Thread: Suppressor effectiveness - Think about this!

Originally Posted by 6x47

More particularly, I doubt there is any evidence to support your integration rule. You'd be a brave man standing up in court trying to defend that

Well judge, I stand before you today charged with attempting to make some sense from a government study on hearing protection that was peer reviewed by over 30 PHD's and MD's. I did my best to quantify and offer mitigation suggestions based on the paper. I practically begged hearing professionals in the industry to critique and correct my conclusions. They said it was wrong but offered no other solution.

6x47, I understand where you are coming from. If the science is not fully conclusive, you can't stand behind an idea as a fact. You CAN offer suggestions based on theory, or best supported practice or other such disclaimer. Most of us shooters need to have an easy to follow guideline. Something like if your 300WM is 175 db you need a minimum grade 5 ear muff that fits properly to JUST get it to 140! So now you are maybe JUST at 140, how many shots will put you over the "safe daily noise threshold?

On the other point. I am not suggesting that the broader peak will have more energy since it is at a lower level. The energy of the shot is fixed by the uncorking pressure and the quantity of powder. I am really asking if the damage mechanism / damaged organ shifts more to the continuous realm versus the impulse realm. It is more of a question with the question directed at the quantity of shots causing damage with the two different mechanisms.

Your custom hearing molds have in effect, made a suppressor for the noise without having to deal with the bullet. This is a good thing. You must be able to now tell the shooter they have a custom fitted ear protection device that is good for X number of rounds at X dBA. What do you tell them and how do you determine the quantity?