What's the deal with everyone using suppresors?

KurtR

WKR
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
3,950
Location
South Dakota
Some body needs to invent electric guns ! No gun powder no recoil. No noise to complain about, no excuses for flinching ( yea right). No hearing protection needed. Maybe get government funding under the new green deal. Even little girls ( yea i know) could shoot them, without fear.
You do know suppressors were on the market in 1902……
 

Marbles

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
4,412
Location
AK
Put the plugs in your hand for minute and they are soft enough to push in.
been doing it for years before I start the chainsaw.
Works better to have them on a string and tuck them in my neck gator. But, have to pull my mittens and gloves off both hands to get plugs to seat properly. Big time waste when a hair is sitting in front of me, and cold. Much easier to just pull the mitten off my right hand, then shoot with the glove still on.

It can certainly be made to work, but I prefer a muffler.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
1,257
Location
Kirtland, NM
Oh my hell! Give me a break……🤣 any day over a suppressor. Ok I got it now. Break is bad, suppressor is good. Yes, pop tarts can be dangerous. Ever watch a kid try to eat one right out of the toaster? 😂 moving on now to greener pastures.
 

Towhee

FNG
Joined
Jan 9, 2024
Messages
18
They really should be available over the counter. But it'd hurt the hearing aide companies bottom dollar or something something, yada yada I'm sure.

I can't justify the 1k+ and the threading for my 6.5 CM. I double up on hearing protection.
 

ManBun

FNG
Joined
Jan 27, 2023
Messages
53
So far I haven’t jumped on the suppressor band wagon! I believe that all the other reasons for suppressors other than noise reduction are company advertising selling points to get people to buy! My buddies all have suppressors, and I have shot theirs. I do like how they reduce the noise and see that advantage, but I don’t like the extra recoil over a muzzle break and the extra length to my barrel. I have worn ear protection for every animal I’ve killed since I was 12 when I started hunting in 1991 (only hunted public lands). I don’t believe shooting suppressed helps with second shots on animals due to I’ve seen animals run and stay after the first shot with both suppressor and muzzle breaks.
If you bought a suppressor and am trying to justify why you got one, all you need to say is I like how it reduces the noise. That’s enough right there! I might get one just for that reason only.
There is one big advantage to shooting muzzle breaks though. That’s when I go to a packed shooting range with my 338 Lapua. After 2 or 3 shots with that rifle, I look around, and all of a sudden I get a shooting range all to myself😉
 

Flyjunky

WKR
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,423
Yep, just a bad trait of human nature, like the Yeti coolers and Swarovski Optics syndrome; if you can’t afford it, you bash it.
The same can be said of those who pay a lot for something feel they have to defend their expensive purchases with bias. It goes both ways.
 

Stalker69

WKR
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
1,801
Lol, that’s ridiculous right there. I can’t imagine the people supporting Harley Davidson would buy into that. Just can’t picture a hells angel or the “ biker” type riding one of those. That’s hilarious, I can’t believe it. Maybe they are tired of being associated with the “ biker crowed” and they are transgendering ?
 

Marbles

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
4,412
Location
AK
Merely stating the effect sound has on your hearing. Nowhere did I ever say the two are comparable. Impluse waves also have a different frequency, travel speed, and shape often dissipating quickly.

The impluse from the crack of a rifle emits radially, not as thin slice on a horizontal plane directed at you.

The part about it being pointless is the threshold of pain is the threshold of pain. Regardless. To say 140 dBA is acceptable because it's suppressed as opposed to wearing "ear pro" that reduces it to the same level is nonsensical at best.
You referenced 90 dBA below, and said 130 dBA was unacceptable while comparing to sustained noise exposures below and referencing OSHA. So, @Ozarkansas nailed it when pointing out the OSHA standard for impulse noise exposure. Per OSHA, reduction to below 140 dBA for impulse noise is safe, it really does not matter what industry you work in.

Hopefully no one is arguing that hearing protection is not acceptable, but a muffler is. The point is, that for some of us a muffler is more convent then in/on ear hearing protection. An additional point is that for some rifles, even using ear pro, noise exposure is still above 140 dBA, so the additive use of a muffler and ear pro is needed to avoid hearing damage.
Just so everyone knows, the threshold of pain is 140 dBA. If a suppressor doesn't get it down below that level, pretty pointless.

If the suppressor does drop it 30 dBA (which most do), it will put high magnums at roughly 130 dBA, which is the same as a jet engine throttled up for take off from 200 ft away.

120 is operating heavy equipment, 110 is a night club with cranked up music.

OSHA's PEL for industry that some of us are in is 90 dBA.

For people that think you don't need hearing protection (never heard of "ear pro" until Rokslide) with a suppressor is sadly mistaken...
Ear pro is a common term in the military (as well as just saying "eyes and ears"), not having heard it before says more about your lack of experience than it does ignorance on Rokslide. I bring this up only because you first felt the need to bring it up.
90 dBA is for sustained noise, over the course of your 8 hour shift. A rifle produces impulse noise, which has an OSHA exposure limit of 140 dB. So by your own numbers, a suppressed magnum rifle is within OSHA limits for impulse noise. Nonmagnums will be even quieter.

Even if that wasn’t the case, if you have a 338 SBR and it produces 180 dBA unsuppressed and 150dBA suppressed, you’re still damaging your ears a lot less shooting it suppressed. Obviously ear protection should always be used when possible, but to say that a suppressor is pointless if it doesn’t get below 140 dB just isn’t true
Correct.
 
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
2,452
Location
Timberline
You referenced 90 dBA below, and said 130 dBA was unacceptable while comparing to sustained noise exposures below and referencing OSHA. So, @Ozarkansas nailed it when pointing out the OSHA standard for impulse noise exposure. Per OSHA, reduction to below 140 dBA for impulse noise is safe, it really does not matter what industry you work in.

Full well aware what a PEL means and how it's applied. There's a PEL for working around most things industry. Let me try this again. If a suppressor knocks it down to 130 dBA and wearing "ear pro" with a brake does the same thing, the suppressor is not necessary giving you an advantage. My post simply stated what other causes of hearing damaging noises are and that people wear "ear pro" in those environments.

An additional point is that for some rifles, even using Ear pro is a common term in the military (as well as just saying "eyes and ears"), not having heard it before says more about your lack of experience than it does ignorance on Rokslide. I bring this up only because you first felt the need to bring it up.

First of all, I'm really not interested in what terminology the military uses. I really don't care. Knowing military terminology in the everyday world doesn't mean squat.

I simply stated that I'd never heard the term before until I saw it on Rokslide. Really no reason to get bowed up about it.

Lack of experience? Come on Marbles, your a better person than that...
 

WTFJohn

WKR
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
448
Location
CO
Having seen double digits of elk killed with and without suppressors, I'll take the animal and hunter reaction of a suppressed shot vs un-suppressed any day of the week. The long term effects of less hearing loss are additional icing on the cake. My experiences with suppressors has led me to basically require them when hunting our place, it is nice to kill elk and have them stick around afterwards.

I balance the idea of 'being soft' because I shoot suppressed with being super mountain tough-fit by toting around an extra 11 oz at the end of my barrel.
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
1,660
I balance the idea of 'being soft' because I shoot suppressed with being super mountain tough-fit by toting around an extra 11 oz at the end of my barrel.
I don't think you get it. He's one of the last of a dying breed of real men in this world. Everything he uses is all you need and anything additional makes you soft. He shaves with a KA-BAR because only women need the luxury of things like razors. He shoots magnums because he doesn't wear skinny jeans or have a man bun. What a coincidence that everyone who says that sort of thing happens to use the perfect assortment of gear for real men.
 
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
2,452
Location
Timberline
My “huh?” was in reference to “killing you quicker than Covid”.

I understand vectors, and I also understand the forces will dissipate across the face and not be centralized to the ear.

It’s America. Everyone should use a suppressor, or don’t. I’m going to dedicate my time to espousing the dangers of playing on the freeway, which no one in this thread has discussed yet.

I apologize, sorry for reading into it too deep.

My covid comment was meant to make light of the fact that in NM during that timeframe, our wonderful governor tried to make it sound like covid was equal to Ebola and that the exposure to shooting isn't the end of the world.

Especially for those [of us] that shoot less than 10 rounds per year.
 

Marbles

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
4,412
Location
AK
Full well aware what a PEL means and how it's applied. There's a PEL for working around most things industry. Let me try this again. If a suppressor knocks it down to 130 dBA and wearing "ear pro" with a brake does the same thing, the suppressor is not necessary giving you an advantage. My post simply stated what other causes of hearing damaging noises are and that people wear "ear pro" in those environments.
Sorry, you specifically said people who don't think hearing protection is needed with a suppressor are mistaken after quoting numbers below 140 dBA. See quote below. If you worded that poorly, fine, but at least admit it was poorly worded rather than argue that you did not say what you clearly did.
For people that think you don't need hearing protection (never heard of "ear pro" until Rokslide) with a suppressor is sadly mistaken...

First of all, I'm really not interested in what terminology the military uses. I really don't care. Knowing military terminology in the everyday world doesn't mean squat.

I simply stated that I'd never heard the term before until I saw it on Rokslide. Really no reason to get bowed up about it.
First off, none of us are really interested in what terminology you have heard used before, knowing what you have heard before and what you have not, in the every day world, doesn't mean squat.

The reason to bring up (using sneer quotes no less) the fact one has not heard a term before is to imply that those who use it are somehow ignorant on the topic. Given that it is a common term, in common usage, all it shows is a lack of experience with other user subgroups rather than ignorance on the part of those who use it.
Lack of experience? Come on Marbles, your a better person than that...
Obviously I am not.
 

Bluefish

WKR
Joined
Jan 5, 2023
Messages
663
The 140 db threshold is for instant damage and I believe there is still some chance of damage even at that level. Below 140 the exposure limit becomes a dose issue. Each impulse from a gunshot is 3-5 milliseconds. The niosh formula for safe dose is N = 10(140 – PI dB)/10. The PIdB is the level at the ear after protection. So 130 db is 10 shots, 120 is 100, 110 is 1000. This suggests that a suppressor for extended range time makes a big difference in your noise dose.
 
Top