Suppressor VS Ear protection. Which is more effective?

Not in your options but there is no doubt in my mind that I would invest in a muzzlebreak plus ear protection vs a suppressor. Yes, muzzlebreaks are loud but most suppressors do nothing more than filter noise. Muzzlebreaks decrease recoil by 20 to 50%. I have no problem shooting my 300 win mag all day long with a quality muzzlebreak and ear protection. I likely would only last around 5 or 10 shots with the same 300 win mag and a suppressor.

I believe someone makes a suppressor that incorporates a muzzlebreak but I believe it is around $2,000.
No offense here but you need to do more research on suppressors then. A muzzlebreaked rifle is reportedly 20-40% louder than a normal none threaded rifle. As stated a muzzle breaked 300 win mag is reportedly around 175-180 DBs, while a suppressed 300 win mag can be in the range of 135-140 DBs.

While muzzlebreaks lessen recoil more effectively, suppressors also do reduce recoil by 30-50%. When I got my first can they were still getting the recoil management under control. Now there are several options on the market of suppressors for a can and muzzlebreak in one and most of them run for about $1000-1200.

I can say that I used a 300 win mag with a suppressor and still run muffs even when hunting as well. I can fire it without the muffs but dont want to do that very often.

For the OP I would look into get a suppressor and then style run electric muffs as well.
 
Yeah - foam plugs suck. I like the ones with 3 baffles/flanges on the sides.
Actually foam plugs test better than any other in ear protection when used correctly. The Christmas tree ones are mid 20’s at best. Single protectors really are not as good as people think. They won’t get a braked magnum rifle under 140 db at the ear.
 
Back
Top