Airgun Moderators: Effectiveness, Legality, and Recommendations

[JustNeedORingSize]

These devices can dramatically reduce the noise emitted by an airgun, but their usage often sparks lively debate regarding their effectiveness, legality, and ethical considerations.

Moreover, the market offers a myriad of options, each with their pros and cons, adding another layer of complexity to this discussion.

So, let's open the floor for discussion:

1. Do you use a moderator on your airgun? If so, what motivated you to use one?
2. In your experience, how effective are moderators at reducing noise, and does it significantly impact your shooting experience?
3. What are some of the best moderators you've used, and why do you recommend them?
4. How do you navigate the legal landscape in your region regarding the use of moderators?
5. What are the key considerations when choosing a moderator for an airgun?

As always, let's keep the discussion respectful and informative.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

 

[dgeesaman]

1). Yes. They work and they are legal in the US.
2) It helps quite a bit. It goes from hearing protection to none, at a minimum.
3) I’ve used Huggett, Neil Clague, factory mods, and DonnyFLs. I’ve been happy with all of them.
4) I use airgun moderators on airguns and firearm moderators on firearms. I don’t have a reason to cross them up and won’t be doing it.
5) Most decently made moderators work well including barrel shrouds. I just make sure there is something functional for the purpose.

 

[PumaCarl]

What really needs to be discussed is the search function on this forum because this exact topic has been beaten to death already. The only point I would add is about the "ethical considerations." Really? From what angle are you asking this? It seems to me that everybody should be as quiet as possible and not screw with someone else's peace and quiet, if it is at all possible. The only reason to want to hear someone else shooting is to complain about it, and get it banned. If your quiet shooting is actually effecting someone else than you are already breaking a law. We don't need everyone making noise to just have everybody and everthing on edge. People have been shooting arrows and bolts for a long time and they don't make any noise either. I know that the other animals that are not pests appreciate moderators too, because they just go about their business when I shoot airguns. If I use a powder burner it's a very different story. So, here's where I'm coming from on the ethics; it is completely unethical to make people put up with noise that they don't need to hear, that's the people doing the shooting and the neighbors and the other barnyard/woodland creatures! Everyone has been talking about noise pollution for as long as I can remember, here's a solution, but states like NJ won't allow them because what they want, more than peace and quiet, is control. Countries that have far stricter laws than ours have people buying moderators in hardware stores to keep the noise down, yet people around here talk about them like they "cause" crime, which is just plain stupid.

 

[dan_house]

What really needs to be discussed is the search function on this forum because this exact topic has been beaten to death already.

This....^^^^

And not just here on AGN

IVe seen this topic regularly on many other forums too.....

 

[dan_house]

"What really needs to be discussed is the search function on this forum "

well,, had a moment or 6 to reflect on this.... While ^^^^^ is very much on point, the "search" function on most forums is, well, lacking

So telling folks to use search to answer some common questions is valid, but if the search function isnt easy to use, its a moot point. Even using google to find stuff is somewhat outside of most folks' computing abilities. One thing that would help greatly is the ability to use the returned data from the "original" search to fine tune and narrow the scope of your inquiry. Boolean operators would also go a long way.

 

[beerthief]

"What really needs to be discussed is the search function on this forum because this exact topic has been beaten to death already."

EXACTLY !

 

[OldSpook]

Wow. Hostile.

 

[PumaCarl]

"What really needs to be discussed is the search function on this forum "

well,, had a moment or 6 to reflect on this.... While ^^^^^ is very much on point, the "search" function on most forums is, well, lacking

So telling folks to use search to answer some common questions is valid, but if the search function isnt easy to use, its a moot point. Even using google to find stuff is somewhat outside of most folks' computing abilities. One thing that would help greatly is the ability to use the returned data from the "original" search to fine tune and narrow the scope of your inquiry. Boolean operators would also go a long way.

Well, I thought about what you said and realized that I had not tried the search in a while and being fair-minded about it gave it a very lackadaisical try and very easily came up with two long threads. I am sure if I would have put a modicum of actual effort into the search, there would have been many more results. Why am I sure, because I read them all, as they happened, over the years. The search function on this forum use to be, admittedly, bad; but it has gotten better. I really responded though not to hype up the search feature, because they actually are a pain (though useful) to set up, but rather to call for sticky threads at the beginning of each sub-forum to answer the frequently asked questions. I think they can work well if updated regularly. I would guess that there would be less discourse and site traffic if implemented and that's why they're not done, as that would be detrimental to the health of the site, so that's the catch-22 of it.
EDIT: Yes there are sticky threads now, but they don't address the FAQ stuff.