Are OTB suppressors worth it?

[Q_Sertorius]

It’s fine if you believe that. But if you can’t articulate and demonstrably show why, it’s just your opinion.

Which is fine, you’re entitled to opinions. But it’s disingenuous to pass them off as facts.

He’s an audiologist, isn’t he? I am fairly sure he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to hearing protection.

If you have read the OSHA regulations concerning sound protection, you know it is a lot more nuanced than “below 140 is safe.”

I think you already know this stuff too, so I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Bluefish]

All I can say is you’re wrong.

So if 140 is not the accepted threshold for immediate hearing damage from a single gunshot, what is it? I do know it’s a little more nuanced than that. Yes, individual ear shape, genetics, etc can make it slightly higher or slightly lower for an individual.

 

[atmat]

He’s an audiologist, isn’t he?

I have no idea what his credentials are.

If you have read the OSHA regulations concerning sound protection, you know it is a lot more nuanced than “below 140 is safe.”

I have. And it may be more nuanced. But even at 133dB, we’re at 25% of the energy of 140dB.

 

[littlebigtine]

Grok believes the MD...

131 dB vs 129 dB Gunshot Damage | Shared Grok Conversation

Does 131db gunshot cause more damage than a 129db gunshot

grok.com

It's odd to believe that at exactly 140db, it's causing instant damage, but at 138db, nothing negative happens.

Kind of like saying it takes 100lbs of force to rip your arm off but 90lbs of force does no damage.

2 dbs is 1.58 times the energy so it would be more like you can max deadlift 350lbs and then you try 568 lbs and rupture a disc.

Remember sound energy is measured on a logarithmic scale.

 

[mtnbound]

Grok believes the MD...

131 dB vs 129 dB Gunshot Damage | Shared Grok Conversation

Does 131db gunshot cause more damage than a 129db gunshot

grok.com

It's odd to believe that at exactly 140db, it's causing instant damage, but at 138db, nothing negative happens.

Kind of like saying it takes 100lbs of force to rip your arm off but 90lbs of force does no damage.

"Yes, a 131 dB gunshot causes slightly more hearing damage risk than a 129 dB one, though both levels are hazardous for impulse noise like gunshots, and the difference is modest in practical terms.

• A 2 dB difference won't turn a "safe" shot into a "dangerous" one—both demand protection—but the higher level contributes marginally more to total "dose" over multiple shots.

In short: Yes, 131 dB is more damaging than 129 dB due to higher energy transfer to the ear, but the practical difference is small compared to the overall danger of any unsuppressed or under-protected gunshot. Always use proper double hearing protection (and consider suppressors) when shooting to minimize risk. If you've been exposed without protection, consult an audiologist for a hearing test."

Kinda funny that it states consider suppressors with a 131dB gunshot. I guess everyone should throw away their suppressors and wait until someone makes a Hollywood-quiet one.

 

[glock233]

I am going to do an actual test on this within the next week or so. I actually did not notice the Airlock heating up any quicker than my Og-65 but I really wasn't shooting long fast strings.

I have the OG 6.5, OGL, and Airlock nano and 6.5. The Airlocks absolutely heat up faster. On the same rifle, the mirage is notable on the Airlock after 4-5 shots. Double that for the OG 6.5, and actually a ton for the OGL.

The Airlocks’ novel feature is creating extreme turbulence in a small package. It’s really eating that pressure, and doing so with a really low weight of materials. There are significant trade offs when you do that. And it’s getting hot fast. It requires slow firing and bolt action only. The good news is that’s all they’re marketing / verifying it for, and all I’m using it for.

The OG is more rugged in the sense it can take higher pressures and more speed in firing. More material. Obviously less internal turbulence.

Overall they’re really close peers. Airlock is just doing more pushing the limits of size and weight at the cost of heat.

 

[mtnbound]

Close is relative…..2-3db is a lot. !!
OTB suppressors that fit larger size barrels like the Reaper with Reflex & available in different lengths would be a Great option & fit any size barrels.
You could use it dedicated or move it to different rifle platforms also. Use it Suppressor forward only or add a OTB Reflex if needed.
Also being a hub design as well as utilizing threaded end caps adds more flexibility.
Definitely worth it !!
& Dang Near Perfect !!!

My comment about suppressors being very similar is related to the fact that, with all of the testing that is out on suppressors, one can see that the given dB rating for a suppressor is, at best, an average between high and low dB readings using multiple shots and hopefully across multiple days. I don’t even want to discuss what some manufacturers may be doing. Regardless, the dB values change shot to shot, day by day, and environment by environment, let alone if you change barrel length or ammo used during the test.

A suppressor listed at 132dB at any given time can likely be within the average range of a suppressor listed at 135dB, and yes, the lower dB one might still have a lower dB, but now the difference could be 1dB or less or maybe no difference and unless you set up a sound meter every time you take a shot, who knows for sure.

IMO, saying 3dBs less is a big difference is assuming there will always be 3dBs less with suppressor X than suppressor Y, and that is not correct. Yes, one might be marginally less on that day with that load in that environment, but there is no guarantee at the moment I pull the trigger. If someone is truly trying to protect their hearing, then they should be using ear protection as well.

 

[AirlockIndustries]

IMO, saying 3dBs less is a big difference is assuming there will always be 3dBs less with suppressor X than suppressor Y, and that is not correct. Yes, one might be marginally less on that day with that load in that environment, but there is no guarantee at the moment I pull the trigger. If someone is truly trying to protect their hearing, then they should be using ear protection as well.

In our testing, the margin between suppressors remains fairly consistent, even though the absolute levels can vary. For example, when testing a ZG versus an Ultra 7, the delta is the same about 90% of the time, even if the overall dB levels fluctuate from day to day. In some cases, both suppressors may test louder, but the difference in dB between them remains fairly consistent. That said, I have noticed that the ratio between bare muzzle and suppressed levels can vary.

 

[Huntnpack 2]

I have the OG 6.5, OGL, and Airlock nano and 6.5. The Airlocks absolutely heat up faster. On the same rifle, the mirage is notable on the Airlock after 4-5 shots. Double that for the OG 6.5, and actually a ton for the OGL.

The Airlocks’ novel feature is creating extreme turbulence in a small package. It’s really eating that pressure, and doing so with a really low weight of materials. There are significant trade offs when you do that. And it’s getting hot fast. It requires slow firing and bolt action only. The good news is that’s all they’re marketing / verifying it for, and all I’m using it for.

The OG is more rugged in the sense it can take higher pressures and more speed in firing. More material. Obviously less internal turbulence.

Overall they’re really close peers. Airlock is just doing more pushing the limits of size and weight at the cost of heat.

Curious if the Airlock is a high pressure, high heat unit & if that combination affects accuracy in any way. Might be ok for hunting only I guess.

 

[glock233]

Curious if the Airlock is a high pressure, high heat unit & if that combination affects accuracy in any way. Might be ok for hunting only I guess.

My rifles have remained very accurate even with the airlocks on board. As with most suppressors, I find them to slightly improve accuracy. The turbulence seems to be contained in the can or happening after the bullet has left.

 

[Lawnboi]

"Yes, a 131 dB gunshot causes slightly more hearing damage risk than a 129 dB one, though both levels are hazardous for impulse noise like gunshots, and the difference is modest in practical terms.

• A 2 dB difference won't turn a "safe" shot into a "dangerous" one—both demand protection—but the higher level contributes marginally more to total "dose" over multiple shots.

In short: Yes, 131 dB is more damaging than 129 dB due to higher energy transfer to the ear, but the practical difference is small compared to the overall danger of any unsuppressed or under-protected gunshot. Always use proper double hearing protection (and consider suppressors) when shooting to minimize risk. If you've been exposed without protection, consult an audiologist for a hearing test."

Kinda funny that it states consider suppressors with a 131dB gunshot. I guess everyone should throw away their suppressors and wait until someone makes a Hollywood-quiet one.

That will never happen till everything is subsonic. Nobody wants that.

 

[alexnelon]

So if 140 is not the accepted threshold for immediate hearing damage from a single gunshot, what is it? I do know it’s a little more nuanced than that. Yes, individual ear shape, genetics, etc can make it slightly higher or slightly lower for an individual.

Basically every new study that comes out shows lower and lower thresholds for immediate, permanent hearing damage.

It's different person to person, as with everything, but there are a dozen ways that the mechanical function of your ears can be instantly damaged by noise impulses with pressure as low as 105dB, even in frequency ranges outside of what is painful to or even perceptible by humans. (ie, tone doesn't really matter, and neither does 129dB vs 134dB)

A supersonic projectile uncorking 2 feet from your naked ear can permanently damage your hearing, period.

This argument is like fighting over what the safe threshold for driving your car straight into a wall with no seat belt is.

 

[Huntnpack 2]

@alexnelon Thank you !!
Appreciate your professional input.

 

[Bluefish]

Basically every new study that comes out shows lower and lower thresholds for immediate, permanent hearing damage.

Please post links. I researched this in the early 2010’s and read everything I could find at the time. Had access to the people writing the new at the time nrr standard, but unfortunately there is not a lot of good studies on gunshot noise. One reason is, it’s hard to tell if damage has occurred and unfortunately it’s permanent.

 

[peaches]

He’s an audiologist, isn’t he? I am fairly sure he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to hearing protection.

If you have read the OSHA regulations concerning sound protection, you know it is a lot more nuanced than “below 140 is safe.”

I think you already know this stuff too, so I’ll leave it at that.

A lot of MDs were pushing the clot shot a couple years ago. How'd that turn out? Govt safety regs are constantly being updated...the old food pyramid mirrored hog feed.

Do your own research and make a decision you are comfortable with. Don't get hung up on one expert or fanboy group think. Btw, I'm the guy that wears ear plugs vacuuming the carpet and always try to slip in ear plugs when hunting with a can if I have time.

 

[HuntHarder]

A lot of MDs were pushing the clot shot a couple years ago. How'd that turn out? Govt safety regs are constantly being updated...the old food pyramid mirrored hog feed.

Do your own research and make a decision you are comfortable with. Don't get hung up on one expert or fanboy group think. Btw, I'm the guy that wears ear plugs vacuuming the carpet and always try to slip in ear plugs when hunting with a can if I have time.

Guys vacuum? Kidding.

 

[alexnelon]

Please post links. I researched this in the early 2010’s and read everything I could find at the time. Had access to the people writing the new at the time nrr standard, but unfortunately there is not a lot of good studies on gunshot noise. One reason is, it’s hard to tell if damage has occurred and unfortunately it’s permanent.

There have been some sizeable shifts in thinking around measuring hearing damage, or shifts are currently in progress, I guess. So most of the firearms-specific studies are in a state of being obviously wrong, and some new ones are probably in progress as we speak.

"The Science" is un-settle-ing so to speak. Notably, the growing understanding that using audiograms to test hearing loss is not super helpful because it takes 30-40% loss in function to mark a difference in an audiogram, and losing the ability to hear tones and amplitude in certain frequencies is a marker of loss, not damage. It's like using a person's heartbeat to screen for injury. There's a lot of space between hurt and dead.

Tinnitus, speech-in-noise intelligibility deficits, reduced auditory brain stem response, all can be signs of hearing damage with no observable inner or outer hair cell damage.

So we're starting to see most research is aimed at how and what to test for hearing damage.

Read this whole thing and every study it cites.

Basically every study ever done on firearms-related noise-induced hearing loss is not sensitive enough, and the level of impulse noise that does not cause damage is much much lower than 130dB.

 

[Bluefish]

There have been some sizeable shifts in thinking around measuring hearing damage, or shifts are currently in progress, I guess. So most of the firearms-specific studies are in a state of being obviously wrong, and some new ones are probably in progress as we speak.

"The Science" is un-settle-ing so to speak. Notably, the growing understanding that using audiograms to test hearing loss is not super helpful because it takes 30-40% loss in function to mark a difference in an audiogram, and losing the ability to hear tones and amplitude in certain frequencies is a marker of loss, not damage. It's like using a person's heartbeat to screen for injury. There's a lot of space between hurt and dead.

Tinnitus, speech-in-noise intelligibility deficits, reduced auditory brain stem response, all can be signs of hearing damage with no observable inner or outer hair cell damage.

So we're starting to see most research is aimed at how and what to test for hearing damage.

Read this whole thing and every study it cites.

Basically every study ever done on firearms-related noise-induced hearing loss is not sensitive enough, and the level of impulse noise that does not cause damage is much much lower than 130dB.

Thank you for posting the link.

I didn’t read all of them, but I can see so many issues with some of those results. I agree that we don’t know enough about gunshot impact noise. My perceived difference between a single protector and a can of what should be a similar spl suggests that they are not the same. Unfortunately there is no real push to figure out nihl from shooting. Insurance companies don’t cover hearing aids, so they don’t have an investment it solving it. I am not sure the military wants a good way to evaluate hearing loss caused by gunfire as it would open them up for a lot more VA claims. We know unprotected gunshots cause hearing damage. Even some hpd’s don’t provide enough protection. Suppressors really only became readily available in the last 5 years with e-forms. I expect we will know more in another 10-15 years. Until then I am going to use a can when possible and still use a hpd. My hearing is already damaged and I would like to prevent anymore. Btw my audiogram was fine 12 years ago, but oae’s showed significant loss above 5k. Now 12 years later the audiogram shows that loss. Down 40 db above 4K.

One example of a bad test is, Rezaee et al. (2012) the summery lists exposure to unprotected rifle shots as only a 114 db spl and it caused damage. Well, sure it did. It was a rifle and you were not wearing a hpd for 20 shots. It for sure caused damage. I would believe that they did not use the correct equipment to measure the exposure as they said it was only 114db at the shooters ear, from an AK 47. Even a single protector without instructor fit would not get a shooter below 140db. As my coworker used to say NRR or not really relevant.

 

[atmat]

Basically every study ever done on firearms-related noise-induced hearing loss is not sensitive enough, and the level of impulse noise that does not cause damage is much much lower than 130dB.

Thanks for the link. I have not made my way through all the citations.

In general, I have concern with some of the citations. However, I largely agree with the first half of your statement.

I don’t agree with the second half of your statement above (bold-italicized by me). What specific citations point to “much lower than 130dB” being the threshold? I’d like to jump ahead to those ones.

Edit: If this were a true statement, then arguing over 3 dB at the 130dB mark would be fruitless anyway — as no suppressor would be good enough alone for a shot, and all decent suppressors would be good enough when combined with ear plugs. In other words, all of these suppressors would be functionally equivalent given a range of 3dB, and it goes back to being a silly debate.