Suppressor VS Ear protection. Which is more effective?

[Rich M]

You do realize that foam plugs might provide a similar 30 db protection, but probably provide less. The average users without training gets about 15 db of protection.

Yeah - foam plugs suck. I like the ones with 3 baffles/flanges on the sides.

 

[againes85]

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.

 

[Bluefish]

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.

 

[Claxton]

I shot my 7mag w/o suppressor and w/o ear pro while hunting for years. It never really bothered me. Then after bowhunting exclusively for several years, I was with my daughter on a late season elk meat hunt. We were watching a flock of 30 turkeys down in a bottom, and I saw a coyote trying to sneak in on them. I had my foamy ear plugs around my neck and never even thought about putting them in. I just instinctively shouldered the rifle and shot. I've never felt pain like that before from any noise until then. Now I'm only shooting my .243 and 6CM these days, and always suppressed. Huge difference.

Same. My coworkers threatened to start a go fund me account to get me hearing aids. The day is coming…

 

[johnnycake]

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.

Exactly correct. @Jimss, you really should look into it either deeper or again. Your post is factually incorrect.

I'm not an expert on the topic by any means, just a bit of a passionate nerd who finally realized I was wrong and missing the point on suppressors about a year ago.

I have a lot of gripes and complaints with my experience using SilencerCentral about unnecessary delays and questionable value of the product for the price. But at the end of the day, I actually really like the overall performance out of the Banish MeatEater I bought. I went with that can specifically because of their claims that it should reduce recoil by 30-40% on top of a meaningful sound reduction.

I have not measured the actual performance levels, but it makes my .270 Win shooting 130gr copper feel and sound like a ~8lbs .243 shooting reduced loads. The differences for both categories are dramatic.

The length, width, and weight of the can are manageable even on my 24" barrel out in the field. It's easy enough to take apart and clean now that I've learned it needs antiseize on the threads and bought a basic $80 ultrasonic cleaner off Amazon that does all the work for me. And I can put it on any centerfire up to .300 RUM. Not bad for sub $1500.

 

[svivian]

Suppressor is the easy choice and its not because of the better performance. Ive seen too many guys(my younger self included) get in a hurry and take a shot without plugs even though they were hanging around their neck.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

The use case is different. As said above, things can happen fast. I don't shoot my suppressor at the range without ear pro. But a couple shots at an animal and it's no problem.

 

[Jimss]

Suppressor recoil reduction 19 to 23%, Muzzlebreak 49 to 56% recoil reduction. Which is more important less noise or recoil?

Take a look at the shooter's rifle with a side-by-side comparision at around the 12:30 minute mark in this video with a 300 win mag. There is no doubt an advantage with a muzzlebreak over a suppressor when shooting larger calibers! The guy also mentions other advantages with a muzzlebreak.

I also think for kids, recoil is pretty important. With a muzzlebreak it would be possible to cut a lot more recoil which may be good for youth that want to hunt elk sized species with a larger caliber. Just make sure to put on earplugs!

 

[String Bean]

OP asked about sound suppression not recoil
Both my suppressors have an estimated (non official instruments just app on my phone) noise reduction down to 130 6.5 creedmore and 135 280AI at shooters ear . I still use electronic muffs because once damaged hearing everything impacts.
Highly recommend a suppressor for the multiple things it brings to the hunt and highly recommend hearing protection when hunting

 

[ColeyG]

Suppressor is the easy choice and its not because of the better performance. Ive seen too many guys(my younger self included) get in a hurry and take a shot without plugs even though they were hanging around their neck.

This.

I am religious about hearing pro and even though I wear a set of plugs around my neck 100% of the time when hunting, I still winding of having to take the occasional snap shot where I don’t have time to get my plugs in. The suppressor solves that problem entirely. I’d would still prefer to get ear pro in when shooting with the can, but am not worried about it at all if I have to crack a quick one off outdoors without.

 

[MtnSquach]

last year was my first year hunting with a suppressor. I’ll never hunt again without one! Reduces sound and recoil. I’ll be honest and admit I missed an elk on my first shot and I believe the suppressor reduced the sound of the first shot and gave me a second chance. I was able hit the elk in the heart on the boxy shot and dropped I in it’s in its tracks.

 

[Bubba scrub]

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate all the responses. This is an awesome community.
Suppressor AND ear-pro it is.

Is there a particular brand/model of ear protection you guys recommend for hunting?

 

[Sled]

I use both when target shooting but go without earpro when hunting. You've received good advice already. The best reduction you'll get is a suppressor with a cheek pad and some sort of earpro. Inner/outer plus muffs will help a lot too. The choice is yours. I have bad hearing from years of explosives use with only my fingers to protect my hearing. When I shoot the big guns I use both plugs and over ear muffs. I don't shoot shoulder mounted rifles without a suppressor anymore.

 

[Sled]

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate all the responses. This is an awesome community.
Suppressor AND ear-pro it is.

Is there a particular brand/model of ear protection you guys recommend for hunting?

3M makes good over ear pro. The best ones are for smaller ears. Find the inners that fit you best.

Regular size ears

Make a black and gray version that was rated at 32 dB reduction. I can't find the link for it right now but those fit regular to small size ears and are the best ones I've personally used. Don't fall for the DB ratings trap. Most companies are just slapping a number on their product without truly testing.

 

[CMP70306]

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.

Suppressor recoil reduction 19 to 23%, Muzzlebreak 49 to 56% recoil reduction. Which is more important less noise or recoil?

Take a look at the shooter's rifle with a side-by-side comparision at around the 12:30 minute mark in this video with a 300 win mag. There is no doubt an advantage with a muzzlebreak over a suppressor when shooting larger calibers! The guy also mentions other advantages with a muzzlebreak.

I also think for kids, recoil is pretty important. With a muzzlebreak it would be possible to cut a lot more recoil which may be good for youth that want to hunt elk sized species with a larger caliber. Just make sure to put on earplugs!

As someone who owns and shoots a suppressed .300 Win Mag with 225gr bullets I would never once pick a muzzle brake over a good suppressor. Sure with a muzzle brake the gun kicks a bit less but that comes at the cost of an additional 20 to 30 decibels and a significant amount of concussion directed back at the shooter.

Additionally the bones of your face are only good for dampening the sound about 40 decibels so even if you were to completely stop the sound through your ears with plugs and muffs the sound wave reaching your ear drums from a muzzle brake through the bones of your face is still more damaging than a suppressed shot with no hearing protection.

Suppressors on the other hand reduce not only noise but also remove the concussion and reduce the recoil. In many cases that concussion is a major part of the reason people flinch more so than the recoil. And if you really need more recoil reduction you can utilize something like a Recoil-X brake on the end of the suppressor to provide additional recoil reduction for a small decrease in noise reduction.

Also a story, one day my Dad and I were walking to our stands when we jumped a deer, both of us were carrying 18” 6.5 PRCs and there was zero time to put on ear protection. We were standing next to each other when we fired, if we were both carrying braked rifles both of us would have had significant hearing loss as we would have taken 180+ decibels to one of our ears at 5ft.

Later that day I shot the rifle unsuppressed to show someone the sound difference, it was the first time I shot it without the can and I was surprised at how sharp the recoil was as the scope hit my eyebrow. I had shot that rifle hundreds of times prior and had no idea it kicked that much or was anywhere near that loud unsuppressed.

 

[johnnycake]

Suppressor recoil reduction 19 to 23%, Muzzlebreak 49 to 56% recoil reduction. Which is more important less noise or recoil?

Genuine question. Have you shot much with a suppressor? Tried out more than one? Nothing wrong if you haven't, but I do think doing so, or trying out other cans, might impact your opinion on this subject.

The fact that you went from "I believe someone makes a suppressor that incorporates a muzzlebreak but I believe it is around $2,000" to the next post with a narrow claim and applicability for certain suppressors about recoil reduction makes me wonder how much you've really looked into this or what first hand experience you have.

The range of the amount of recoil reduction possible by any given suppressor is far wider than 19-23%. Some do a lot less, and others quite a lot more. Same for how much sound reduction any given suppressor accomplishes. It's not a one size fits all and the size, weight, materials, baffle design, etc (and as a consequence of better performance at lighter/smaller the higher the price typically) of each one will impact the degree of performance in each category.

In my experience with my kids and various buddies' kids, noise reduction makes a bigger impact than recoil on their enjoyment and performance when shooting. My can does a very nice job at both I think.

 

[7LRM]

The one hunt I bring ear plugs, when I hunt wit muzzleloader. I have shot and hunt. With suppressor for the last few years and it is the best thing ever happen in this sports. I love and enjoy every time I take the gun to the range and to the woods.

Cheers