Thank you Yugorpk I learn something new here many times over.
I think silencer has a nice ring to it.
Do you need hearing protection for subsonic ammo in suppressed guns?
- Thread starter The Exile
- Start date
- Status
I think silencer has a nice ring to it.
plodder
Member
I have several silencers/suppressors/mufflers/quietythingies. The only time I shoot without hearing protection is when shooting my 10/22 with silencer and subsonic loads. The noise of the action cycling is louder than the report.
For .223 and .300BLK ARs, it is tempting to not wear the muffs, but they remain loud enough to cause nighttime ringing in my previously damaged ears if too many rounds are unleashed without.
For .223 and .300BLK ARs, it is tempting to not wear the muffs, but they remain loud enough to cause nighttime ringing in my previously damaged ears if too many rounds are unleashed without.
Ive found that if I fire my SBR's in my basement with my Specwar its a little uncomfortable and I think I might want to wear hearing protection. Not like a gunshot. More like a high pressure air coupling come apart. Outside no biggie. 300 BLK RARR in the basement is spooky quiet. I have friends over to impress them. Outside its like an airsoft gun.
Theohazard
Member
Seriously? You're using your first post to perpetuate the "It's not a silencer, it's a suppressor" myth?Uncle Tom said:
"Silencer" is a more correct term from both a historical and a legal perspective. After all, don't you think an inventor gets to name his invention? And because the inventor called it a silencer, that was the primary term used for most of the 20th century. And that's why the term "silencer" is the primary term used by the ATF: the Form 4s for my all my silencers say "silencer" on them.
The term "sound suppressor" is a made-up term that some people invented because they wanted a new name that better described what it actually does. And that's fine; if you prefer the newer made-up term "suppressor", then feel free to use it all you want. But don't correct people who use the original name for it.
I wouldn't get too worked up about it. I actually find it amusing that a grammer nanny has got something wrong (don't be angry it's all in good fun so don't take the saying grammer nanny too literally either.)
We all make boos boos from time to time. I never knew myself that the term "suppressor" was made up by some square peg who wanted a PC term for silencer (I think silencer sounds much more cool than suppressor.)
In fact I think term suppressor is good name to give our current government that is trying to suppress our freedoms and constitutional rights and not just the silencers (oh boy do they think using the term suppressor makes me feel more at ease
) they use on their huge fearsome unchecked arsenal and soldiers that have more than once killed or injured innocent people.
Who knows maybe with the new Dept of Homeland Stupidity regulations they can use "suppressors" in raids and after wiping out the wrong household clean up without the neighbors knowing the better. Then Obama can put a national security gag order on the whole embarrassing boo boo and suppress oops I mean jail (secretely) anyone trying to exercise any free speech about it.
So in conclusion you may or may not need hearing protection with a silencer but I think most of the time for the types of firearms they are used on you don't. but it would not hurt to do so if it's not too much of a bother.
We all make boos boos from time to time. I never knew myself that the term "suppressor" was made up by some square peg who wanted a PC term for silencer (I think silencer sounds much more cool than suppressor.)
In fact I think term suppressor is good name to give our current government that is trying to suppress our freedoms and constitutional rights and not just the silencers (oh boy do they think using the term suppressor makes me feel more at ease
) they use on their huge fearsome unchecked arsenal and soldiers that have more than once killed or injured innocent people.Who knows maybe with the new Dept of Homeland Stupidity regulations they can use "suppressors" in raids and after wiping out the wrong household clean up without the neighbors knowing the better. Then Obama can put a national security gag order on the whole embarrassing boo boo and suppress oops I mean jail (secretely) anyone trying to exercise any free speech about it.
So in conclusion you may or may not need hearing protection with a silencer but I think most of the time for the types of firearms they are used on you don't.
but it would not hurt to do so if it's not too much of a bother.
Last edited:
Theohazard
Member
People tend to vastly underestimate how loud suppressed gunfire is. From a medical standpoint, it's a good idea to wear hearing protection when shooting a silenced firearm, even a .22.
An audiologist will tell you that repeated exposure to noises as low as 85 dB can cause hearing damage. The quietest .22 silencers on the market rarely get a shot down below 115 dB. That's in the same dB range as a jackhammer.
http://american-hearing.org/disorders/noise-induced-hearing-loss/
From that page: "Habitual exposure to noise above 85 dB will cause a gradual hearing loss in a significant number of individuals, and louder noises will accelerate this damage."
The tone and duration of a suppressed gunshot doesn't make it seem anywhere near as loud as it is, but it's still loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage over time, even with a suppressed .22.
An audiologist will tell you that repeated exposure to noises as low as 85 dB can cause hearing damage. The quietest .22 silencers on the market rarely get a shot down below 115 dB. That's in the same dB range as a jackhammer.
http://american-hearing.org/disorders/noise-induced-hearing-loss/
From that page: "Habitual exposure to noise above 85 dB will cause a gradual hearing loss in a significant number of individuals, and louder noises will accelerate this damage."
The tone and duration of a suppressed gunshot doesn't make it seem anywhere near as loud as it is, but it's still loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage over time, even with a suppressed .22.
Hyrulejedi86
Member
Your definitely right about that but there is a difference between instantaneous sound and sustained sound. 85 db sustained is very different than 115 instantaneous. I think OSHA has 140db as it's instantaneous allowable decibel limit. That's why for rifles silencer companies aim for 140 and lower.
I can't speak to decibels but the suppressed MP-22 and Walther 22 are nowhere near as loud as a door closing. With the MP the bolt is right by your ear so you hear it pretty well but the Walther is just a "putt". I don't remove my protection just because I am shooting them but if they are the only thing I am shooting at that session I don't really worry about it. Even with that I probably wear ear muffs 90% of the time just out of habit.
That gets back to continuous exposure versus short term exposure. We have instruments that can measure extremely short duration spikes that your ear cannot. Yes, a extremely good silencer will register 110dB on a long barrel .22. You can barely hear it. OSHA will tell you that is WAY over acceptable limits and it is IF you are at 110dB for 20 minutes. A gunshot lasts a fraction of a second.
Theohazard
Member
No, they're a LOT louder than a door closing. Many times louder. Just because your ear perceives your silenced .22s as being quieter, that doesn't mean they are.jrdolall said:
Your silenced. 22s are around 115 dB. A door slamming shut is a heck of a lot quieter than that, no matter what your ears try to tell you.
I'm not saying you have to wear hearing protection when you're shooting your suppressed .22s. I don't. But what I'm saying is that they're not "hearing safe" from a medical perspective because they're actually louder than they seem; 115 dB is actually pretty loud, it's just that a suppressed .22 is a high-pitched sound at a very short duration. But you probably get more hearing damage from driving home with your car windows open than you get from shooting a few rounds out of a suppressed .22.jrdolall said:
Last edited:
Theohazard
Member
Hyrulejedi86 said:
Very true, but that just means it will take longer for suppressed gunshots to cause measurable damage. But that still doesn't make them "hearing safe".yugorpk said:
That 140 dB limit is misleading. It certainly doesn't mean that anything lower than that is "hearing safe", no matter what the silencer companies try to tell you. What that number means is that anything above 140 dB can easily cause instantaneous hearing loss that is immediately measureable. So 140 dB is the absolute limit for one-time daily exposure according to OSHA. But that doesn't mean sounds below 140 dB won't cause permanent hearing loss.Hyrulejedi86 said:
- Status
