I've only ever heard a suppressed .22 pistol in real life and the sound of the action was louder than the report of the pistol. I know that you can't suppress the crack of a high speed bullet, but what would you compare the sound of a suppressed mid range center fire to? A hand clap? A door slamming? a bicycle tube popping? Car back firing? What? We can use suppressors here for hunting, but as I understand it the Europeans are way ahead of us in this technology. A UK Government hunter from another forum a few years back used a suppressed 6.5x55 and it read like the suppressor threaded on to the end of the barrel, but the suppressor came back over the top of the barrel instead of out in front of it. I've yet to see one like that advertised.
That's called a reflex design as I found in my research. It has chambers that come back from the muzzle over the barrel to make the total suppressor and rifle shorter. The front sight has to be farther behind the muzzle to account for the length of the suppressor. Hope that is more clear then mud. Someone have a link to that Swedish design? Might be more clear. I haven't found a US made one and don't know of an importer for those devices. Likely illegal to import or prohibitively expensive. Someone like Silencerco might consider making one. You will have to inquire. Rusty
Most that I've seen/heard are not really "hearing safe".......as in, you wouldn't want to sit down at the bench and fire 20 rounds without ear protection.
Noise over 140 decibels is said to cause instant nerve damage and hearing damage does occur at much lower levels, depending on exposure......there is plenty of suppressor test data available with a quick search......
The level of noise reduction provided is dependent on many factors, including size, design, materials, atmospheric conditions, firearm type and ammunition used with that said the few Ive heard sounded like a 22 rim fire magnum.
ime, a rifle with a suppressor, shooting sub-sonic ammo (22lr), is quite tame and not to a level requiring hearing protection. however, a center fire rifle, equipped with a suppressor and shooting super-sonic ammunition (factory 308 for example) absolutely requires hearing protection. ymmv.
I just got done shooting 50 rds of 7-08 and 50 rds of .308 suppressed with no ear protection. That was the whole point in investing in a couple cans. It's not quiet but the noise is away from you.
I have a 7 mm remington that has a silencerco supressor. It reduces the noise, and recoil by about 75%. I still wear ear protection. Remember, unless shooting subsonic, the bullet is still going to make a pretty audible crack.
I have a 7 mm remington that has a silencerco supressor. It reduces the noise, and recoil by about 75%. I still wear ear protection. Remember, unless shooting subsonic, the bullet is still going to make a pretty audible crack.
Honest question, so don't take it the wrong way, why go to the trouble of getting/using the suppressor if your using ear protection anyway?
I have a 7 mm remington that has a silencerco supressor. It reduces the noise, and recoil by about 75%. I still wear ear protection. Remember, unless shooting subsonic, the bullet is still going to make a pretty audible crack.
Honest question, so don't take it the wrong way, why go to the trouble of getting/using the suppressor if your using ear protection anyway?
This rifle has a night vision scope used to kill wolves, bears, and the occasional lion or coyote. Used mainly for sitting over livestock kills. As such, I wear hearing protection while practicing with it. While sitting at night, I don't use hearing protection. Always trying to save my ears while practicing.
I also might add that the suppressor eliminates the flame out of the barrel that will damage a night vision scope. They don't like sudden bright lights.
If you look at suppressor test results you will find that nearly all suppressed centerfire rifles still produce 130+ decibels......hearing damage is cumulative and 130 decibels will damage your hearing.
If you look at suppressor test results you will find that nearly all suppressed centerfire rifles still produce 130+ decibels......hearing damage is cumulative and 130 decibels will damage your hearing.
Which is what 30 dB ear protection provides, if worn properly.
If you look at suppressor test results you will find that nearly all suppressed centerfire rifles still produce 130+ decibels......hearing damage is cumulative and 130 decibels will damage your hearing.
OSHA hearing safe level for impulse sounds is 140 dB. Most suppressed centerfire rifles fall below that number.
As I recall, the maximum safe exposure time for 130-140 dB per 24 hours is something like one second. In other words, a few shots are fine - say in a big game hunting scenario. If you're going to sit on a prairie dog town and rattle off 500 rounds in a day, you'll want hearing protection. But then again, it's not hard to wear hearing protection in a static environment, like on a dog town or at a range.
Most that I've seen/heard are not really "hearing safe".......as in, you wouldn't want to sit down at the bench and fire 20 rounds without ear protection.
Noise over 140 decibels is said to cause instant nerve damage and hearing damage does occur at much lower levels, depending on exposure......there is plenty of suppressor test data available with a quick search......
I sure don't know what kind of cans you've been around....but not having to wear ear pro is one of the primary reasons I like them.
So apart from a suppressor for external noise, something that makes good sense, how do you stop hearing damage to the cochlear from the vibration on firing that travels through the stock (something apparently exaggerated with fiberglass stocks) and which travels through the cheek/jaw into the cochlear? Good earplugs, muffs, and a suppressor can't change that damage...
Just because your ears don't ring or hurt doesn't mean your hearing isn't being damaged.
Yes, OSHA has decided that 140db impulse is the upper limit....140db or above result in instant nerve damage......that does not mean anything below that is "hearing safe" because hearing damage is cumulative.
Maximum Recommended Noise Dose Exposure Levels
Noise Level (dBA) Maximum Exposure Time per 24 Hours 85 8 hours 88 4 hours 91 2 hours 94 1 hour 97 30 minutes 100 15 minutes 103 7.5 minutes 106 3.7 minutes 109 112 seconds 112 56 seconds 115 28 seconds 118 14 seconds 121 7 seconds 124 3 seconds 127 1 second 130–140 less than 1 second 140 NO EXPOSURE
Go look at silencer/suppressor test results and you will find that almost all suppressed centerfire rifle/pistol is still over 130db.
I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, I've shot lots of suppressed stuff, a lot of it full auto...... just passing along some info, do with it what you will.
So apart from a suppressor for external noise, something that makes good sense, how do you stop hearing damage to the cochlear from the vibration on firing that travels through the stock (something apparently exaggerated with fiberglass stocks) and which travels through the cheek/jaw into the cochlear? Good earplugs, muffs, and a suppressor can't change that damage...
Thoughts?
The answer there is to stop shooting guns. Or just not worry about it, because there's no simple solution, at least that I know of!
Just because your ears don't ring or hurt doesn't mean your hearing isn't being damaged.
Yes, OSHA has decided that 140db impulse is the upper limit....140db or above result in instant nerve damage......that does not mean anything below that is "hearing safe" because hearing damage is cumulative.
Maximum Recommended Noise Dose Exposure Levels
Noise Level (dBA) Maximum Exposure Time per 24 Hours 85 8 hours 88 4 hours 91 2 hours 94 1 hour 97 30 minutes 100 15 minutes 103 7.5 minutes 106 3.7 minutes 109 112 seconds 112 56 seconds 115 28 seconds 118 14 seconds 121 7 seconds 124 3 seconds 127 1 second 130–140 less than 1 second 140 NO EXPOSURE
Go look at silencer/suppressor test results and you will find that almost all suppressed centerfire rifle/pistol is still over 130db.
I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, I've shot lots of suppressed stuff, a lot of it full auto...... just passing along some info, do with it what you will.
That's just what I was saying in my previous post. You're going to have to do a lot of shooting in one day to come anywhere near one second of exposure. My understanding is there are other factors involved, such as the proximity of the shot, and as Brad mentioned, the potential for cochlear damage. But overall, the majority of suppressed rifles are hearing safe. And by hearing safe I mean falling within OSHA safety standards. Does that mean that damage will still occur? Probably. But it will be at a greatly reduced rate compared to no suppressor, and really the only safe method if a person doesn't want any hearing loss is to wear hearing protection 24/7, stay inside the house, and for God's sake get those kids to turn down that rock and roll music.
As to the standards, I'm no audiologist so I can't comment on where they set the levels and what that means for long term hearing loss, but as with most government standards, there's some acceptable level of risk, based on the best available science to prevent health problems. Just like there's an acceptable level of mercury in drinking water, per government standard.
A few weeks ago, I was at the range and there was a gentleman shooting a 6.5 Creedmore with a SilencerCo Omega......I don't know what the sound was like at his ears, but, 2-3 benches down, it was loud enough that hearing protection was necessary.
It may have been 10bd lower at his ears in the open, but we were sitting under a roof that was definitely bouncing the sound back down to the shooter and everyone else on the line.
I don't have anything against suppressors, I'm all for their use.......in a hunting situation, I doubt you would have any hearing damage......but sitting at a bench and firing 100 rounds without hearing protection is very likely to damage your hearing.
A few weeks ago, I was at the range and there was a gentleman shooting a 6.5 Creedmore with a SilencerCo Omega......I don't know what the sound was like at his ears, but, 2-3 benches down, it was loud enough that hearing protection was necessary.
It may have been 10bd lower at his ears in the open, but we were sitting under a roof that was definitely bouncing the sound back down to the shooter and everyone else on the line.
I don't have anything against suppressors, I'm all for their use.......in a hunting situation, I doubt you would have any hearing damage......but sitting at a bench and firing 100 rounds without hearing protection is very likely to damage your hearing.
A) When I am shooting, I really dont care how loud it is to someone else. I have never needed earpro while shooting a suppressed rifle, in the open or under a roof.
2) Who the hell sits and shoots a hundred rounds from the bench?
1. How do you know you don't need "earpro" when shooting suppressed?? Just because your ears don't ring or hurt doesn't mean you aren't causing damage. I have fired lots of unsuppressed centerfire rounds, while hunting, without a suppressor OR ear protection without "hearing" the shot......it's called auditory exclusion.....my ears don't ring or hurt but that does not mean it's not damaging my hearing.
2. Apparently, jackmountain does......
Originally Posted by jackmountain
I just got done shooting 50 rds of 7-08 and 50 rds of .308 suppressed with no ear protection. That was the whole point in investing in a couple cans. It's not quiet but the noise is away from you.
Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do......
So apart from a suppressor for external noise, something that makes good sense, how do you stop hearing damage to the cochlear from the vibration on firing that travels through the stock (something apparently exaggerated with fiberglass stocks) and which travels through the cheek/jaw into the cochlear? Good earplugs, muffs, and a suppressor can't change that damage...
Thoughts?
The answer there is to stop shooting guns. Or just not worry about it, because there's no simple solution, at least that I know of!
I suppose given that, I really don't understand the current obsession with suppressors, unless cutting down on noise for the neighbors is the goal (which is the reason for their use in Britain). A worthy goal, but one that is meaningless for me in my area of Montana.
Seems to me, being properly muffed is good enough for muzzle blast, given that blast vibration is apparently an unconquerable culprit.
One good friend, who shoots A LOT and is right handed, has the bulk of his hearing loss in his right ear, not left. Of course, if hearing damage were from muzzle blast, the left ear would have been the most affected. The answer is cochlear damage in the right ear from blast vibration through the stock into the jaw and cheek...
1. How do you know you don't need "earpro" when shooting suppressed?? Just because your ears don't ring or hurt doesn't mean you aren't causing damage. I have fired lots of unsuppressed centerfire rounds, while hunting, without a suppressor OR ear protection without "hearing" the shot......it's called auditory exclusion.....my ears don't ring or hurt but that does not mean it's not damaging my hearing.
2. Apparently, jackmountain does......
Originally Posted by jackmountain
I just got done shooting 50 rds of 7-08 and 50 rds of .308 suppressed with no ear protection. That was the whole point in investing in a couple cans. It's not quiet but the noise is away from you.
Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do......
There are a lot of days where I will shoot 100 or more rounds from a suppressed centerfire...but never is it from a bench.
And auditory exclusion while hunting and a hearing safe suppressor are apples and potatoes...but carry on.
From the You Tube link that John Burns put up, it sounded like sound levels in the low 120 db range from that .308 were the norm. I took the db meter from work one weekend and got that same 120 kind of reading from my 6" barrel S&W k22 using high speed ammo. Back in those days I had a Husqvarna 360 CR that idled at 122 db and it was darned loud.
I suppose given that, I really don't understand the current obsession with suppressors, unless cutting down on noise for the neighbors is the goal (which is the reason for their use in Britain). A worthy goal, but one that is meaningless for me in my area of Montana.
Seems to me, being properly muffed is good enough for muzzle blast, given that blast vibration is apparently an unconquerable culprit.
One good friend, who shoots A LOT and is right handed, has the bulk of his hearing loss in his right ear, not left. Of course, if hearing damage were from muzzle blast, the left ear would have been the most affected. The answer is cochlear damage in the right ear from blast vibration through the stock into the jaw and cheek...
One aspect of hunting with a silencer is the animals spook less from the shot.
I used to chuckle if I saw someone in the field with a suppressor but the advantage is real.
Much easier to fill the cow tags in one fell swoop and lung shot deer don't run as far on an average.
So apart from a suppressor for external noise, something that makes good sense, how do you stop hearing damage to the cochlear from the vibration on firing that travels through the stock (something apparently exaggerated with fiberglass stocks) and which travels through the cheek/jaw into the cochlear? Good earplugs, muffs, and a suppressor can't change that damage...
Thoughts?
The answer there is to stop shooting guns. Or just not worry about it, because there's no simple solution, at least that I know of!
I suppose given that, I really don't understand the current obsession with suppressors, unless cutting down on noise for the neighbors is the goal (which is the reason for their use in Britain). A worthy goal, but one that is meaningless for me in my area of Montana.
Seems to me, being properly muffed is good enough for muzzle blast, given that blast vibration is apparently an unconquerable culprit.
One good friend, who shoots A LOT and is right handed, has the bulk of his hearing loss in his right ear, not left. Of course, if hearing damage were from muzzle blast, the left ear would have been the most affected. The answer is cochlear damage in the right ear from blast vibration through the stock into the jaw and cheek...
You should probably remove the muffler from your car too, and just wear hearing protection when you drive it.
And auditory exclusion while hunting and a hearing safe suppressor are apples and potatoes...but carry on.
You missed the point.....you wrote "I have never needed earpro while shooting a suppressed rifle, in the open or under a roof."......the point is, just because your ears don't ring or hurt does NOT mean you aren't causing damage.....I've shot centerfire rifles while hunting and my ears didn't ring or hurt......I didn't even hear the shots, but I guarantee I was damaging my hearing......you say you have never needed earpro.....how do you know you aren't damaging your hearing......fact is, you can't.
Again, I'm not saying suppressors don't help protect your hearing, but people need to understand that a suppressor does not guarantee you will not damage your hearing.
And auditory exclusion while hunting and a hearing safe suppressor are apples and potatoes...but carry on.
You missed the point.....you wrote "I have never needed earpro while shooting a suppressed rifle, in the open or under a roof."......the point is, just because your ears don't ring or hurt does NOT mean you aren't causing damage.....I've shot centerfire rifles while hunting and my ears didn't ring or hurt......I didn't even hear the shots, but I guarantee I was damaging my hearing......you say you have never needed earpro.....how do you know you aren't damaging your hearing......fact is, you can't.
Again, I'm not saying suppressors don't help protect your hearing, but people need to understand that a suppressor does not guarantee you will not damage your hearing.
So apart from a suppressor for external noise, something that makes good sense, how do you stop hearing damage to the cochlear from the vibration on firing that travels through the stock (something apparently exaggerated with fiberglass stocks) and which travels through the cheek/jaw into the cochlear? Good earplugs, muffs, and a suppressor can't change that damage...
Thoughts?
The answer there is to stop shooting guns. Or just not worry about it, because there's no simple solution, at least that I know of!
I suppose given that, I really don't understand the current obsession with suppressors, unless cutting down on noise for the neighbors is the goal (which is the reason for their use in Britain). A worthy goal, but one that is meaningless for me in my area of Montana.
Seems to me, being properly muffed is good enough for muzzle blast, given that blast vibration is apparently an unconquerable culprit.
One good friend, who shoots A LOT and is right handed, has the bulk of his hearing loss in his right ear, not left. Of course, if hearing damage were from muzzle blast, the left ear would have been the most affected. The answer is cochlear damage in the right ear from blast vibration through the stock into the jaw and cheek...
I’d like to see a study or at least some sort of substantive evidence regarding the vibration through the stock causing hearing loss. There was a study referenced by Seafire around the time of his meltdown, but he also mentioned U of M in Billings, so such a study may not exist, since such a college does not exist. Personally, I have doubts as to whether stock vibration makes up a large percentage of hearing loss in shooters, but that’s not to say it doesn’t have some effect. Would really like to see some good data either way.
The use of a suppressor is the single greatest improvement I’ve made to my hunting and shooting since I first picked up a gun. If a small percentage of hearing is still lost through stock vibration, it will be minuscule compared to the hearing lost from shooting unsuppressed, where I usually try and wear hearing protection - but it doesn’t always happen, especially on a big game hunt.
The reaction of animals (or lack thereof) at the shot helps tremendously when shooting multiple animals, or if one misses a shot. In the case of varmints, predators, and doe/cow hunts, the ability to get a second or multiple shots off can be a huge advantage. Even in situations where only one animal is being shot, I’ve seen the other animals in a herd just mosey off as if nothing happened, instead of fleeing the scene. That sort of reaction is nice to keep a herd of game on your place to keep them from being annihilated by the neighbors, or simply to make less of an impact on a herd in general - no sense in riling up animals for no reason.
A suppressor also significantly decreases recoil, and frankly just makes shooting fun again. If my hunting consisted of one or two big game animals a year, I probably wouldn’t bother, but for all year shooting on different species, a suppressor is really handy.
Quite frankly, I now consider a suppressor to be indispensable.
[quote=BradSeems to me, being properly muffed is good enough for muzzle blast, given that blast vibration is apparently an unconquerable culprit.
One good friend, who shoots A LOT and is right handed, has the bulk of his hearing loss in his right ear, not left. Of course, if hearing damage were from muzzle blast, the left ear would have been the most affected. The answer is cochlear damage in the right ear from blast vibration through the stock into the jaw and cheek...[/quote]
Agree with you Brad when shooting in a static situation... at the range, I use muff's on a suppressed centerfire. For hunting I gave up trying to wear electronic muffs or electronic in ear protectors and use a suppressor.
Got to ask if your friends shooting includes a lot of semi-auto? As anyone who has shot bolt and semi-auto's suppressed will tell you, semi-auto's are not as quiet... the additional 'noise' is coming out of the ejection port.
With the hearing loss I have managed to accumuate over the years... my only regret is that I did not plunk down the money and buy suppressors thirty years ago.
Your hearing is priceless and once lost you will never recover it. I have never met anyone with hearing aids that thought they were as good as their original hearing. And 'Good' hearing aids are a hell of lot more expensive than a titanium centerfire suppressor.
I’ve shot so much with a suppressor over the past couple of years... that I’m often surprised at how loud an unsuppressed rifle shot really is.
There’s another factor to “hearing loss” associated with shooting.... and that is the muzzle blasts impact on your Mastoid Cavity. The Mastoid Cavity is located behind your nose and below your eyes. I get horrible headaches after shooting several rounds through guns with muzzle brakes, due mostly to the increased blast impact to my face. Suppressors completely eliminate all the muzzle blast, thereby eliminating all the “noise impact” to the soft tissue inside your head.
Reduction in recoil, and reduction in muzzle blast... is certainly a win/win for your hearing.
How loud they are is quite variable. Subs are a lot quieter than supersonic. Large cartridges are going to make more noise, how much is another discussion IMO. Here's one that gives a clue........
I’d like to see a study or at least some sort of substantive evidence regarding the vibration through the stock causing hearing loss. There was a study referenced by Seafire around the time of his meltdown, but he also mentioned U of M in Billings, so such a study may not exist, since such a college does not exist. Personally, I have doubts as to whether stock vibration makes up a large percentage of hearing loss in shooters, but that’s not to say it doesn’t have some effect. Would really like to see some good data either way.
Prarie Goat,
Yes I do not know about 'stock vibration' and also question that.
Primary reason being there is no blast inside of the gun... it all occurs as the bullet exits the barrel, which is what a suppressor mutes.
But will add that the last hearing test I had (this year) they put the headphones on the bone behind my ear and not over the ear to test my hearing. This is more relevant to the use of earplugs or electronic earbuds than the use of muff's or a suppressor.
You should probably remove the muffler from your car too, and just wear hearing protection when you drive it.
Hard to know how to respond to such an off-base statement.
Can a running automobile give you hearing damage through vibration? Does a single shot over a milli-second equate to a continuously running vehicle?
I could go on with analogies to your apples/oranges statement, but you get the point. Or maybe you don't...
I get the point just fine, it's you that's way off base. We're talking about quieting the noise of a gunshot, while you're trying to say we might as well not bother since there are other paths to hearing damage. It's irrelevant, and quieting the gunshot is still helpful regardless of your other concerns.
I honestly don't care what you think about it or what you use; you seem to be just another of those type who will argue about anything that's not the way they do it. Carry on doing it your way.
I'd say my .308 and 6.5s suppressed are similar to bulk box HV .22 lr from an unsupressed carbine, maybe with a bit less blast. My stumpy '06 has a little more bark than the others, but certainly doesn't rise to the level of a .22 mag, to my ears. I actually don't think my suppressed .22 mag is much, if at all quieter than my .308 with a can mounted.
With unsuppressed rifles, I pretty much always double up on ear pro at the range. All of my supressed rifles are very pleasant to shoot with only plugs, for as many rounds as I care to fire. This year was the first year that I took all of my big game with a can, and it was awesome, no ringing, the bullet impacts sound so loud!
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/86X6THG.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/85623.jpg)