just very confusing, and also just medically and factually completely incorrect.

What is experienced is called auditory exclusion, a physiological survival mechanism triggered by a massive adrenaline spike during extreme stress. When your body enters fight-or-flight mode, your brain prioritizes immediate physical threats and selectively dampens secondary sensory inputs to conserve processing power. The full decibel pressure still enters your ears and can cause physical hearing damage, but your brain simply filters out the sound before it reaches your conscious awareness—making gunshots sound like muted pops, distant thuds, or complete silence.

 

[Sabre]

No implications made. I do wonder why people question why people don’t like suppressors. It’s almost like when someone says they don’t drink. People always have to know why.

I can understand why people don't like suppressors from an aesthetic point of view. They are less appealing on a hunting rifle than without. I also understand why people don't like them because they add weight, make the rifle slightly more unbalanced and front heavy, and are a bit more unwieldy. That's all personal preference.

I just think it's important to stay factually accurate and not say things like, "shooting hunting rifles without suppressors doesn't really damage your ears anyway" or something similar. Or doubling down and saying even more extreme things like shooting repetitive shots in enclosed spaces isn't even really that damaging to hearing.

Not wanting to drink is a personal preference, like the aesthetics or handling of a rifle with a suppressor. Telling people that shooting without protecting your ears isn't damaging is just factually incorrect.

 

[Gomer]

I can understand why people don't like suppressors from an aesthetic point of view. They are less appealing on a hunting rifle than without. I also understand why people don't like them because they add weight, make the rifle slightly more unbalanced and front heavy, and are a bit more unwieldy. That's all personal preference.

I just think it's important to stay factually accurate and not say things like, "shooting hunting rifles without suppressors doesn't really damage your ears anyway" or something similar. Or doubling down and saying even more extreme things like shooting repetitive shots in enclosed spaces isn't even really that damaging to hearing.

Not wanting to drink is a personal preference, like the aesthetics or handling of a rifle with a suppressor. Telling people that shooting without protecting your ears isn't damaging is just factually incorrect.

Ok. I think they look stupid on the traditionally styled hunting rifles I enjoy. I don’t like how they make a rifle handle. The gains in performance I get with an uncut barrel are worth more to me than hearing loss that I have yet to experience (though others may).

It’s not like I would vote to ban them. I think that’s what people fear. The folks that like them feel like they finally got their tip wet with the $0 tax stamp and resulting SCOTUS ruling and hate the idea of moving backward. Any dissent causes an argument.

I actually think this whole thing is only going to last until the new Congress flips hard enough to overrule presidential veto (unlikely), or the next president who will almost certainly go along with Congress reimposing the NFA tax (likely).

 

[Sabre]

It’s not like I would vote to ban them. I think that’s what people fear. The folks that like them feel like they finally got their tip wet with the $0 tax stamp and resulting SCOTUS ruling and hate the idea of moving backward. Any dissent causes an argument.

You're taking me disagreeing with inaccurate statements you made as me being fearful of my rights being taken away and being argumentative. That isn't the case. You made false statements and I rebutted them. Nowhere in there was I remotely thinking about suppressor rights or losing them.

 

[Sabre]

I actually think this whole thing is only going to last until the new Congress flips hard enough to overrule presidential veto (unlikely), or the next president who will almost certainly go along with Congress reimposing the NFA tax (likely).

I also think this is a likely outcome whenever democrats have more control again. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a new NFA tax that was a modern amount to what the goal of the original $200 was. Hopefully this doesn't happen, but I think it's almost certain they will fight hard for something stricter than we had before when they have power again. But the other option is roll over and only play defense for eternity and lose ground the entire way.

 

[Gomer]

I also think this is a likely outcome whenever democrats have more control again. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a new NFA tax that was a modern amount to what the goal of the original $200 was. Hopefully this doesn't happen, but I think it's almost certain they will fight hard for something stricter than we had before when they have power again. But the other option is roll over and only play defense for eternity and lose ground the entire way.

I also wouldn’t doubt that the $200 gets updated to nearly $5000 from inflation, since the original $200 was meant to be a burden.

 

[Gomer]

You're taking me disagreeing with inaccurate statements you made as me being fearful of my rights being taken away and being argumentative. That isn't the case. You made false statements and I rebutted them. Nowhere in there was I remotely thinking about suppressor rights or losing them.

We disagree then. I don’t think any average big game hunter, using an unbraked rifle, will hurt their hearing from a few shots taken with no hearing protection. If you’re shooting st prairie dogs all day or culling 20 animals, sure. But the 2 to 10 shots I take every year haven’t had any lasting effects, per my doctor. Though my experience is anecdotal, its good enough for me.

 

[dchum]

We disagree then. I don’t think any average big game hunter, using an unbraked rifle, will hurt their hearing from a few shots taken with no hearing protection. If you’re shooting st prairie dogs all day or culling 20 animals, sure. But the 2 to 10 shots I take every year haven’t had any lasting effects, per my doctor. Though my experience is anecdotal, its good enough for me.

youre not hunting enough.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

In countries where silencers are not heavily regulated like the US, they are used more often than not. There is a reason for that, their benefit far outweighs their downsides in most situations.

I think seeing them as a fad or marketing phenomenon, as you said, is flawed thinking. They aren't new, and they aren't a passing interest. Countries where they are allowed freely, they are the norm. If the current attempt at deregulation in the US stays permanent, they will be the norm here among most shooters especially younger ones. The older generation who dislikes them because they grew up not using them will pass on and the newer generation will adopt them for their benefits.

I don't say that disparagingly, it is just the reality of what will happen based on how it has played out essentially everywhere they are freely allowed.

I didn't think to ask about it, but I noticed that neither of my PH's rifles were outfitted with suppressors. . This was in Zimbabwe in 2022. I think they are allowed there if someone wants to.use them.

 

[dchum]

I didn't think to ask about it, but I noticed that neither of my PH's rifles were outfitted with suppressors. . This was in Zimbabwe in 2022. I think they are allowed there if someone wants to.use them.

They are not.