I've been thinking about this proposed regulation that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is considering: allow hunters to use silencers and sound suppressors on rifles to hunt deer. I'm not sure how I feel about it.

I already use a silenced firearm for whitetails. It's called a bow.

The real discussion is about rifles altered so that the sound is mostly silenced or suppressed. None of the silencers I'm familiar with are totally silent. And all of them compromise the speed and power of the bullet.

When you fire a rifle, the bullet leaves the barrel at something in excess of 1,100 feet per second — faster than the speed of sound. That crack you hear is basically a small sonic boom. To eliminate that portion of the noise, the velocity of the bullet has to be reduced within the gun, and that impacts the hunter's effective range.

It's a matter of physics.

The proposal that Texas Parks and Wildlife commissioners have sent to the Texas Register for public comment actually refers to altering shotguns and rifles for the purpose of hunting game birds and game animals.

I'm not sure there is anyone out there who would consider silencing a shotgun to hunt quail or turkeys.

So what we're talking about here is deer, the Captain America of game animals, the apparent reason that Texas Parks and Wildlife exists today. They are to hunting what trophy bass are to fishing.

Last Wednesday, without any discussion, commissioners approved the silencer proposal for public comment. Kind of the silencer treatment on decision-making. I was disappointed about that, because it came out of the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee with no warning and no explanation about why this should be a hunting regulation.

I know there were others in attendance who had questions.

One fellow identified himself as a police officer and said he already uses rifles with suppressors and silencers to hunt hogs and other non-game animals. That's legal under Texas law, and he's hoping the commission passes the silencer rule when it's up for adoption at the March meeting.

I wanted to talk with him about it, but he disappeared during the meeting, and I didn't get a chance.

I know that there are some experienced game wardens who think that allowing hunters to use silencers is a really bad idea. Not only do they think silenced rifles could make their job of catching poachers more difficult, but they also are just kind of opposed to that kind of hunting in general.

Wardens have some influence with the commission on these matters, but they don't get to vote.

Here's one thing I feel about silencers on hunting rifles: I don't think there will be a rush on gunsmiths as people hurry to get their rifles cut up and altered. There are recoil reducers and some suppressors on the market already, and plenty of people use them. But the details of getting a silencer are going to be a little too much for most people. I think.

First, you'll have to have a federal firearms license, which costs $200. Then you'll need the rifle — which most of the time will be a military style, semi-auto selling for up to $1,500 — and the silencer/suppressor, which is going to be about $400. That's more than $2,000 just to start.

Then, to make the gun really quiet, you'll need hand-loaded, sub-sonic ammunition that costs more than $50 a box in .308 or .223.

I've always had a knee-jerk, negative reaction to those military-style rifles, sometimes called "black rifles." I think they're ugly and far too tactical-looking for me, but there is a growing hunting market for them that can't be denied.

So am I opposed to it? I don't think so. Not because I'll get one, but because I just don't think it matters.

I have shot suppressed .22s, loaded with Remington Subsonic ammo, and it was fun and quiet and easy to do. I see no reason not to use a .22 rifle like that for squirrels and other small game. But that was someone else's rifle, and my Ruger M77 with the same ammo is still pretty quiet. I see no need to change.

I can see why someone might want to use a really quiet rifle to work on an over-population of hogs, or even to put some new spark in a deer season by doing something different. It's not for me, but I don't think I care.

I do think I'd still rather hear the crack of a big bore rifle split the quiet of a cold opening morning. The poof of a suppressed gun just doesn't seem right, but it can still be legal.

mleggett@statesman.com; @MikeLeggett1; 445-3955