Suppressors on DG Rifles?

[Red Leg]

Most buffalo get a 2nd or 3rd shot put in them. A suppressor helps with that 100%

Has any hunter here ever had a scope fail during a dangerous game hunt and switch to open sights? Curious to know.

I'll give you two different sorts of examples - though leopard follow-ups - but both of equal potential consequences.

The first was a leopard a number of years ago in Namibia during my first hunt in Africa. It was dark when I shot the cat, and we heard him "chuffing" as he took of with the shot. As the truck drove up, we eased down to it, and under the spot light, a blood trail led off down a dry wash perhaps six feet wide and four feet deep overhung with acacias. It was like entering a black hole. I was using a .338 scoped in fixed mounts. Nick, with his .470 K-gun, and I moved side by side about six inches at a time as his chief tracker swung a flashlight between our shoulders from behind. After about two feet, I realized the scoped rifle had far more utility as a club than a firearm to deal with an inbound anything. Fortunately, we found the cat, dead in midstride, around the first bend. I made a vow (which I have kept) to never return to Africa without dismountable optics and useful open sights.

Four years later, I was back in Namibia with my wife and again hunting with Nick Nolte. This was a plains game hunt, but a neighbor called with news of a client wounded leopard. Nick and his Jack Russells are experts at follow-up. He asked if I wanted to come along to help. How do you say no? This time, however, I carried a rifle with Tally mounts and very visible open sights. We spent a mildly terrifying three or four hours in some of the thickest thorn bush I have ever encountered never quite closing with the cat - probably fortunately. In the late morning heat, the dogs could no longer follow the scent. I would have been nearly helpless with a scope and suppressor.

Under those two conditions not only would a suppressor have contributed exactly zilch, but in the second instance a millimeter of extra length would have been an absolute danger. So no, I have no use for one on a dangerous game hunt.

 

[coreydb]

Nothing wrong with that. I have a suppressor on my 9.3x62

 

[Daisy]

I'll give you two different sorts of examples - though leopard follow-ups - but both of equal potential consequences.

The first was a leopard a number of years ago in Namibia during my first hunt in Africa. It was dark when I shot the cat, and we heard him "chuffing" as he took of with the shot. As the truck drove up, we eased down to it, and under the spot light, a blood trail led off down a dry wash perhaps six feet wide and four feet deep overhung with acacias. It was like entering a black hole. I was using a .338 scoped in fixed mounts. Nick, with his .470 K-gun, and I moved side by side about six inches at a time as his chief tracker swung a flashlight between our shoulders from behind. After about two feet, I realized the scoped rifle had far more utility as a club than a firearm to deal with an inbound anything. Fortunately, we found the cat, dead in midstride, around the first bend. I made a vow (which I have kept) to never return to Africa without dismountable optics and useful open sights.

Four years later, I was back in Namibia with my wife and again hunting with Nick Nolte. This was a plains game hunt, but a neighbor called with news of a client wounded leopard. Nick and his Jack Russells are experts at follow-up. He asked if I wanted to come along to help. How do you say no? This time, however, I carried a rifle with Tally mounts and very visible open sights. We spent a mildly terrifying three or four hours in some of the thickest thorn bush I have ever encountered never quite closing with the cat - probably fortunately. In the late morning heat, the dogs could no longer follow the scent. I would have been nearly helpless with a scope and suppressor.

Under those two conditions not only would a suppressor have contributed exactly zilch, but in the second instance a millimeter of extra length would have been an absolute danger. So no, I have no use for one on a dangerous game hunt.

Great post. Thanks for the stories and experience.

Seems like a shotgun might be nice in those experiences.

 

[Challer]

The correct answer is Blaser Silence approach. But this is barely available in any market and Blaser is crazy expensive with limited offerings. They are on the right track. A more reasonable approach would lure me away from Blaser.

 

[Daisy]

The correct answer is Blaser Silence approach. But this is barely available in any market and Blaser is crazy expensive with limited offerings. They are on the right track. A more reasonable approach would lure me away from Blaser.

I guess expense is relative. Compared to some of these double rifles used Blaser is a steal.

 

[ianevans]

Ive just ordered a suppressor for my 416 . will inform you all with progress

 

[samson7x]

Ive just ordered a suppressor for my 416 . will inform you all with progress

Which model did you go with?

 

[matt85]

Has any hunter here ever had a scope fail during a dangerous game hunt and switch to open sights? Curious to know.

I have had a scope fail on a hunt and sadly that rifle did not have irons. South African baggage handlers can be especially rough at times. I ended up borrowing a gun from another hunter.

Open sights can be made tall enough to use over a suppressor. Or a suppressor can be removed in a pinch.

 

[Datchew]

I'll give you two different sorts of examples - though leopard follow-ups - but both of equal potential consequences.

The first was a leopard a number of years ago in Namibia during my first hunt in Africa. It was dark when I shot the cat, and we heard him "chuffing" as he took of with the shot. As the truck drove up, we eased down to it, and under the spot light, a blood trail led off down a dry wash perhaps six feet wide and four feet deep overhung with acacias. It was like entering a black hole. I was using a .338 scoped in fixed mounts. Nick, with his .470 K-gun, and I moved side by side about six inches at a time as his chief tracker swung a flashlight between our shoulders from behind. After about two feet, I realized the scoped rifle had far more utility as a club than a firearm to deal with an inbound anything. Fortunately, we found the cat, dead in midstride, around the first bend. I made a vow (which I have kept) to never return to Africa without dismountable optics and useful open sights.

Four years later, I was back in Namibia with my wife and again hunting with Nick Nolte. This was a plains game hunt, but a neighbor called with news of a client wounded leopard. Nick and his Jack Russells are experts at follow-up. He asked if I wanted to come along to help. How do you say no? This time, however, I carried a rifle with Tally mounts and very visible open sights. We spent a mildly terrifying three or four hours in some of the thickest thorn bush I have ever encountered never quite closing with the cat - probably fortunately. In the late morning heat, the dogs could no longer follow the scent. I would have been nearly helpless with a scope and suppressor.

Under those two conditions not only would a suppressor have contributed exactly zilch, but in the second instance a millimeter of extra length would have been an absolute danger. So no, I have no use for one on a dangerous game hunt.

Great story, but anecdotal.
No logical proof that having a suppressor or not having one would have added or subtracted from the risk.

Pick your tool and take personal agency. Engineers have long had methods to evaluate risk based on quantified methods as opposed to the risk of "what if's" and similar folklore.

It's called FMEA.

I'm interested in a justification on how "a millimeter of extra length would have been an absolute danger."

Please expound.

 

[Red Leg]

Great story, but anecdotal.
No logical proof that having a suppressor or not having one would have added or subtracted from the risk.

Pick your tool and take personal agency. Engineers have long had methods to evaluate risk based on quantified methods as opposed to the risk of "what if's" and similar folklore.

It's called FMEA.

I'm interested in a justification on how "a millimeter of extra length would have been an absolute danger."

Please expound.

All personal experiences are by definition anecdotal. At least they are actually mine as opposed to something I heard or saw on the internet.

But it is pretty simple. The longer the overall rifle length, the more difficult it is to bring into immediate action. You mentioned all your buddies in SOF - I was unclear if those were your personal experiences or anecdotal from others. In any case, I have had some interaction myself over the years. It is why we arm them, unless a specialized mission - suppressed or not, with very short overall length weapons where suppressor length is irrelevant. Which is why the analogy frankly has absolutely nothing to do with firearms needed for DG hunting.

In a nighttime follow-up situation, a suppressor offers zero advantage and the potential of snagging things an unsuppressed weapon would not have. Moreover, a shot at a charging leopard under those conditions would be instinctive. I would just as soon not try that technique with either a scope or beer can attached to my rifle.

If you can't figure out the second, we have no basis of discussion.

 

[grand veneur]

Anyone with a little DG hunting experience knows that a rifle designed for this purpose requires, above all, open sights. A scope is also a huge advantage as it simplifies a lot when it comes to placing a good shot under not always ideal conditions. In all cases, the scope must be able to be removed very quickly in order to switch to the open sight. The use or not of a scope for DG hunting could be a topic in itself, but since we are talking about suppressors, this tool must also be taken into consideration.

From personal experience, I consider shooting with a scope at very close range, as can be the case during a dangerous situation, to be extremely risky. With a suppressor mounted on your rifle you want not have another solution, but in my opinion you will never be able to acquire the target as quickly and repeatedly as with open sights. For this reason, the first thing I always did after the first shot when a buffalo was no longer visible and guide or trackers don't knew whether it was lying dead or only wounded, was to approach without a scope on my rifle. It is well known that a buffalo thought to be dead can get up at the last moment.

Anyone who always hunts with a PH gets often a false sense of security and believes that many devices, including suppressors, can always be used under safe conditions without any problems. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

 

[farmer_john]

I guess the only question I would have is........why?

Roughly 50% recoil reduction.

 

[375Fox]

Roughly 50% recoil reduction.

50% would be a pretty optimistic number. Maybe 20% and a slower recoil velocity.

 

[Datchew]

All personal experiences are by definition anecdotal. At least they are actually mine as opposed to something I heard or saw on the internet.

But it is pretty simple. The longer the overall rifle length, the more difficult it is to bring into immediate action. You mentioned all your buddies in SOF - I was unclear if those were your personal experiences or anecdotal from others. In any case, I have had some interaction myself over the years. It is why we arm them, unless a specialized mission - suppressed or not, with very short overall length weapons where suppressor length is irrelevant. Which is why the analogy frankly has absolutely nothing to do with firearms needed for DG hunting.

In a nighttime follow-up situation, a suppressor offers zero advantage and the potential of snagging things an unsuppressed weapon would not have. Moreover, a shot at a charging leopard under those conditions would be instinctive. I would just as soon not try that technique with either a scope or beer can attached to my rifle.

If you can't figure out the second, we have no basis of discussion.

We are not at odds on length increasing difficulty of maneuvering.
My question was how does adding a can increase risk of danger. Specifically, the 1mm of length creating absolute danger was referring to having a suppressor.

You're conflating my reference to another post where I challenged another member who also was making the case that adding a can increases danger.

You and others have also stated the increased risk of snagging due to having a suppressor.
A suppressor is typically cylindrical.
Iron sights have multiple angles and typically a bead, a blade, or a hood on the front.
Having crawled through plants and thorns with both options, I am of the opinion the suppressor offers the same or less "snag-ability."

We've also heard the folklore of increased risk because of, in your words, "a scope or beer can attached to my rifle."

An illuminated 1x variable scope provides a red dot experience that many prefer to irons. Especially in low light. This is quite handy when pointing a weapon at a large, dark-haired object in very low light.

My suppressor on my 375 is 18mm larger in diameter than my old 870 wingmaster in 12 ga.
That's about an increase of an adult male pinky finger. An increase of 9mm in radius.

If that minute amount of sight picture being blocked is the show stopper for you, I'd encourage you to rethink your activities because you are operating with very little margin for error.

Frankly at almost 4 feet from your eye, I'd say it's difficult to detect that delta unless your biased to look for it.

What about on a double rifle? I would guess they're about 40mm in diameter.

But I can't speak to the doubles as they're not my jam.
I can say the rest is based on my actual experiences measuring, testing, and using things in the field and not passing along folklore i heard on the internet.

 

[Datchew]

50% would be a pretty optimistic number. Maybe 20% and a slower recoil velocity.

I would agree with this. 30% would be generous.