Quoted:
Thought I'd bump this and ask if anyone has any info on this topic.

Quoted:
The old school NCR members have been openly against suppressor for hunting based in the idea that it will promote poaching.

They were and are the same ones that were against allowing crossbows for deer hunting. The handicap hunters got crossbow hunting privileges first.
Took a long time for the general hunting population to be able to use a crossbow. Yet the crossbow is a excellent poaching weapon on deer.

This will be a HARD uphill battle that I think the ASA might not understand the politics of the old guard NCR members. They should go in baby steps. Get suppressor use for varmint hunting / pest control first. Then push the bigger picture when nothing bad comes about.

As an owner of a few cans I am patiently awaiting the use suppressors for hunting in Michigan.

Quoted:
Great news!   Is there anything we should be doing to help this along?

Quoted:


In the new magazine suppressor they have an article about ASA . It has a map showing hunting with a supressor legal states . We are shown as LEGAL did I miss something ???



http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/ad126/ebgb68/20160109_144438_zps9vhw1zwv.jpg

MICHIGAN: SUPPRESSOR HUNTING REFORM NEEDS YOUR HELP
Written by ASA on January 12, 2016 - Comments

Last month, the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) heard testimony on the merits of suppressor hunting at a public hearing in Lansing, MI. During the meeting, a member of the Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division delivered a presentation to the NRC expressing that their department does not object to allowing hunters to use suppressors. At that meeting, representatives from the American Suppressor Association, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and Gemtech all provided testimony in support of making Michigan the 38th state to legalize suppressor hunting.

On January 14th, the NRC will consider Wildlife Conservation Order Amendment No. 1 of 2016, a resolution to eliminate the prohibition on the use of legally possessed suppressors while hunting. If approved, the measure will be up for a final vote at the February 11th NRC meeting. However, earlier today, the ASA learned of two arbitrary and unenforceable restrictions included in the proposed rule. These restrictions would:

   Only allow “the use of suppressors capable of a decibel reduction of no more than 30 decibels as provided by the manufacturers specifications.”
   Prohibit “the use of subsonic ammunition (velocity less than 1,126 feet per second) in combination with suppressors.”

While the ASA supports the legalization of suppressor hunting in Michigan, we unequivocally oppose the proposed restrictions placed on decibel reduction, and the prohibition of the use of subsonic ammunition for hunting. These proposed restrictions, which have not been enacted in any of the 37 states where suppressor hunting is currently legal, would do nothing to enhance public safety. Instead, they would confuse hunters and enforcement agents alike, who would oftentimes have little to no way of knowing whether or not the suppressor in question provided too much hearing protection, or if the ammunition being used was not quite fast enough.

Many suppressor manufacturers, including SilencerCo, do not list decibel reduction levels as a standalone number in their specifications. Instead, they publish average overall dB levels for their suppressors by caliber type. For instance, according to the SilencerCo website, the Harvester 30 will decrease the sound level of a .308 Win rifle to an average of 136.4 dB. When this is the case, how would enforcement agents determine if the suppressor is capable of reducing the signature by more than 30 dB?

In addition, the actual signature reduction of a suppressor is determined by a host of factors, including, but not limited to the operating system of the firearm, barrel length, muzzle devices being used when unsuppressed, caliber, and ammunition. With so many variables, it would be impossible for enforcement agents to know if the suppressor reduced the signature of the gun it is attached to without testing the firearm/suppressor/ammunition combination on the spot.

In order to avoid scenarios where law enforcement agents would have to interrupt hunts to test suppressors, and/or ammunition in the field, we need your help to politely urge the NRC to drop these unnecessary and unenforceable provisions from the proposed rule. They can be reached at: [email protected], or by phone at (517) 284-6237.

Quoted:
"Ammo when fired its velocity does not reach 1126fps, as provided by the manufactures specifications"

That's about the most unenforceable, poorly written, plan out dumb, piece of pseudo legislation I've ever read. Obviously by dumb asses who have never fired a suppressor. There are about a hundred different variables that go into muzzle velocity.

So, the manufacturer states the velocity is 1200fps, typical hunting 22lr. I shoot it through a suppressed 22 pistol. Due to barrel length its now ~1000fps and now subsonic. Not manufactured by the company as subsonic but comes out the barrel as such. Is that a violation? The order states " provided by the manufactures specifications". I think not, but hate to be the SOB having to fight that battle in court.

What about hand loading. I load 300BO at 1200 out of a 16" barrel. When I shoot it out of a 8" ATF approved SBR its now subsonic.

For that matter if I hand load, due I even meet the definition of a "manufacturer"? ATF says not if its for personal use. Therefore hand loads don't qualify under the order.

What about temperature? Some loads, specially 22lr, will go subsonic out of a rifle based on temperature.

What about the variances in the manufacturing process? If you've ever shot a suppressed pistol, you know some go subsonic, some go supersonic.

As stated, some manufacturers don't list the decibel reduction for their suppressors. Plus, try to find a decent suppressor that only does 30db.

Only Bureaucrats can take a easy to regulate and enforce activity, and totally f__k it up.

Quoted:
"Ammo when fired its velocity does not reach 1126fps, as provided by the manufactures specifications"

That's about the most unenforceable, poorly written, plan out dumb, piece of pseudo legislation I've ever read. Obviously by dumb asses who have never fired a suppressor. There are about a hundred different variables that go into muzzle velocity.

So, the manufacturer states the velocity is 1200fps, typical hunting 22lr. I shoot it through a suppressed 22 pistol. Due to barrel length its now ~1000fps and now subsonic. Not manufactured by the company as subsonic but comes out the barrel as such. Is that a violation? The order states " provided by the manufactures specifications". I think not, but hate to be the SOB having to fight that battle in court.

What about hand loading. I load 300BO at 1200 out of a 16" barrel. When I shoot it out of a 8" ATF approved SBR its now subsonic.

For that matter if I hand load, due I even meet the definition of a "manufacturer"? ATF says not if its for personal use. Therefore hand loads don't qualify under the order.

What about temperature? Some loads, specially 22lr, will go subsonic out of a rifle based on temperature.

What about the variances in the manufacturing process? If you've ever shot a suppressed pistol, you know some go subsonic, some go supersonic.

As stated, some manufacturers don't list the decibel reduction for their suppressors. Plus, try to find a decent suppressor that only does 30db.

Only Bureaucrats can take a easy to regulate and enforce activity, and totally f__k it up.

Quoted:
I love the progress.  This is great news.  Im actually not surprised about the no subs rule.  You guys need to realize many of those NRC guys aren't as bad as you think.  Im torn really.   I favor less restrictions.   However,  I dont agree with subsonic hunting for deer sized animals.   Ive seen far too many deer lost over the years with full power 30.06 loads to believe subsonic deer hunting is a good idea.  Now we have a bunch of novice shooters/hunters believing the sub sonic expanding nonsense and trying to take a 200lb deer at 100 yards.  Its not a good plan.... the NRC knows this and other states do as well.  You will see many move to stop sub sonic hunting for deer.  Hog control,  sure.  Why not, its a cull.  It simply doesnt make sense with deer.  They will likely keep this provision and dump the unenforceable 30db rule.  

Before anyone gets all bow hunting on me.....  my broad head doesnt need to expand to make a large very reliable hole.  Shot placement is still key of course, so a moot point.  Then it falls to energy and range.  I shoot a compound and hold it inside of 30 yards for an ethical kill.  Id go a bit further with a crossbow.  If subsonic hunters did the same it wouldnt be an issue.

Let this go guys...  read about results of subsonic larger game hunting in other states.   Then sit back and think for a minute...  WHY do you need to shoot subs hunting?  Yes yes I already acknowledge freedom but we all agree hunting needs regulations.   What does a hunter gain hunting deer with subs over supers?  Nothing... nada zip.  Those few decibels of sonic crack are not the difference in hearing damage.

Quoted:
Let this go guys...  read about results of subsonic larger game hunting in other states.   Then sit back and think for a minute...  WHY do you need to shoot subs hunting?  Yes yes I already acknowledge freedom but we all agree hunting needs regulations.   What does a hunter gain hunting deer with subs over supers?  Nothing... nada zip.  Those few decibels of sonic crack are not the difference in hearing damage.

Quoted:
I love the progress.  This is great news.  Im actually not surprised about the no subs rule.  You guys need to realize many of those NRC guys aren't as bad as you think.  Im torn really.   I favor less restrictions.   However,  I dont agree with subsonic hunting for deer sized animals.   Ive seen far too many deer lost over the years with full power 30.06 loads to believe subsonic deer hunting is a good idea.  Now we have a bunch of novice shooters/hunters believing the sub sonic expanding nonsense and trying to take a 200lb deer at 100 yards.  Its not a good plan.... the NRC knows this and other states do as well.  You will see many move to stop sub sonic hunting for deer.  Hog control,  sure.  Why not, its a cull.  It simply doesnt make sense with deer.  They will likely keep this provision and dump the unenforceable 30db rule.  

Before anyone gets all bow hunting on me.....  my broad head doesnt need to expand to make a large very reliable hole.  Shot placement is still key of course, so a moot point.  Then it falls to energy and range.  I shoot a compound and hold it inside of 30 yards for an ethical kill.  Id go a bit further with a crossbow.  If subsonic hunters did the same it wouldnt be an issue.

Let this go guys...  read about results of subsonic larger game hunting in other states.   Then sit back and think for a minute...  WHY do you need to shoot subs hunting?  Yes yes I already acknowledge freedom but we all agree hunting needs regulations.   What does a hunter gain hunting deer with subs over supers?  Nothing... nada zip.  Those few decibels of sonic crack are not the difference in hearing damage.

Quoted:


http://www.lehighdefense.com/collections/rifle/products/300-aac-blackout-whisper-194gr-subsonic-maximum-expansion-ammo?variant=1066138648  

When I first read this post I thought perhaps it was written by Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein . But seriously, which of the other 37 States that currently allow hunting with suppressors have ANY restrictions on dB reduction or a ban on sub-sonic ammo when using a suppressor? Also, can you point me to the page in the most recent Michigan hunting guide that banned hunters from this past rifle season from using sub-sonic ammo WITHOUT a suppressor because I couldn't find it.

If you read the memo that was sent from the various DNR entities to the commissioners you would've seen that ethical kills had nothing to do with it, it was referenced in a sentence that 'neither citizens or officers could hear the direction or distance shot came from'. It was very clear they were talking about poaching and I addressed that in my detailed e-mail to the commissioners by asking them if that memo was alluding that suppressor owners would suddenly become poachers if they used sub-sonic ammo with a suppressor, the answer is of course not.

Quoted:
Exactly my thoughts. I'm not even thinking about subs on large game. My hope is to hunt small game with them. Would spook the squirrels, bunnies, and yotes less and also save my ears (which already need earing aids due to shooting).