Thread: Suppressor effectiveness - Think about this!

Well 6x47, I for one would like a bit of input from an audiologist and I imagine most other would as well.

For more info than anyone would like to know about "doubling sound". This link will help. This goes into the necessary inputs of sound duration and other factors that contribute to subjective sound levels.

For a guide on higher level peak sound this PDF is very useful. NIOSH/Criteria for a Recommended Standard--Occupational Noise Exposure, 1998

I took the dBA dose percentage and calculated the number of shots each level would allow before breaking the "8 hour threshold". Shot impulses are in microseconds so even a small time fram seems to allow for several shots over 8 hours in a day at 140 or less.

I would like to get a professional view on whether this method is correct or even opinions on this, 6x47. The reality in hunting is that most people will not wear ear muffs and most will not shoot their rifle remotely from 450 meters. Subsequently some guide on the sound levels that are acceptable would be good. I know for a fact that suppressors can reduce sound at the ear better than some single ear protection setups with braked rifles.

Regarding recoil. Brakes inside a can cease being a brake once they are inside the can. I am producing my first Ratchet Locking can over a brake or flash hider now. When I was doing the first testing I asked the person shooting the 308 what they thought about the brake versus the can. Subjectively they said it wasn't much different. I am dead sure that the effect could be measured as the brake being better for recoil but like sound levels, there are other factors that make the rifle "seem" to recoil less. There is certainly less flinch inducing from a suppressor versus a brake.

More discussion on this topic will do the shooting community a lot of good.