Unknown suppressors OG testing

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

But I’m sure a ton of guys who are like me are wondering…”is it worth it?”. I mean if at the end of the day it’s still loud, adds weight to the end of your rifle, adds length, and costs over a grand…then is the only real tangible benefit that animals react less?

Tell me your ears don’t ring all day every day without telling me.

Is it worth it to try and keep it that way? I would suggest yes but don’t mind MeeeeeEeeeeEEeeeeEeeeeee (that e part keeps going).

 

[Hurley88]

No mine ring all day every day. Nobody told me for the first five years on construction sites that grinders & chop saws did damage to your ears when you use them every day.

Since I have mondo tinnitus, I use earpro for every single shot. And when I forget…ouch.
If the suppressor gets me to not use it for hunting, and I still go “Oh holy hell, next time put the dang earplugs in!” then have I spent over a grand just to have less reaction from the animals sometimes? This isn’t necessarily my strong personal view, it’s one expressed commonly among my hunting group as I’m the only forum participator and the only suppressor owner.

50% of the time I’m around gun shooters, the other 50% I’m around gun owners. And the latter group has that outlook. And I can’t really convincingly discuss it bc so far they have the better argument. So I’m trying out another one and will do a comparison.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

No mine ring all day every day. Nobody told me for the first five years on construction sites that grinders & chop saws did damage to your ears when you use them every day.

Even if they told ya we were all young and invincible then…

 

[AZ_Hunter]

No mine ring all day every day. Nobody told me for the first five years on construction sites that grinders & chop saws did damage to your ears when you use them every day.

Since I have mondo tinnitus, I use earpro for every single shot. And when I forget…ouch.
If the suppressor gets me to not use it for hunting, and I still go “Oh holy hell, next time put the dang earplugs in!” then have I spent over a grand just to have less reaction from the animals sometimes? This isn’t necessarily my strong personal view, it’s one expressed commonly among my hunting group as I’m the only forum participator and the only suppressor owner.

50% of the time I’m around gun shooters, the other 50% I’m around gun owners. And the latter group has that outlook. And I can’t really convincingly discuss it bc so far they have the better argument. So I’m trying out another one and will do a comparison.

I have tinnitus from years of being young and dumb….

Suppressors are 100% mandatory for me to protect what ears I have left, not to mention the added benefit of shooting better.

A good suppressor should have equal to or more sound attenuation to ear plugs. 20-30db ish… So if you’re fine shooting with foamies, a can will be the same.

 

[JGRaider]

As to the OG and the new 6.5OG comparisons, as usual, the market will eventually decide which one is "best". Patience is required, cut I do find it interesting that many people and maybe even some of their own said it was "way better" than the OG.

 

[Dan Carey]

Even if the suppressed rifle still seems loud it is still doing less damage to your ears.

 

[RockAndSage]

50% of the time I’m around gun shooters, the other 50% I’m around gun owners. And the latter group has that outlook. And I can’t really convincingly discuss it bc so far they have the better argument. So I’m trying out another one and will do a comparison.

What rings your ears more, unsuppressed...a deer rifle, or a .22LR?

And what if you can make a deer rifle ring your ears less than a .22LR does ,by adding a suppressor - is it worth it then?

Besides hearing protection, there are other benefits to suppressors. Namely, they do help most people shoot more accurately, by reducing both recoil and muzzle blast. That tends to reduce recoil-anticipation, as well as flinching.

 

[cuerro viejo]

As to the OG and the new 6.5OG comparisons, as usual, the market will eventually decide which one is "best". Patience is required, cut I do find it interesting that many people and maybe even some of their own said it was "way better" than the OG.

On paper as a 4” past muzzle hunting can it appears that way 10.9 vs 7.6 oz and 3 dba is a difference… if you are <6.5 cal specific

if the OG 6.5 was available when I bought, spec wise, I would of gone that route. Its more inline of what I would want purely off weight, size, and caliber. With that said if cans where OTC, I wouldn’t sell my OG for a loss just to get an OG 6.5

 

[Hurley88]

A good suppressor should have equal to or more sound attenuation to ear plugs. 20-30db ish… So if you’re fine shooting with foamies, a can will be the same.

Yeah this I disagree with. This is where I think the internet oversimplifies a complex subject (gunshots/noise/dbA).

I can take the same rifle with no suppressor and put on earmuffs, fire a shot, has no effect on me. I can then take the earmuffs off and put a suppressor on, fire a shot, and instantly regret it. If the gunshot was say 163 db, the suppressor takes it to 133 db, and the earmuffs also take it to 133 db…I don’t think so. These are ratings and numbers attempting to express simply, something that’s complex.

Even if the suppressed rifle still seems loud it is still doing less damage to your ears.

Again, this just doesn’t ring true to me or anyone I’ve discussed this with recently. It’s like saying “Don’t worry, I know it hurts more but it’s actually causing you less harm.”

 

[Hurley88]

And look. It goes without saying that earmuffs are good. Earplugs inside earmuffs are even better. And earplugs under earmuffs while suppressed is even better still.

But there’s gotta be something to the fact that ear protection is physically blocking concussive forces right at your listening canal versus simply attenuating those forces at their source then letting them have at your unprotected ears. I just don’t buy that it can be reduced in such a simplistic way. Bc I’ve personally heard/felt the difference.

I’m not disparaging suppressors as a whole, they’re definitely a benefit. Again I’m addressing this to all those who are wondering but not necessarily participating on a forum. Just reading forums tends to lead one to believe that a suppressor and hearing protection do the same thing. Which they absolutely do not.

 

[Formidilosus]

And look. It goes without saying that earmuffs are good. Earplugs inside earmuffs are even better. And earplugs under earmuffs while suppressed is even better still.

But there’s gotta be something to the fact that ear protection is physically blocking concussive forces right at your listening canal versus simply attenuating those forces at their source then letting them have at your unprotected ears. I just don’t buy that it can be reduced in such a simplistic way. Bc I’ve personally heard/felt the difference.

I’m not disparaging suppressors as a whole, they’re definitely a benefit. Again I’m addressing this to all those who are wondering but not necessarily participating on a forum. Just reading forums tends to lead one to believe that a suppressor and hearing protection do the same thing. Which they absolutely do not.

It’s very backwards way to view it.

No one, and I mean- no one, that actually understands hearing damage, gunshots, and suppressors believes or says that suppressors make ear pro not necessary. This is the common incorrect belief that people make.

Let’s use a real example from life. Two groups of a couple dozen people a piece, same exact use case and rounds fired per year. Both groups do the exact same things. Both groups must get annual in-depth and full hearing tests every year.

Group A is unsuppressed. Group B is suppressed. Both groups religiously wear hearing protection on the range. Both groups occasionally fire shots without hear protection when not on the range- though Group B does so at twice the rate that Group A does. Group A also uses double hearing protection at 2-3 times the rate Group B does.

At the end of 12 calendar months- nearly all members of Group A have measurable hearing degradation beyond the norm. However, no member of Group B has hearing degradation beyond the norm. This continues for multiple years. And every year at least 1 member of Group A fails the hearing test and must be placed in a different job. After 5 years, no member of Group B has hearing damage that fails them.

More than all of that, is after 10 years 100% of Group A (unsuppressed) have measurable and severe hearing damage in certain frequencies. In that same ten years span, Group B (suppressed) has only one person with degraded hearing beyond the norm, and that damage does not affect normal life or job.

Suppressors are not magic- firing them in ranges without ear protection on purpose is ignorant and stupid. However, there is zero doubt as to their effectiveness in preserving hearing long term. Belief to the contrary is just a total lack of understanding, or a coping mechanism to justify not getting and using them.

 

[112Savage]

things that people comparing in-ear or over-the-ear hearing protection don’t consider is bone conduction of muzzle blast/pressure.

Things that suppressor users who don’t wear ear protection is reflected sound and supersonic crack.

No matter what, using a suppressor is better than just ear protection. However, a suppressor alone does not fully protect you from all potential sources of damaging sound/pressure.

I will say after reading all three years of suppressor summit and rearranging the data every way I can; then comparing to actual experience with different suppressors. I find some suppressors have numbers more similar than I would expect (banish backcountry and Q trash panda, OCL polonium 30).

 

[RockAndSage]

It’s very backwards way to view it.

No one, and I mean- no one, that actually understands hearing damage, gunshots, and suppressors believes or says that suppressors make ear pro not necessary. This is the common incorrect belief that people make.

Let’s use a real example from life. Two groups of a couple dozen people a piece, same exact use case and rounds fired per year. Both groups do the exact same things. Both groups must get annual in-depth and full hearing tests every year.

Group A is unsuppressed. Group B is suppressed. Both groups religiously wear hearing protection on the range. Both groups occasionally fire shots without hear protection when not on the range- though Group B does so at twice the rate that Group A does. Group A also uses double hearing protection at 2-3 times the rate Group B does.

At the end of 12 calendar months- nearly all members of Group A have measurable hearing degradation beyond the norm. However, no member of Group B has hearing degradation beyond the norm. This continues for multiple years. And every year at least 1 member of Group A fails the hearing test and must be placed in a different job. After 5 years, no member of Group B has hearing damage that fails them.

More than all of that, is after 10 years 100% of Group A (unsuppressed) have measurable and severe hearing damage in certain frequencies. In that same ten years span, Group B (suppressed) has only one person with degraded hearing beyond the norm, and that damage does not affect normal life or job.

Suppressors are not magic- firing them in ranges without ear protection on purpose is ignorant and stupid. However, there is zero doubt as to their effectiveness in preserving hearing long term. Belief to the contrary is just a total lack of understanding, or a coping mechanism to justify not getting and using them.

This is extremely interesting, especially the parts of doubled-up hearing protection and the rates of hearing loss for Group A. Is there anything public on this you could point us to?

Also, any idea if this was all rifle stuff, or if pistol is included in suppressed/unsuppressed? Asking because my ARs are suppressed, but not pistols. Also wondering if I should start doubling-up on ear pro when shooting pistols...

 

[Formidilosus]

This is extremely interesting, especially the parts of doubled-up hearing protection and the rates of hearing loss for Group A. Is there anything public on this you could point us to?

Unfortunately no public release for now.

Also, any idea if this was all rifle stuff, or if pistol is included in suppressed/unsuppressed?

Pistols included- though they are awful to suppress right now.

Asking because my ARs are suppressed, but not pistols. Also wondering if I should start doubling-up on ear pro when shooting pistols...

100% yes. Double ear protection is mandatory for any pistol shooting I do.

 

[Hurley88]

Form, love your post bc it’s getting right into the discussion I’d like to see. I’m gonna push back a bit, but it’s in the spirit of learning & I don’t mean in any way to be rude. Want to say that out of the gate.

No one, and I mean- no one, that actually understands hearing damage, gunshots, and suppressors believes or says that suppressors make ear pro not necessary. This is the common incorrect belief that people make.

Yet that’s exactly what AZ_Hunter just did. And to AZ_Hunter: I don’t mean that as a shot across the bow. I’m saying that these days the vast majority of guys get their firearm info online and from forums; when they chime in to the convos from dudes that have several suppressors or have been shooting much higher round counts, these are the conclusions they draw. It’s not intended by the guys on the forums, it’s just…well like Form said. It’s common & incorrect.

Let’s use a real example from life. Two groups of a couple dozen people a piece, same exact use case and rounds fired per year. Both groups do the exact same things. Both groups must get annual in-depth and full hearing tests every year.

This is where I’ll push back and again it’s bc I’m genuinely interested in learning and in all internet-goers learning. So let’s put numbers to this. Say all these people shoot 1000 rounds per year. Group A (unsuppressed) shoots ten rounds without earpro each year and Group B (suppressed) shoots 20 rounds.
At the end of ten years, both groups have fired 10k rounds. Without hearing protection, the unsuppressed group has fired 100 rounds and the suppressed group has fired 200 rounds.

In that scenario…I can’t argue. I agree, the suppressed group would definitely fare better. I’d only say that scenario doesn’t line up with how people actually shoot IME. The unsuppressed group would likely shoot without earpro like ten times less (not half as much) than the suppressed group, and then it would be accidental when it happened under the heat of the moment while hunting. I wonder who’d fare better with a 10:1 ratio? Just my initial thought when I read your scenario. I’m genuinely curious who would fare better with a more extreme ratio.

In my personal experience, I do get tested for hearing every single year for my job. And my experience matches what I just wrote. In 20yrs I’ve shot five times without earpro unsuppressed (all on accident) and three times without earpro suppressed (on purpose bc I was dropped on my head as a child). I have tinnitus, but no hearing degradation. Though I know it’s coming. I now have earbuds around my neck at al times at work and don’t play around with loud noises. I even have them in when mowing the lawn or when I used am electric carving knife in my rifle case foam. Since I have the habit of NEVER not using earpro when shooting, my genuine concern is that suppressors might lead me to not using it for hunting which would then harm me. Even if it’s only five shots a year, it’ll double my exposure in the next three years compared to the previous 20yrs. Suppressed, but still.

With the above scenario/metrics, I’m completely on the fence as an overall “are they worth it”. I would be THRILLED to experience the benefits of suppressed hunting. And those set of circumstances apply to majority of all hunters/shooters I’ve been around. It’s discussed, and deemed a net negative. Expensive, give data to the ATF, heavy…all so you can be exposed to more noise rather than less? But if it doesn’t ring your bell, the whole argument sways the other way due to the benefits when actually taking a shot hunting.

 

[RockAndSage]

Unfortunately no public release for now.




Pistols included- though they are awful to suppress right now.



100% yes. Double ear protection is mandatory for any pistol shooting I do.

Good to know, and much appreciated.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Yeah this I disagree with. This is where I think the internet oversimplifies a complex subject (gunshots/noise/dbA).

I can take the same rifle with no suppressor and put on earmuffs, fire a shot, has no effect on me. I can then take the earmuffs off and put a suppressor on, fire a shot, and instantly regret it. If the gunshot was say 163 db, the suppressor takes it to 133 db, and the earmuffs also take it to 133 db…I don’t think so. These are ratings and numbers attempting to express simply, something that’s complex.



Again, this just doesn’t ring true to me or anyone I’ve discussed this with recently. It’s like saying “Don’t worry, I know it hurts more but it’s actually causing you less harm.”

From a pure db reduction standpoint, foamies and a good can reduce db in the same number bracket as advertised.

That said, I don’t disagree at all with your point that there is more to it than that. I echoed the same point in a post talking about dB and dBa. There a ton of factors here.

ETA: For clarity. I shoot with ear pro when training. Only rifle hunting do I not use ear pro.

 

[Hurley88]

ETA: For clarity. I shoot with ear pro when training. Only rifle hunting do I not use ear pro.

Of that I have no doubt. From what I’ve seen, you’re a very responsible shooter and knowledgeable. And I’ll add that I’ve personally never even heard of someone (well…after the year 2000) that would ever shoot without hearing protection for any reason other than hunting and even then sparingly.

Reason I participate here is bc of the wealth of knowledge & civil discussion. Appreciate all I’ve learned from everyone on here.

 

[Gstew1930]

Pistols included- though they are awful to suppress right now.

What do you mean right now lol? something might be coming?

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Hurley88:

It sounds like you have never shot a suppressed rifle? Not a call out, genuinely asking.

Because there is more to it than just sound reduction. The overall experience can’t be quantified with just dB numbers, there are other advantages. Zero of my rifles are unsuppressed, it’s mandatory to have a can on all my rifles. The improved shootability is real. Moreover, I HATE hunting or even shooting with someone unsupressed. I consider it rude and archaic.

You are looking for justification since you use ear pro in the field. With a suppressor, you still can and get added hearing protection. Beyond that, get the benefits of improved shootability. The reduction in recoil, noise and blast really leads to better shooting that is hard to quantify.