Are silencers effective for hunting?

[sbhooper]

I have never considered a silencer, as I always felt the expense was not justified and I did not want to jump through yet another federal requirement. A friend of mine has shot his silenced stuff on my range. I was underwhelmed to say the least. Yes, it does cut the obvious sound a bit, BUT the supersonic "crack" is still there. The only way that I could see that it would be worth it, is if you were shooting subsonic ammo. Then it would be cut to nearly nothing.

They possibly can make a difference on the range, as far as the need to use more efficient hearing protection. The fact remains, though, that the noise they still make is probably not beneficial to hearing, either. I really don't believe that most hearing damage is done in the field, unless you are in a duck blind, or you have a rifle that you feel needs a muzzle break. I have no use for a break,either, primarily due to the excessive back-blast.

To each their own, but I can buy another scope, or even gun, for what silencers currently cost. If they get them to a reasonable price and sell them over-the-counter, then I may re-think the silencer thing.

 

[MTSLW]

I guess it depends on your definition of effective but I have a hard time hunting without one these days. Not having your ears blown out by a big break is really nice! Also for situations like calling coyotes cans definitely give you more opportunities at additional dogs.

 

[Jeremyc_1999]

I prefer a silencer because I am dear enough as it is.

 

[std7mag]

For me there is little incentive to get one.
The local sheriff has to sign off here in PA. And while legal to hunt with one, unless the sheriff knows you it can be hard to get.

Second to me is the added weight. Just don't need or want it.

Third is type of hunting. Sure we have areas with decent fields, power and gas lines. Otherwise (majority) is thick woods.
Don't need or want the added length.