Unknown suppressors OG testing

[Formidilosus]

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.

It’s all good. Real discussion is the point of the forum.

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.

Well, not to be rude- but you can’t fix stupid.

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.

This is a fallacy, on multiple points- but for this one- it’s how people should shoot, and if they aren’t- start doing so.

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?

I don’t wonder. I would take 50 shots from any real suppressor without ear pro, rather than one unsuppressed shot without ear pro.

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.

I will not use a hammer, saw, lawn mower, anything- that makes sounds above normal voice without hearing protection.

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.

Why? You aren’t a child, you aren’t mentally deficient, just put in ear plugs.

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.

This is coping man. It is an excuse matrix that people use to delude themselves out of suppressed use. I have heard this my entire life- at no point is it true.

 

[Hurley88]

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.

Yes been around suppressors for the last three years, shot a ton with them. But always at the range with earpro. I’m incredibly offended that you think I’ve never shot suppressed. Kidding! But no, I own the OG, a 9mm suppressor, a 22LR suppressor, and have an Airlock en route. New to hunting with them and possibly not wearing earpro.

The above is well said, and I agree with this. But for context, I’m talking about 6.5CM on down. The shootability benefit falls off rapidly the lower you go in powder capacity & recoil. Same with brakes, less gas to capture so less reduction in recoil. Less recoil & blast to start with on more anemic cartridges, less overall shootability benefit. 6.5PRC on up? You got no argument from me there.

The argument for benefits regarding game animals’ reactions is amazing, can’t wait to see that in practice.

And I would really love to not have the earpro in during the shot, that’s the part I’m concerned with mainly.

The points I’m raising are from discussions I’m having right now during hunting season with friends. They’ve never been around suppressors, and it’s been an interesting discussion about what their net benefits really are.

 

[Hurley88]

I don’t wonder. I would take 50 shots from any real suppressor without ear pro, rather than one unsuppressed shot without ear pro.

Pure gold, this. 50 suppressed shots to do the damage of one unsuppressed. Good to know.

This is coping man. It is an excuse matrix that people use to delude themselves out of suppressed use. I have heard this my entire life- at no point is it true.

Well to start off, if it takes 50 unsuppressed shots to do the damage of one suppressed shot then my perspective loses its legs pretty quick.

I’m not Jesus, I’m fallible & here to learn. Not baiting either; please explain this coping excuse matrix thing if you have time.



The entire argument I’ve been having lately is that “If you’re just exposing yourself to more noise in the end, is it worth it just to have better reactions from animals?” But it seems the first proposition is false.

 

[Bluefish]

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.”

While I think the actual sound pressure levels may be the same, the perceived sound is different. I agree that the unmuffled sound from a suppressor seems louder than with hearing protection on an unsupressed rifle. From what I know about physiology of the ear, it amplifies certain frequencies. My hypothesis is that when you cover or occlude the ear, you remove that ear canal resonance. Also hearing protection doesn’t attenuate all frequencies the same amount, just like a suppressor doesn’t reduce all frequencies equally. So I am not surprised that the experience is different even though metering says the sound pressure levels are similar.

Imho the human ear and nervous system is not a good judge of gunshot noise level. Two reasons, it’s really loud and it happens very quickly 3-5 ms. Most people can not react that fast or even know the even has happened before it’s over. I can’t tell the difference between my cans when shooting. I can if I am off to the side a ways. Even then I don’t think I could be all that accurate on noise level.

Muffs also cover the mastoid bone which reduces bone conduction. In your example, muffs really only provide around 20 db of reduction if you are wearing glasses, so they should be louder than a rifle with a can. They will also bounce off the head under large pressure waves, providing less protection.

 

[Formidilosus]

Pure gold, this. 50 suppressed shots to do the damage of one unsuppressed. Good to know.

Oh it’s probably worse than that in actuality. I have seen people shoot hundreds of suppressed shots in a day (still stupid if you have a choice), and within a month have their hearing checked and have no apparent degradation. But have seen multiple people fire one unsuppressed shot, and then be tested and have measurable damage done.

Well to start off, if it takes 50 unsuppressed shots to do the damage of one suppressed shot then my perspective loses its legs pretty quick.

I’m not Jesus, I’m fallible & here to learn. Not baiting either; please explain this coping excuse matrix thing if you have time.

Haha. “Coping matrix” or “excuse matrix” is something said in my group when people are trying to find ways or justification out of, or into poor decisions because they don’t want to admit the truth. Ex: Someone shoots a group and there is a shot outside of the group they don’t like- “I sneezed”, “a fly flew into my eye”, “ wind must have got it”, “it’s just a flyer”, “a butterfly farted”, etc etc.

The entire argument I’ve been having lately is that “If you’re just exposing yourself to more noise in the end, is it worth it just to have better reactions from animals?” But it seems the first proposition is false.

Yes. That is not correct. Also, our ears are more sensitive to higher pitched, sharp frequencies and sounds than lower ones. Suffered shots are lower frequency than unsuppressed.

 

[Bluefish]

Pure gold, this. 50 suppressed shots to do the damage of one unsuppressed. Good to know.



Well to start off, if it takes 50 unsuppressed shots to do the damage of one suppressed shot then my perspective loses its legs pretty quick.

I’m not Jesus, I’m fallible & here to learn. Not baiting either; please explain this coping excuse matrix thing if you have time.



The entire argument I’ve been having lately is that “If you’re just exposing yourself to more noise in the end, is it worth it just to have better reactions from animals?” But it seems the first proposition is false.

If the data from niosh is correct, ie dose levels vs hearing damage, some of the better cans that are down in the mid 120’s will allow 50 shots safely without hearing protection. A 130 ish can is probably 10 or so shots. I would bet most people who have no training on how to wear hearing protection get more damage from shooting with foamies and no can, than they would get with a good can and no hearing protection.

I wish I still had it, but a group out of Australia did a test on foamies and the average protection without training was 15 db. With training it went up in the mid 20’s but still not the 30+ claimed on the label.

 

[Formidilosus]

If the data from niosh is correct, ie dose levels vs hearing damage, some of the better cans that are down in the mid 120’s will allow 50 shots safely without hearing protection. A 130 ish can is probably 10 or so shots. I would bet most people who have no training on how to wear hearing protection get more damage from shooting with foamies and no can, than they would get with a good can and no hearing protection.

I wish I still had it, but a group out of Australia did a test on foamies and the average protection without training was 15 db. With training it went up in the mid 20’s but still not the 30+ claimed on the label.

This has been shown repeatedly in the US DOW (DOD). Even people that are instructed in putting in ear protection correctly, the average is about half of what it is rated for.

 

[Hurley88]

Wow. Great stuff @Formidilosus & @Bluefish, gonna have to chew on this for a bit.

I hear you both, makes sense. But damn does that OG ring my bell. Not gonna keep shooting it without hearing protection, which I agree would be stupid, and I am very very new to hunting with suppressors (I.e., using them without ears on)…good deal. I’m open to it, looking forward to comparing the Airlock & OG side by side.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

for context, I’m talking about 6.5CM on down. The shootability benefit falls off rapidly the lower you go in powder capacity & recoil.

.

No. Untrue. My 16.1” 5.56 AR and Tikka are both far more pleasant to shoot suppressed. As are all the other rifles I have fired (6.5 Grendel, 6.5 CM, .25-06, .270).

 

[Hurley88]

No. Untrue. My 16.1” 5.56 AR and Tikka are both far more pleasant to shoot suppressed. As are all the other rifles I have fired (6.5 Grendel, 6.5 CM, .25-06, .270).

Admittedly I don’t have the round count with suppressors that you do, but I’ve compared this specifically. I’ll do more in the future too.

I never said it wasn’t more pleasant, I said the shootability benefit goes down. The timed drills I’ve done suppressed & unsuppressed looking into this only add up to about 600ish rounds so far, so again not a huge data set. I was looking into it bc the suppressor gets so dang hot that I wanted to just continue training so I took it off. The recoil impulse is barely different with lower powder/recoil cartridges. Different, but not drastic like a larger cartridge. The hit rates don’t change. And with the suppressor off I shoot more.

Although, after the above discussion with Form & Bluefish I’m rethinking as the long term benefits of using the suppressor (either let it get hot or just wait a bit) outweigh the benefit of not having it on.

Again, 6.5CM on down, specific to shootability…I haven’t seen it. Though yes it’s more pleasant.

 

[Formidilosus]

Admittedly I don’t have the round count with suppressors that you do, but I’ve compared this specifically. I’ll do more in the future too.

I never said it wasn’t more pleasant, I said the shootability benefit goes down. The timed drills I’ve done suppressed & unsuppressed looking into this only add up to about 600ish rounds so far, so again not a huge data set. I was looking into it bc the suppressor gets so dang hot that I wanted to just continue training so I took it off. The recoil impulse is barely different with lower powder/recoil cartridges. Different, but not drastic like a larger cartridge. The hit rates don’t change. And with the suppressor off I shoot more.

Although, after the above discussion with Form & Bluefish I’m rethinking as the long term benefits of using the suppressor (either let it get hot or just wait a bit) outweigh the benefit of not having it on.

Again, 6.5CM on down, specific to shootability…I haven’t seen it. Though yes it’s more pleasant.

The issue of bone conduction from stock to cheek is real. I long ago started wrapping my AR stocks in vet wrap too insulate against it- even before I started using suppressors regularly. The conduction of concussive forces into those bones are also real- and suppressors greatly reduce or eliminate both of those concerns.

The only con to suppressing an AR is gas to face. However, that risk is greatly alleviated by using non toxic lube, or natural oil, such ans olive oil, when practicing with AR’s.

 

[Hurley88]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good stuff


LOL so there’s more to it than “I don’t see a difference”. Could be damaging my hearing the whole time, slowly.

You have any data sources that I can read up on the subject? I’m gonna do a Google Scholar search later on but if you know of any off the top of your head it cuts down on the time to get there.

Right now I’m in that middle zone. I hear what you’re saying, makes sense, but 20yrs of shooting as I do hasn’t hurt me and I get tested yearly. That doesn’t mean it won’t hurt me over time but it’s hard to completely buy into given personal/anecdotal experience. Again, going to research this thoroughly.