Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: DustinD on March 14, 2015, 04:36:48 AM
-
During the MN House committee gun debate, a major point in contention was whether
Guam could tip over at the least widest part (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q) loud noises can cause hearing loss. :facepalm: There were also some more intelligent questions related to the fact that suppressed weapons can still put out damaging levels of noise, (the rep was referring to the graph below) and to what degree and effectiveness various mitigation strategies exist. Several legislators wanted to hear from audiologists on the issue before voting. We had to scramble to prove that the earth isn't flat our case before we resumed that evening. We used MN law as a source, but didn't have much time to research or even present a follow up. The bill passed regardless, but I do want to get my hands on several pieces of hard data to *prove* we are right.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gocra.org%2Fnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2Fscale-web.jpg&hash=e344c8445169859e5dc532fb6cb39d60b8630082)
Full size image (http://www.gocra.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/scale-web.jpg)
Key points to tackle, and in most cases provide solid proof:
1) That suppressors are helpful at protecting hearing even if the noise level is still damaging. Sort of like a 10 mph car crash is preferable to a 40 mph car crash. Stated another way, that 40db over the limit causes greater harm, and or chance of harm per incident than 10db over the limit. This is important for situations were ear plugs aren't possible, emergencies, and arguably deer hunting, or bird hunting in groups.
2a) Benefits for people who medically can't wear in ear plugs.
2b) Benefits for hunting dogs. Reduced chance of being gun shy, and better hearing throughout their life. I need to find a good article that talks about this.
2c) Home defense, including the children & spouses of the defendant. Obviously you can't put hearing protection on your kids when someone breaks in, and being indoors increases hearing loss from gun shots.
3) Studies of hearing loss over long periods of time for people who did use hearing protection. Edit: I found a study. Obviously working in a 110db environment with dual protection beats the same environment at 140db. Graphs, probabilities of actual harm, degree of harm, solid proof, and sources would be awesome though.
4) Various facts concerning LEO use. Our opponent claimed suppressors are only for committing murder and getting away with it. :mad:
LEO use, ~800K privatly owned suppressors, and 0 crime. (or at least ~800K tax stamps, I will have to did look it up)
Edit to add: March 2014, there were 571,750 registered suppressors. following the trend line, and per another source, it is over 800K now.
5) Proving the way hearing protection applies. Example, a 30db suppressor and 30db ear plugs = 60db reduction. 30db plugs + 30db muffs ~= 33db-35db total reduction. Need proof and sources.
OSHA says to add 5db to the higher of the two numbers, but to nerf the highest number. The reason being is because people don't always wear protection properly, and because there can be problems with the protection.
6) (per MicroBalrog's post below) Data, preferably .gov data, on suppressor noise reduction. (so far only third party reviews and industry marketing)
If anyone knows some good specific sources to use, it would be helpful. I have already found some good great ones.
150-2,500 Hz (peak 900-1,500 Hz) for small-caliber weapons (rifles).
In rifle shooting, the attenuation efficiency of earplugs (16dB) or small-volume (thin) earmuffs (17 dB) was not sufficient and their use as sole protectors cannot be recommended. Instead, large-volume earmuffs should be used. Impulses from pistol and shotgun were fairly effectively attenuated both by small-volume and large-volume earmuffs.
http://triggered.clockss.org/ServeContent?url=http://archfami.ama-assn.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Ffull%2F9%2F4%2F352 Study finds hunting and target shooting causes hearing loss in men.
http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Recreational-Firearm-Noise-Exposure/ A gold mine of awesome data.
Rifles can go over 175db, indoors increases hearing loss, severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, muzzle brakes increase noise (Dustin's note: suppressors do the same job of reducing recoil, but without the added noise).
http://www.audiologyonline.com/releases/effects-doubling-up-on-hearing-4302
http://www.msha.gov/regs/complian/guides/noise/guide303.htm mining regs, refers to when dual protection is required by regulation.
http://home.earthlink.net/~dnitzer/4HaasEaton/Decibel.html chart, noise level of various things, I will look for a better one.
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/hcp/attenuation_estimation.html useful for estimating noise reduction, and for using dual protection.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468459 .pdf Covers sound pressure, and bone conduction.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA454471 .pdf NIHL (Noise Induced Hearing Loss), read section 15-2.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA501586 .pdf The limits of plugs, and doubled hearing protection. Limit caused by bone conduction of sound. Noise helmets. Bone sound conduction study.
I know MN law and CDC have some nice sites.
MN law: 116.07 sub 2(c) authorizes noise laws, standards, and limits. PCA (pollution control agency) sets the limits.
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/silencer/
http://www.silencertalk.com/results.htm Suppressor noise measurements
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/statistics/CommerceReport/firearms_commerce_annual_statistical_report_2014.pdf ATF, NFA, sales statistics
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/ Many fact sheets, some are bit light IMHO.
http://www.gunfacts.info/infographics/ lots of beautiful charts and graphs
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517074 TFL thread dedicated to links, citations, and sources of info
Apparently, today’s shooters like the sounds of silence. Americans are buying and licensing more suppressors and other NFA (National Firearms Act) items than ever before. The number of NFA applications filed with the NFA Branch at ATF continues to rise. With a greatly increased staff of 25 Legal Instrument Examiners, the backlog of NFA forms has been whittled down from more than 80,000 to about 36,000. Much of the intense increase in interest in NFA items is focused on silencers. According to ATF’s 2011 Commerce in Firearms Report, as of December 2010 there were 284,087 lawfully registered silencers in the United States. As of March 2014, there were 571,750. That’s means the number of registered suppressor more than doubled in three and a quarter years. And 2015 will probably be a record year for suppressor sales.
Total number of Suppressors owned by citizens by year:
2011 285,087 January
2012 360,534
2013 494,452
2014 571,750 March
2015 ~800,000 Now
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0069-3140.pdf National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health .pdf concerning shooting ranges.
The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel.
Edited way too many times to add a lot more info.
-
Is there anywhere testing data on how different suppressors perform?
-
2b) Hunting dogs. Since most are hunting under shotguns, there's not going to be much to benefit dogs here.
Probably the best thing to use is OHSA guidelines and regulations, use the .gov against itself. Also muffler/motorcycle loudness laws already on the books.
-
2b) Hunting dogs. Since most are hunting under shotguns, there's not going to be much to benefit dogs here.
There are supressors for shotguns.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericansuppressorassociation.com%2Fwp_asa%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2FSalvo-Hunting1.jpg&hash=1cb6a6eda996b07d35427b74361c1fa0d05b93ad)
Full Size Image (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/wp_asa/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Salvo-Hunting1.jpg)
One interesting fact I learned today is that it is impossible to protect your hearing from all of the damage when shooting a typical rifle because of bone conduction. Noise attenuation beyond about 33db is impossible without a full face noise helmet. Even though using plugs and muffs while shooting an unmuffled rifle doesn't physically hurt, it does cause instant, irreparable, accumulative damage. Sources: The three www.dtic.mil links in the original post.
-
There are supressors for shotguns.
https://youtu.be/rtIqTfObXIo
-
There are supressors for shotguns.
Do they make the 12gauge go "PFFFT" when firing, like Colt .38 snubbies do on those oldtime TV shows do when equiped with silencers? [tinfoil] [tinfoil] :facepalm:
:rofl:
-
Full size image (http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/silencerx1000.gif)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faccurateshooter.net%2FBlog%2Fsilencerx1000.gif&hash=024cd6f16831025c90a2e63620c07e19aeda0ae4)
Full size image (http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/silencerx1000.gif)
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/silencer/ Lots of good info at this site.
Awesome find, Fly320s.
(https://precisionrifle.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/rifle-silencer-noise-examples.jpg?w=645)
(https://precisionrifle.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/rifle-suppressor.png)
-
This guy has a nice primer on sound attenuation:
http://precisionrifleblog.com/
-
My two day window of editing the first post is over :'( All future updates will be in this post until I have reason to start another post, or my two days are up.
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.hearingconservation.org/resource/resmgr/imported/Meinke_AuditoryRiskYouthTargetShootingv1.4.pdf Youth risk of hearing loss. It doesn't mention suppressors, but the data and conclusions show that you can't keep kids inside their recommended 120 dB limit with plugs + muffs.
120-dB peak limit suggested by the World Health Organization (1999) for children.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/wp-solutions/2013-104/pdfs/2013-104.pdf "If state law permits, consider providing noise suppressors for gun barrels [NIOSH 2011]."
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0069-3140.pdf "The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms."
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2013-0124-3208.pdf "What the Employer Can Do... Use noise suppressors on firearms, if feasible." "We recommended using dual hearing protection during all live fire training exercises and installing additional noise controls."
I have plenty of proof that protection using plugs and muffs above about 36 dB(C), 36 NRR, 29 dB(A) is impossible due to bone conduction. Every source without any exception agrees with that. Many rifles (especially the ones with muzzle brakes, shorter barrels, higher speed ammo) are loud enough (175 db+ depending on source) that safely shooting them is impossible. You can only reduce but not eliminate hearing loss. The first link in this post says that children can't use many firearms without risking permanent hearing loss. Their limit is 120 dB according to the WHO.
http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=1812 Hearing loss in hunting dogs. "We are very excited about our preliminary data," he said. "Practically all of the hunting dogs have some hearing loss and practically all of the non-hunting dogs have great hearing."
The difference in hearing ability between the two test groups "is extreme," he added."
I have many other sources to add, and ideas and such to follow up on.
-
I will have to read all these links later. I figure the amount of hearing damage from momentary gun shots at high decibels is not the same as sustained high decibel noise from operating heavy equipment. I think the loudest point in our plant is 130 DB between a couple compressors.
A good point I heard on Gun Talk Radio was that now that we have this NICS instant background check system, why can't be just buy suppressors with a NICS check? The dealer could collect the tax stamp money also if they wanted to keep that system.
-
I got hyperacusis and tinnitus from shooting a shotgun once wearing earplugs. I forgot to put on my muffs too, for once in my life and now I am screwed.
-
Still looking for the best way to prove that dual protection isn't good enough. Most sources confirm it one way or the other, but except for the CDC/NIOSH none seem to come out and say it directly, except the link concerning children. Children have a max recommended noise exposure of 120 dB, as apposed to 140 dB for adults, which also causes permanent hearing loss in an instant for adults. I need to look into that more.
Another angle to explore. MN constitution recognizes and protects hunting. You arguably can't, and certainly can't under many conditions, hunt safely (referring to hearing health) unless you use a suppressor. Those who can't handle recoil or firearm weight need a suppressor or muzzle brake, and brakes break your ears.
Below is a somewhat organised list of links that I have found, I have lots more to do. Sorry for the lack of over sized pictures in this post. :)
######### Hearing Loss Studies & Statistics ###########
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/statistics/CommerceReport/firearms_commerce_annual_statistical_report_2014.pdf
http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Recreational-Firearm-Noise-Exposure/
http://hearinghealthfoundation.org/statistics statistics of hearingloss
http://www.betterhearing.org/hearingpedia/hearing-loss-prevention/noise-induced-hearing-loss
http://www.betterhearing.org/
--- Hunters / Men ---
http://triggered.clockss.org/ServeContent?url=http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/4/352 ...recreational firearms is associated with marked high-frequency hearing loss in men.
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/inside/spr06/pages/pg2.aspx Hunters often don't wear protection, but should.
--- Children ---
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.hearingconservation.org/resource/resmgr/imported/Meinke_AuditoryRiskYouthTargetShootingv1.4.pdf among other things, single exposure exceeds recommended limits.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14992027.2013.865845 exact same as above, but it's the primary source.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532893/ Noise-induced hearing loss in children
http://www.entnet.org/content/noise-induced-hearing-loss-children
http://www.livestrong.com/article/528530-dangerous-noise-levels-for-infants/
--- Dogs ---
http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=1812 Hearing loss in hunting dogs. "Practically all of the hunting dogs have some hearing loss and practically all of the non-hunting dogs have great hearing." The difference in hearing ability between the two test groups "is extreme," he added.
######### physics of Noise ##########
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA468459 .mil covers sound pressure, and bone conduction.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA454471 .mil NIHL, read section 15-2. NIHL, section 15-2. "...limit ... muffs and/or plugs, because they do not attenuate sounds that are conducted to the inner ear by the hard and soft tissues of the head and body."
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA501586 .mil nice graphs, plugs can't help you by themselves
http://home.earthlink.net/~dnitzer/4HaasEaton/Decibel.html a chart with decibel levels, not great.
http://www.coopersafety.com/noisereduction.aspx
http://www.silencerresearch.com/hearing_protection.htm value of plugs, degree of suppressor reduction
http://www.earplugstore.com/morabshootea.html
36 dB (C-weighted) is the maximum possible using ear muffs and ear plugs simultaneously, equating to only a 36 - 7 = 29 dB(A) protection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7761796 characteristics of gunfire
http://www.audiologyonline.com/releases/effects-doubling-up-on-hearing-4302
http://acoustics.org/pressroom/httpdocs/162nd/Dietz_3pNS3.html acoustic helmet
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/264669 Advanced Helmet for Maintainer Head and Hearing Protection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zTXiPcpLV0&t=195 HowStuffWorks - can sound kill you?
######### Regulations #############
http://www.msha.gov/regs/complian/guides/noise/guide303.htm mining regs, refers to when dual protection is required.
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/hcp/attenuation_estimation.html
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/ Very long, 140db max for firearms before hearingloss.
http://wp.roedale.de/en/hauptmenue/schiesslaermminderung/faqs/thema-hoerschaden/ Some Facts and Government regulations from across the pond
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/wp-solutions/2013-104/pdfs/2013-104.pdf If state law permits, consider providing noise suppressors for gun barrels
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0069-3140.pdf The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2013-0124-3208.pdf What the Employer Can Do... Use noise suppressors on firearms, if feasible.
We recommended using dual hearing protection during all live fire training exercises and installing additional noise controls.
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/
######### Opinion - Editorial ###########
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/05/405370/-A-Democrat-s-guide-to-why-firearm-sound-suppressors-silencers-should-be-made-easier-to-obtain
######### Industry ##########
http://www.silencertalk.com/results.htm suppressor noise measurements
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/Suppressors.pdf
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/
http://www.gunfacts.info/infographics/
######### Suppressors 2015 #########
######### MN Legislative Links and Video #########
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/archivesCOMM.asp?comm=89019&ls_year=89 House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee
https://events.qwikcast.tv/QwikCast/QwikCastEventById?eventKey=56ec96c7-941e-4bbb-a2c4-fd790b514e1f&eventPageId=1366 Minnesota House Live Webcast and Mobile Stream
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/programa.asp?ls_year=89&event_id=881927 TV feed
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericansuppressorassociation.com%2Fwp_asa%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2FSalvo-Hunting1.jpg&hash=1cb6a6eda996b07d35427b74361c1fa0d05b93ad)
Full Size Image (http://americansuppressorassociation.com/wp_asa/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Salvo-Hunting1.jpg)
Quoting this image, because those sure look like some happy doggies. =)
-
At an event recently, and the discussion came around to suppressors for hunting. One opponent cited safety concerns, in that he wants to hear shots so he knows where other hunters are. He then went on about how suppressor requirements for hunting are just another way for the liberals to tax hunting and shooting out of existence. He pointed out that by the time you pay $1,500 for the silencer to put on your 12 gauge, plus the federal license, you just put the cost of that shotgun out of the financial reach of a lot of hunters. I was going to write him off as another tinfoil cap guy, but thinking about the people I see who hunt to put meat on the table, because they can afford an 870 and slugs to get a deer in the freezer, a silencer requirement might take that option away.
-
At an event recently, and the discussion came around to suppressors for hunting. One opponent cited safety concerns, in that he wants to hear shots so he knows where other hunters are. He then went on about how suppressor requirements for hunting are just another way for the liberals to tax hunting and shooting out of existence. He pointed out that by the time you pay $1,500 for the silencer to put on your 12 gauge, plus the federal license, you just put the cost of that shotgun out of the financial reach of a lot of hunters. I was going to write him off as another tinfoil cap guy, but thinking about the people I see who hunt to put meat on the table, because they can afford an 870 and slugs to get a deer in the freezer, a silencer requirement might take that option away.
That argument is like saying buying mufflers puts cars out of reach for most people.
The counter to that would be that suppressors would be a lot cheaper if they weren't NFA items.
There are cheap bushings (~$50 or so) out there now that adapt a barrel threads to oil filters that provide adequate sound suppression- its just highly illegal to actually do it without going through the stupid ATF.
-
???
I thought the goal was to allow suppressors, not to require them.
-
???
I thought the goal was to allow suppressors, not to require them.
Sorry. There is some push I've heard of (here in Ohio) to require a suppressor for hunting.
-
???
I thought the goal was to allow suppressors, not to require them.
Yeah, I'm confused now too.
Personally, I would love it if suppressors were allowed for hunting (currently aren't in MT either). I would right now, today, plop down the cash and start the ATF paperwork for a shotgun suppressor if I could use it for bird hunting.
Just looked at the silencerco one. I guess I'd be putting in my SBS paperwork too :)
Sadly we are no where near legal suppressors for hunting, we have a bill right now clarifying that we can use suppressors for non-game species.
-
At an event recently, and the discussion came around to suppressors for hunting. One opponent cited safety concerns, in that he wants to hear shots so he knows where other hunters are. He then went on about how suppressor requirements for hunting are just another way for the liberals to tax hunting and shooting out of existence. He pointed out that by the time you pay $1,500 for the silencer to put on your 12 gauge, plus the federal license, you just put the cost of that shotgun out of the financial reach of a lot of hunters. I was going to write him off as another tinfoil cap guy, but thinking about the people I see who hunt to put meat on the table, because they can afford an 870 and slugs to get a deer in the freezer, a silencer requirement might take that option away.
I would have laughed at him. Any center fire rifle used for hunting you are going to hear at a pretty good distance and will definitely hear the sonic crack even with a suppressor. .223 ,.243,.270,etc and .30 type calibers are plenty loud even with a suppressor, just more pleasant to shoot and you might get away without ears, not that I would recommend shooting either without ears even with a suppressor.
-
I would have laughed at him. Any center fire rifle used for hunting you are going to hear at a pretty good distance and will definitely hear the sonic crack even with a suppressor. .223 ,.243,.270,etc and .30 type calibers are plenty loud even with a suppressor, just more pleasant to shoot and you might get away without ears, not that I would recommend shooting either without ears even with a suppressor.
Yep. I've fired a friend's suppressed .223, .30, and a .45auto and none of them would I consider safe without hearing protection, but definately 'safer.' The .300 blackout OTOH, is about as loud as a nail gun.
-
At an event recently, and the discussion came around to suppressors for hunting. One opponent cited safety concerns, in that he wants to hear shots so he knows where other hunters are. He then went on about how suppressor requirements for hunting are just another way for the liberals to tax hunting and shooting out of existence. He pointed out that by the time you pay $1,500 for the silencer to put on your 12 gauge, plus the federal license, you just put the cost of that shotgun out of the financial reach of a lot of hunters. I was going to write him off as another tinfoil cap guy, but thinking about the people I see who hunt to put meat on the table, because they can afford an 870 and slugs to get a deer in the freezer, a silencer requirement might take that option away.
Solution: make suppressors available from any gunstore, with, at the most, a background check.
-
Solution: make suppressors available from any gunstore, with, at the most, a background check.
Works for me...
FYI, Ohio did pass legislation which will allow (not require) hunting with suppressed firearms.
-
Solution: make suppressors available from any gunstore, with, at the most, a background check.
Not going to happen. The BATFE needs them for revenue and for justifying its own existence. ;/
Some gun shops do carry them, but you aren't going to buy one and walk out with it the same day- 6 months later, if you are lucky.
-
I just imagine that if suppressors were handled the same way a rifle was, imagine all the hunting rifles essentially being delivered with built in suppressors. It would be interesting to see the design changes and innovation that might come in.
I figure it would also lead to the military adopting some sort of sound suppression for military arms.
-
Air rifles with integral suppressors are commonplace and legal in Europe.
Frankly, I'd happily support a law requiring suppressors for hunting if they were as easy to get as a non-serialized gun parts and inexpensive. It would save the hearing of those shooting the guns as well as those who happen to be nearby. It may remove some of the arguments against hunting in semi-rural areas, prohibitions against hunting on Sunday, etc.
Chris
-
Air rifles with integral suppressors are commonplace and legal in Europe.
Frankly, I'd happily support a law requiring suppressors for hunting if they were as easy to get as a non-serialized gun parts and inexpensive. It would save the hearing of those shooting the guns as well as those who happen to be nearby. It may remove some of the arguments against hunting in semi-rural areas, prohibitions against hunting on Sunday, etc.
Chris
I've seen .22 LR CZ and Norinco rifles for sale on a French gunshop's webpage. IIRC, they are almost over-the-counter in both Finland and Norway, all you need to show is your firearms license for a weapon in that caliber, along with an ID card.
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21493334 Comparison of muzzle suppression and ear-level hearing protection in firearm use.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare noise reduction of commercially available ear-level hearing protection (muffs/inserts) to that of firearm muzzle suppressors.
SETTING: Experimental sound measurements under consistent environmental conditions.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Muzzle suppressors for 2 pistol and 2 rifle calibers were tested using the Bruel & Kjaer 2209 sound meter and Bruel & Kjaer 4136 microphone calibrated with the Bruel & Kjaer Pistonphone using Military-Standard 1474D placement protocol. Five shots were recorded unsuppressed and 10 shots suppressed under consistent environmental conditions. Sound reduction was then compared with the real-world noise reduction rate of the best available ear-level protectors.
RESULTS: All suppressors offered significantly greater noise reduction than ear-level protection, usually greater than 50% better. Noise reduction of all ear-level protectors is unable to reduce the impulse pressure below 140 dB for certain common firearms, an international standard for prevention of sensorineural hearing loss.
CONCLUSION: Modern muzzle-level suppression is vastly superior to ear-level protection and the only available form of suppression capable of making certain sporting arms safe for hearing. The inadequacy of standard hearing protectors with certain common firearms is not recognized by most hearing professionals or their patients and should affect the way hearing professionals counsel patients and the public.
-----
I have gotten behind on this thread. I have more to add.
After MN wins suppressor access I am going to start evangelising suppressor usage and the hearing loss data I have found.
-
Air rifles with integral suppressors are commonplace and legal in Europe.
Which is utterly meaningless, since if you watch any movie set in Europe, they fire off unsuppressed SMGs in the middle of busy streets all the time, and nobody even bothers to call the police.
-
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6028a4.htm "Among military veterans, the most common service-connected disabilities are hearing impairments."
-
Which is utterly meaningless, since if you watch any movie set in Europe, they fire off unsuppressed SMGs in the middle of busy streets all the time, and nobody even bothers to call the police.
I must say I never noticed that in Amelie, or The Seventh Seal. :P
-
Anyone see the anti-gun advertisement that's making it's way around right now that really shoots itself in the foot?
Something to the effect of "Fact: Silencers don't protect hearing..."
Then it goes on to say just how terrifying it would be to turn someone lose with a silenced weapon in NYC -- no one would know that they're being shot at because the gun would be so quiet...
I love it when legislators think that they can have their facts and their utter bullshit, too.
Sad thing about it is, when Gillibrand was a NY state legislator, she was actually pretty pro gun rights.
I was only after she was appointed to fill Hillary's seat that she became rabidly anti-gun.
-
There was a page on Twitchy about it. It does seem they were trying to play both sides of the fence on that one. =)
Thanks for resurrecting this thread. I need to go back to some of those links.
-
Sad thing about it is, when Gillibrand was a NY state legislator, she was actually pretty pro gun rights.
I was only after she was appointed to fill Hillary's seat that she became rabidly anti-gun.
That is very surprising to me. I've never paid much attention to her in the past -- only since she has come out as a snowflake leader. From that, I would have thought she was far, far left her entire career.
-
Is there anywhere testing data on how different suppressors perform?
The noise reduction data comes from the manufacturers or the retailers. There's a standard that's to be used---decibel meter 90 degrees from muzzle and 1 meter away, muzzle and decibel meter 1.X meters from the ground--but in manufacturers' videos I see the meters placed in different spots. Also, there's only two meters that will accurately record the sound (pressure) levels on gun shots, but not everyone uses one of the two.
The old Mil-spec testing procedure was probably the best, but the numbers weren't as sexy for the manufacturers as the "new" standard procedure.
There was a guy who bought the whole Bruhn & Kjaer 2209 setup, and was doing the testing properly for whoever wanted it, but as I understand it he didn't have many takers.
-
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6028a4.htm "Among military veterans, the most common service-connected disabilities are hearing impairments."
Probably true. I've got a 10% disability rating for tinnitus. Met with an American Legion veterans service officer on Monday about getting it upgraded for hearing loss. The VA thinks my hearing loss is bad enough that they give me hearing aids, but they didn't include that in the disability rating. The military made us wear ear plugs on the shooting range, but they didn't issue ear plugs for field use in Vietnam, and I don't recall anyone waiting to join a fire fight until he had pulled his own, personally-owned ear plugs out of a pocket and inserted them.
-
That is very surprising to me. I've never paid much attention to her in the past -- only since she has come out as a snowflake leader. From that, I would have thought she was far, far left her entire career.
I suspect it's a case of her now showing her TRUE colors. I suspect that when she was representing New York in the US House she represented a more pro-gun constitutency...
Yep. She represented an upstate New York district. Haven't looked at the particulars, but upstate NY is a LOT more conservative.
When she was appointed to fill Clinton's seat, she was able to show her true colors.
-
The noise reduction data comes from the manufacturers or the retailers. There's a standard that's to be used---decibel meter 90 degrees from muzzle and 1 meter away, muzzle and decibel meter 1.X meters from the ground--but in manufacturers' videos I see the meters placed in different spots. Also, there's only two meters that will accurately record the sound (pressure) levels on gun shots, but not everyone uses one of the two.
The old Mil-spec testing procedure was probably the best, but the numbers weren't as sexy for the manufacturers as the "new" standard procedure.
There was a guy who bought the whole Bruhn & Kjaer 2209 setup, and was doing the testing properly for whoever wanted it, but as I understand it he didn't have many takers.
I have seen some videos on youtube doing testing of several different suppressors at a time. I thought it was the Military Arms Channel guy, but maybe not.
-
I don't know if MicroBalrog still cares, but they have some pretty good test data here:
http://nfatalk.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5
-
I got hyperacusis from shooting a shotgun once while wearing earplugs only (forgot the muffs). It has been horrifically painful and disabling.
Ear damage from gunfire is no joke and can / will occur even with plugs/muffs.
-
I got hyperacusis from shooting a shotgun once while wearing earplugs only (forgot the muffs). It has been horrifically painful and disabling.
Ear damage from gunfire is no joke and can / will occur even with plugs/muffs.
How much does Big Silencer pay you to shill for them?
-
How much does Big Silencer pay you to shill for them?
If any of you want to know more about hyperacusis, my disease from Hell, this is the best internet site on the topic:
http://www.hyperacusis.net
-
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170317/are-ear-plugs-better-than-a-suppressor Cites some of the same research listed above, attacks ARS. (Americans for Responsible Solutions)
-
I am putting together a proper website to display much of this data. Now that we have a chance of winning at the federal level please post any other resources that have not yet been mentioned.
The website is going up at www.hardhittingfacts.com