Suppressor VS Ear protection. Which is more effective?

[nm.otter]

3M makes good over ear pro.
...
Make a black and gray version that was rated at 32 dB reduction.

Zero hits for "32 NRR" on the 3M site or on Amazon. Not much black and gray, either. Perhaps these?

Decibel Defense claims 37 dB -- I am skeptical.

 

[Sled]

Zero hits for "32 NRR" on the 3M site or on Amazon. Not much black and gray, either. Perhaps these?

Decibel Defense claims 37 dB -- I am skeptical.

Maybe. I have them on my gun mounts still. I'll take a pic next time I'm up there.

Edit: I found the link here. They were rated 31nrr previously. They work well for low ranges and are considerably better than the one I linked above. I think the ones you were looking at are the updated model.

 

[nm.otter]

Still 31 https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00037368/

 

[Sled]

Still 31 https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00037368/

That's good. Wouldn't be the first time Amazon got a spec incorrect in the title

 

[Bluefish]

Something to look into would be passive earing protection. They filter out the damaging noise but allow you to ear conversations.
They do not use batteries so it always is working

Unfortunately these don’t offer much protection. Better than nothing, but not all that good. Also they mostly rely on the small orifice principal and protection/ reduction is based on the level of sound. Louder, more protection, quieter, less protection.

I have read the paper on how 3m developed them. Interesting that they had to develop a test method since hearing protection was not tested at high sound pressure levels at the time. Simply tested at lower levels to see how much sound level was reduced. That didn’t work when 130+ db sound is needed to make the protection work.

 

[Bluefish]

Zero hits for "32 NRR" on the 3M site or on Amazon. Not much black and gray, either. Perhaps these?

Decibel Defense claims 37 dB -- I am skeptical.

I would not believe a 37 nrr rating for a single protector. A single frequency reduction, yes that’s possible, but not a nrr of 37.

Went and looked at the web site, it’s simply a muff. No way they are 37 db in real life, especially with glasses.

 

[streamerfish]

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.

I don't currently have one, but their is plenty of data out there that shows that suppressors decrease recoil, some pretty significantly depending on design. Plenty that are showing 20%+ reduction. That's with not counting the rather obvious "felt" recoil differences in much less blow back/gasses going everywhere.

Running a muzzle break, depending on which one, your pushing the line of being able to have enough hearing protection to be safe. At minimum your probably needing to double up with in ear and muffs.

 

[StreetCred]

**While hunting** that is..
I'd likely still use ear-pro at the range even with a suppressor, unless they're just insanely quiet?
I am still a little novice with this stuff.

I would think you would still need ear-pro at the range. Not everybody will have a super quiet suppressor. That being said, there are some really quiet suppressors out there. The "hearing safe" decibel limit is around 130 dB. I would still want to find something that gets below that level. You'll have to do some hunting but should be able to find something. Check out Pewscience.com They have great reviews and recommendations.

 

[wind gypsy]

I look at bare muzzle with ear pro as being roughly equal to suppressed without ear pro. Still always wear ears at the range and never wear ear pro while hunting (when suppressed).