To brake or not to brake... that is the question.

[KenLee]

This is such an awful take: “Who cares about hearing damage and screw everyone else!”

Bursting someone's eardrum while the person is in possession of a firearm might not end well

 

[Lawnboi]

I was really hoping to hear some others chime in on this. Any idea why this study shows higher db reduction for both foam plugs and plugs + muff? Is it realistic to expect 50db-ish protection if one carefully inserts 30db+ plugs and wears 20db+ muffs with a solid seal completely around the ear?

I do shoot braked rifles often and will not do so without doubling up. It’s a significant difference. I do the same when shooting a bare muzzle as well. How guys will shoot all day with just ear muffs with a 25nr rating is beyond me. I’d be ringing all day.

Too many hunters and shooters are just ignorant to the fact that their ear pro is not really protecting them when shooting unsuppressed. It’s apparent in some of the comments in this thread alone.

 

[atmat]

Bursting someone's eardrum while the person is in possession of a firearm might not end well

In fairness, that guy did clarify his comments quite a bit and it was a more reasonable take.

 

[Bluefish]

Too many hunters and shooters are just ignorant to the fact that their ear pro is not really protecting them when shooting unsuppressed. It’s apparent in some of the comments in this thread alone.

unfortunately this is very true. There is this myth that wearing protection automatically makes gunfire safe. In reality only double protection worn properly can give enough protection for hundreds of shots at the range.

i see people all the time wearing foam plugs and they are sticking out of their ears. For me and the testing I have done, that offers very little protection. Maybe 15 db at best. The worst examples are the wax mold your own. They claim 20+ of protection. But that is only when the experimenter fit them for the test. I expect most people are under 5 db of protection as they simply don’t know how to correctly fit them. the more recent labeling does offer a range of protection instead of a single number. It’s an improvement , but what should be required is method B test data. Thats user fit data, not experimenter fit data. Meaning users have to fit the devices then get tested. Its more in line with real world performance. Also why method B data is not cut in half by osha unlike experimenter fit nrr which is when used for calculating protection in an industrial setting.

 

[Tail_Hunter]

Try it and you can see for yourself. My understanding is that you reduce transmission by covering the mastoid bone. this doesn’t happen with a plug alone.
Also you get more protection than just a muff alone as muffs can be moved off the head by strong shock waves. I have viewed high speed footage from ipil testing with ordinance where the muffs get lifted off the dummy head during the test. By putting a plug underneath you still have protection even if the seal of the muff is broken.
the reason you don’t get a true addition of both protectors is the bones in the head will transmit sound, limiting total protection to about 50 db.
I have tinnitus and plugs alone don’t cut it for me on indoor ranges, rifles, magnum pistols. I get a shift in my tinnitus if I don’t use muffs as well in those cases. I do shoot cowboy action with plugs alone, but those loads are very light. If someone is shooting heavy loads I move further back from the firing line to reduce exposure.

I wear foam plugs with ear muffs quite often, both for target practice and while running a chainsaw. When shooting I wear safety glasses cocked so they don't go between my head and the muffs. I do notice enhanced sound deadening but I don't know that my subjective experience allows me to quantify how much protection I am getting.

 

[Tail_Hunter]

They somewhat qualify the mannequin measurements by stating that "the mannequin has more insulation of the microphone and thus does not recreate the bone conduction and oral-nasal pathways. However, the peak level reductions may be reasonable for what a human subject would experience."

So there is some speculation there that leads one to believe it isn't 100 percent equivalent. I think when you add in variation in coverage and fit, adding the two together and taking the max number is pretty optimistic. I found it interesting that they measured a significant reduction in protection of muffs if worn with safety glasses breaking the seal, as well. They stated that if safety glasses disrupted the seal, the peak reduction was reduced from 50 to 30.

I think all these things add up to why the OSHA rule is add 5db reduction to the highest rated devices when combining protection. There's just so much variability that they have to play it safe. Can you do better than that if you limit the inefficiencies of fit and use? Sure. But even just resting your muff on the stock while shooting or wearing safety glasses tucked behind your ears might remove a ton of that additional protection.

It makes sense that there is variability in protection based upon using best practices vs typical use. The question is how to apply that to your personal use. It seems that "typical use" is pretty haphazard and frankly lazy. Plugs only partially inserted, muffs worn loosely with gaps/glasses/hats obstructing the seal.

 

[dieselchessy]

I use the Impact Sport muffs with the Sight lines gel gaskets with the slot for safety glasses.
They are comfortable and seem to work well.
If I’m at the range or around brakes, ect.. I put in Walkers foamy’s as well.

But I wear the muffs for mowing, weed eating, driving the tractor, chain saws, skill saws, grinders, hammering, ect… pretty well anything that’s loud I wear ears and eyes. Helps to have reasonably low profile, comfy for hours of wear, and microphone.

My next set will have some type Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connection. Having Apple ear buds in under the muffs isn’t comfortable for long wear sessions.

 

[TheGDog]

[*]Just like non-suppressed rifles, I always hunt with a balloon over the end of the rifle to prevent snow, dirt, pine needles, etc from getting into the barrel. You just need a larger balloon for the suppressor

DOH! Thanks Man! That's not a bad idea! I've just been doing the electrical tape thing. Be way easier to just get out a new balloon from the pack though I'd imagine.

 

[Beaverdog]

I have gone from a bare rifle to a brake to a suppressor. Now that i am in the suppressor game i have no interest in shooting a rifle without one and will never touch a brake again. Taking the hearing hazard out of this scenario i find i shoot better with the suppressor than anything else. Not only do they help with the recoil reduction, i find that the elimination of the muzzle blast itself makes way easier to stay on target and avoid developing a flinch. Imo save the money and weight dont buy a brake and just go straight into a direct thread suppressor. There are actually some good affordable options out there if youre on a tight budget, say 500 for the can and 200 for the stamp. Let me know if you want some recommendations.

 

[f16jack]

DOH! Thanks Man! That's not a bad idea! I've just been doing the electrical tape thing. Be way easier to just get out a new balloon from the pack though I'd imagine.

I have a bag of them in my pack. In the dark I distribute to my buds prior to going out each morning. Some guys get the pink balloons, some the greens.
With the elec tape - if you don't take it off of a barrel it gets water under it. Years back one of my buds got a little rust for leaving that tape on too long.
(note the balloons on the barrels. Even the yellow balloon on my suppressor)

 

[madgrad02]

I have gone from a bare rifle to a brake to a suppressor. Now that i am in the suppressor game i have no interest in shooting a rifle without one and will never touch a brake again. Taking the hearing hazard out of this scenario i find i shoot better with the suppressor than anything else. Not only do they help with the recoil reduction, i find that the elimination of the muzzle blast itself makes way easier to stay on target and avoid developing a flinch. Imo save the money and weight dont buy a brake and just go straight into a direct thread suppressor. There are actually some good affordable options out there if youre on a tight budget, say 500 for the can and 200 for the stamp. Let me know if you want some recommendations.

I am new to the suppressor game, so definitely welcome any suggestions. Looking for something to tame the 7mm mag, but not be a brick on the end of the barrel either. Cost isn't necessarily restrictive (just take that bit longer - not a race for me), but if there are cheaper options that get the job done, more than welcome to hear.

 

[Beaverdog]

I am new to the suppressor game, so definitely welcome any suggestions. Looking for something to tame the 7mm mag, but not be a brick on the end of the barrel either. Cost isn't necessarily restrictive (just take that bit longer - not a race for me), but if there are cheaper options that get the job done, more than welcome to hear.

I say it a lot but check out pewscience.com, they review test and rate suppressors. My opinion the best bang for buck suppressor out there in terms of weight, db reduction and price is the diligent defense enticer sti. If thats out of your budget they make a stainless version thats only 4.5oz heavier but its 250 cheaper. I have an sti on order right now.

 

[TheGDog]

With the elec tape - if you don't take it off of a barrel it gets water under it. Years back one of my buds got a little rust for leaving that tape on too long.

Oh shoot... Thanks Man! Damn... I didn't think about that! I presumed the adhesive would keep it out, since the tape itself isn't permeable.

Those self-adhesive Camo-tapes are not good for that as well!

I'd gotten caught out in AngelesNF in a total friggin Monsoon this one time where I couldn't even see 5ft away from my face it was soo much rain. And then by the time got back to truck schlepping miles thru that stuff.. and finally got back home and what not I was super exhausted, and in my tiredness didn't think to bother removing that self-cling camo tape.

But... next day when I went to handle the rifle again after I'd rested... I noted "Oh shoot... that's still damp.. dang it.. better take this off." And woah it was surprising how much of an amount of rust has already started to form in there!

So now I just paint them up instead. Like the results better anyway.

SIDE THOUGHT : I don't wear orange in the field (at least not until leaving or packing out) so slapping an orange balloon on there might not be a bad idea!