Long Range Sub-sonic

[Mencius]

Ok, let's say I was thinking of getting a gun to hunt deer with and an effective range of 200 yards, but wanted it to be as quiet as possible. What caliber/gun would you think would fit the bill?

I was thinking something like a single shot Ruger 1 in 444 or 45-70 with sub-sonic ammo. I realize it is going to have something like a very steep rainbow trajectory, but when it gets there it should still have a little momentum to it.

Thoughts?

 

[TurtlePhish]

Find something that you can load ridiculously heavy bullets in. .45-70 sounds like a good candidate.

If I could pick anything, probably .510 Whisper.

Since this is in NFA, I'm assuming this is suppressed?

 

[Mencius]

Yeah, I was thinking suppressed and sub-sonic. Going for a deer gun up to 200 yards.

That 510 whisper sounds like a decent candidate...

 

[Flyincedar]

We have some .308 subsonic that when suppressed, results in zero recoil and almost no sound. My daughter is 11 and really tiny, and often shoots not only her cricket, but the .308 as well. I have only shot them to 150yds, and am really not sure what kind of energy they would have when they get there. Would hate to recommend that and have you end up with a wounded deer on your hands.

 

[CoRoMo]

A gentlemen in my gun club had his suppressed .300BLK out with the heavy subsonic loads and was nailing a little gong over and over at somewhere around 250 yards. Super quiet and surprisingly accurate. The question is whether there is any bullet available that would expand at those ranges/velocities and what energy you're left with. Maybe a cast lead bullet would be in order.

 

[KingTiger]

These guys claim to have subsonic ammo that expands. No experience & I don't know if it will feed in an AR.

http://lehighdefense.com/Subsonic.html

 

[jmorris]

I have never hunted deer with subsonic, not legal here until this year but no real reason anyway as I only get one of them at a time. So I'll likely use the same ammo in my 308 as always just with a can on it sounds pretty much the same as a .22.

For hogs on the other hand I built a suppressor for a 458 socom. Pretty much the same as factory 45-70 in power range but less case volume issues to deal with when dropping subsonic. Uses magnum pistol powders, so it's pretty much all burned up by the time the bullet exits the barrel.

I have used a few different bullets but 405grain SP work fine, remember a 405 out of an old trap door is only going 1300 fps+\- so your pretty close to designed speed.

Not like taking a bullet designed for 2800fps all the way to 1000 fps.

 

[MasterSergeantA]

Very nice, jmorris! I've been contemplating doing something similar with my .458. What scope is that?

 

[Ranb]

1050 fps at the muzzle, bullet loses about 100 fps at 200 yards, 150 fps for the shorter fatter .458

300 blk (220 RN ) - 440 ft-lbs
338 whisper (300 RN) - 600 ft-lbs
458 socom (535 RN) - 990 ft-lbs
510 whisper (800 RN) - 1600 ft-lbs

I own the above suppressed rifles but have not hunted with them yet, and might never do so. I am developing a supersonic load for the 338 whisper that matches the muzzle energy of the 30-30 but beats it in accuracy and power at 200 yards.

While I might use the subsonic 338 on deer; the 458 and 510 on elk/moose out to 200 yards, I would rather use a suppressed 308 with standard ammo than any of the above.

Ranb

 

[56hawk]

If you want to be really cheap, get a Handi Rifle in 500 S&W and shoot 700 grain bullets out of it.

 

[chaser_2332]

LEHIGH bullets are badass

 

[Swampman]

This is just my personal opinion, but I think 200 yards is pushing the limits of ethical hunting when using subsonics on deer.
It doesn't matter what cartridge or caliber you use, if you have the muzzle velocity at a reliably subsonic level like 1040 fps, it's going to take over 6 tenths of a second to get to 200 yards. A lot can happen in 6/10ths of a second. Proper range estimation is critical as well, a fairly small error can cause a miss, or worse yet, a wounded deer that runs off to die in the woods.

Another factor, for me at least, is accuracy. I use my own cast bullets when hunting with subsonics and unfortunately they seem to fall into two categories.
1- Bullets that will group fairly well at 200 yards when pushed at subsonic velocities.
2- Bullets that have good terminal ballistics at subsonic velocities.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with anything that'll do both at the same time.

Even if I came up with something that worked, I probably wouldn't ever use them on deer at that range, but hogs are another matter entirely...

 

[JustinJ]

This is just my personal opinion, but I think 200 yards is pushing the limits of ethical hunting when using subsonics on deer.

Agreed. I can understand using a can so as not to disturb neighbors but i'm curious of what legitimate need there is to hunt deer completely undetected.

 

[IdahoSkies]

To protect your own hearing without carting around ears on your head. Suppression doesn't have to be always about the target. Sometimes the benefit of suppression is for the shooter.

 

[Sam. Colt]

Heard a great quote during the Texas TPWD public hearings on the use of suppressors for taking game animals. "If guns were invented today, OSHA would require suppressors."

 

[Swampman]

I'm not opposed to hunting deer as quietly as possible, it's just that thousands of deer every year are wounded and lost by hunters using weaponry that is far easier to hit with and far more capable of instantly incapacitating a deer than any subsonic round fired by a weapon that doesn't require wheels or tracks to carry and fire it.
A man that makes a reasoned decision to hunt with a .357 Magnum revolver has my full support as long as he realizes that he has to set his (and his weapons) limits and stick by them. If practice and testing have shown you that 100 yards is the maximum range at which you can consistently make clean kills, stick by that, even when you see a 175 class buck standing 140 yards away.

That's what ethics are all about, and the ethics of a hunter have to be strong enough to stand alone, because unlike just about any other sport, in most cases, only the hunter himself will know if he lived up to them or not. (I'm not trying to exclude the ladies here, but if you saw what this looked like when I tried the "he or she" thing, you'd have either laughed or ).
Rant OVER.

 

[JustinJ]

To protect your own hearing without carting around ears on your head. Suppression doesn't have to be always about the target. Sometimes the benefit of suppression is for the shooter.

Generally safe hearing levels can be still be attained by the use of a sound suppressor even with supersonic bullets. There is no need to go subsonic and is ethically very questionable for deer hunting, especially at 200 yards.

 

[Skribs]

I don't really like loud noises, so I can see a desire to bring the noise levels down below just what is "safe".

 

[wally]

I don't really like loud noises, so I can see a desire to bring the noise levels down below just what is "safe".

Suppressed .308 with "ear muff" earpro are really quiet, and they muffs help keep your ears warm If you buy the gated amplifier kind you can be even more sensitive to the sounds of nature than without them.

 

[jmorris]

This is just my personal opinion, but I think 200 yards is pushing the limits of ethical hunting when using subsonics on deer.

Even if I came up with something that worked, I probably wouldn't ever use them on deer at that range, but hogs are another matter entirely...

What is the ethical difference between a hog and a deer?

 

[Swampman]

Whitetail deer are a priceless game resource and a natural part of the environment here.
I feel that they deserve our respect, husbandry and protection from overexploitation.

Wild hogs are pretty much like huge fire ants, they're non-native, they destroy nearly everything they touch and they have no effective natural predators here.
I would happily machine gun them all from a helicopter.

 

[JustinJ]

Despite the invasive nature of wild hogs they didn't immigrate here and release themselves into the wild. It is unethical to cause undue suffering in any animal.

 

[Mencius]

I tried to stay out of this, but it wouldn't stop. I guess I might as well chip in to the "discussion."

Generally safe hearing levels can be [sic] still be attained by the use of a sound suppressor even with supersonic bullets.

<rant>Generally safe? Who are you to tell me what is safe for my ears? How much hearing is lost at the "generally safe" level?

Hearing protection is not the only reason to try to have the shot as quiet as possible. In my particular case there are several reasons to have my gun as quiet as possible and I don't need to justify or list them for your approval.

Also, your generally safe ambiguous-ness leads to how many shots can be shot and still be safe? I like to shoot with my deer load, more than once, at before going into the woods. Is my hearing generally safe after 2 shots? 3? 10? How many?

I have some young kids I would like to sit in the stand with me in the coming years. Is this "generally safe" level safe enough for young kids? Are you going to now tell me how unethical it is to take a kid into a tree stand with me?</rant>

There is no need to go subsonic

No need? Says who? You and Barack going to dictate to me what I need now?

and is ethically very questionable for deer hunting, especially at 200 yards.

<rant>Who are you to tell me what is ethically questionable? What defines ethical in this instance any way? Does PETA determine what is ethical? Deer have to die in 10 seconds, 12 seconds, 30 seconds, 5 minutes or what? You can make unethical shots at 20 yards with a full powered 30-06 as well. You are assuming poor bullet placement by questioning how ethical it is. With proper bullet placement with a correctly set up gun the deer will be "ethically" killed, by my definition.</rant>

It is unethical to cause undue suffering in any animal.

<rant>What is undue suffering? (See rants above.) I guess it boils down to who do you think you are to question someone in a situation you barely know anything about as if you are the "Decider of Ethics in Hunting"? Right now, I typically hunt with a full powered .308 and have never taken a shot over ~160 yards. Even though I am very confident I could easily make a clean kill on a deer out to at least 300. In my life I have never missed or wounded a deer and I don't want you dictating your ethics to me.

I did not post here to learn about your ethical mores. I just wanted to know what sub-sonic, suppressed rifle would take a deer at 200 yards or less. If there is nothing out there that can make a clean kill at 200 then I might need to shorten the distance some, which is fine, but I think a suppressed subsonic round can make a clean kill at 200 yards.</rant>

 

[JustinJ]

<rant>Generally safe? Who are you to tell me what is safe for my ears? How much hearing is lost at the "generally safe" level?

For your ears? Are yours somehow different than other human ears? I'm nobody to say what a safe hearing limit is but OSHA is.

No need? Says who? You and Barack going to dictate to me what I need now?

Yes, that is exactly right. Me expressing my opinion obviously equates to Barack Obama and I getting together and drafting an executive order for you specifically regarding the use of a suppressor. I'm sorry you're bitter but that comment is absurd.

<rant>Who are you to tell me what is ethically questionable? What defines ethical in this instance any way? Does PETA determine what is ethical? Deer have to die in 10 seconds, 12 seconds, 30 seconds, 5 minutes or what? You can make unethical shots at 20 yards with a full powered 30-06 as well. You are assuming poor bullet placement by questioning how ethical it is. With proper bullet placement with a correctly set up gun the deer will be "ethically" killed, by my definition.</rant>

I'm a person with a rational brain who is able to realize that causing excessive pain in an animal is wrong. What is ethical is for a hunter to take all reasonalable measures to avoid such. By your logic each person should be able to determine themselves what the ethical limit is? Let's go ahead and legalize dog fighting and eliminate all animal husbandry regulations while we're at it.

<rant>What is undue suffering? (See rants above.) I guess it boils down to who do you think you are to question someone in a situation you barely know anything about as if you are the "Decider of Ethics in Hunting"? Right now, I typically hunt with a full powered .308 and have never taken a shot over ~160 yards. Even though I am very confident I could easily make a clean kill on a deer out to at least 300. In my life I have never missed or wounded a deer and I don't want you dictating your ethics to me.

My god, a person expressing his opinion is not him dictating anything to you. Get a grip.

 

[Casefull]

Ethics, as are most standards, open to interpretation. Some would say it is unethical to put down a sick animal with a bullet to the head versus having a veterinariani administer an IV poison. There is nothing nice or pleasant about death. Taking of any life is not something that should be taken lightly and when one confuses ethics with eliminating the messy aspects of taking said life then that person is lying to himself. I too find it irritating on this and other forums when: You ask for technical advice and it turns into an ethics discussion. Bowhunting is encouraged in most states and it is brutal for the animals. It is common for the stuck animal to get away and be crippled or die over a period of hours or days. Talk about the ethical value of bow hunting. I am a hunter but please do not get on your high horse about the ethics of a shot or whether a pig, or deer, or wolf, kangaroo, etc. deserves to live or die because we like it or detest it.