Pistol target shooting, hearing protection?

[Search]

SureFire isn't electronic.

It uses the Hocks Noise Brake System.

 

[Patriot]

I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but my hearing is far too important to me to risk it with some electronic device.

Hello radiophile, sorry to hear about your dad having so much trouble hearing. I've known a couple of people in my life who have also had more than a normal amount of difficulty as they've aged.

Regarding the topic of electronic devices I didn't know if you were saying that you had heard something bad about them or that you were just sharing the story of your father to illustrate how it was important for you to be much more careful than your father was. In any case, I don't know of a single example where an electronic muff or plug ever damaged someone's ears.

Electronic plugs and muffs are very conventional in the sense that they prevent unsafe DB levels from making their way into the ear canal. That is to say that a electronic muff when turned off behaves exactly like a regular non-electronic ear muff and an electronic ear plug when turned off behaves exactly like a regular non-electronic ear plug when turned off. All the electronic portion does is relays quiet or normal sounds to the ear via tiny speakers. You hear the lowest sound levels slightly amplified and normal sounds such as speech at a normal level. As soon as you clap your hands, slam a book on the desk, or fire a gun, the impulse noise is canceled. In other words the perception of a gun shot is exactly the same as a non-electronic muff since at that very micro second the muff essentially shuts itself off. Unlike even most MP3 players, the electronic muff or plug can't even be turned up to a point in which the tiny speakers could ever harm your ear drum. The amplitude just isn't very high.

I've been shooting with electronic muffs since their release way back when they became reasonably priced. I'm going to just guess and say that was about 1980, at least that's when I was introduced to them as a young teen. I think that they're actually safer than conventional protection because they stay on most of the time and don't impede normal activities. With conventional protection you might take them off to talk to someone or to eat food or something and that's always when someone on the shooting line cracks off a large caliber rifle and catches you off guard.

My dream electronic plugs are by Walkers but at several hundred dollars I just can't justify them since my Peltors work so well and cost me $79 on sale. I only dream about the others because plugs are so much more comfortable in hot weather. Muffs out here in the summer time leave the sides of your head drenched with sweat. :sweat:

 

[Radiophile]

What I guess I didn't get across is that hearing protection is important to me for a very good reason. I'm sure that foam and silicone ear plugs work, so I'm sticking with them and recommend them over other types. As a bonus, they're cheap!

Muffs alone don't work for me so electronic muffs don't appeal to me. Neither does their price.

I'd never heard of the Hocks Nose Breakers until Search mentioned them. They appear interesting if their NRR is accurate. I read that unless you have the custom molded models the attenuation of lower frequencies is not very good, and I need low frequency attenuation.

 

[Roberts30]

Personally, I do just fine shooting with a pair of over the ear headphone hearing protection. But you may need to put "ear plugs" in and then put on over the ear hearing protection on. (if your firearm is very loud)

 

[alpg88]

any earmuffs should be fine for glock, especially outdoor, i don't even use any when shooting .22.
IMO you if you use gun for home defence, you should not use earmuffs all the time, you don't want unusual and new loud bang (since you never heard shots live) disorient you, during home invasion, when you got to have as much situational awareness as you can. in real life you wont use ear protection. and a second delay, might cost you or your loved ones dearly.
IMO you have to be used to sound, muzzle flash, and recoil, none of it should be distracting.
at the range i use earmuffs that i bought in home depot while back, work great. for me at least

 

[Radiophile]

any earmuffs should be fine for glock, especially outdoor, i don't even use any when shooting .22.
IMO you if you use gun for home defence, you should not use earmuffs all the time, you don't want unusual and new loud bang (since you never heard shots live) disorient you, during home invasion, when you got to have as much situational awareness as you can. in real life you wont use ear protection. and a second delay, might cost you or your loved ones dearly.
IMO you have to be used to sound, muzzle flash, and recoil, none of it should be distracting.
at the range i use earmuffs that i bought in home depot while back, work great. for me at least

Wow - so I should go deaf practicing for the possibility of a crime? Did I read that right?

I've used no ear plugs when I was the only person on the range and shooting a .22 rifle, but I always use them when shooting handguns - even .22s.

 

[Patriot]

Radiophile
What I guess I didn't get across is that hearing protection is important to me for a very good reason

Actually, I think you got that across quite well. I understood.

Radiophile
I'm sure that foam and silicone ear plugs work, so I'm sticking with them

That makes sense and is also easy to understand. I explained the electronic devices because you gave the impression that they presented some level of "risk" which they do not.

Radiophile
I've used no ear plugs when I was the only person on the range and shooting a .22 rifle, but I always use them when shooting handguns - even .22s.

I have some bad news for you then Radiophile. Since any sound above 85-90 decibels can be harmful, a .22 rifle is slowing damaging your ears at over 100 decibels depending on the type of action of the firearm. I place it into the category of exposure to something we sense as loud but don't actually realize that it's causing damage...sort of like a shop vac. No firearm, unless sufficiently suppressed, should ever be fired without hearing protection.

With regards to alpg88's post,

I do not agree with his take on practicing without hearing protection in an effort to, in my own words, acclimate the senses in preparation of a life threatening situation. We all know that guns are loud and the body naturally expects what is coming. When the brain is completely focused or occupied with something much more pressing and urgent it pushes your sensitivity to sound to the background. Even hunters can relate to firing at a once in a lifetime, big game animal, with a large caliber rifle. I'll speak from experience that I never even notice the heavy recoil, never mind the sonic report from the muzzle. I just don't think that experiencing weekly, naked eared shooting would give the defender some decided advantage during the act of protecting themselves. I'm sure there is some data available about this notion but I'm too tired to start searching for it at the moment. Either way, the disadvantages would far outweigh the benefits. Why would a person practically guarantee themselves years of diminished hearing in order to supposedly gain them a slight tactical advantage for a ten second encounter that will likely never happen, statistically speaking? :thinking:

Just my 2 cents.

 

[alpg88]

Wow - so I should go deaf practicing for the possibility of a crime? Did I read that right?

.

if you did you'd notice i said "you should not use earmuffs all the time". meaning some times use no muffs,
and no you wont go deaf form few rounds without muffs, i know quite a few ex military that pretty much never used ear protection during their service, including me, guess what, none went deaf.
you can't win a real race practicing on playstation, shooting isn't much different.
unless your goal is just shooting paper , than like i said you should be just fine with any earmuffs (just not the ones that made to warm your ears in the winter), especially outdoors.

 

[Patriot]

I'm very glad that you didn't go "deaf" but I'd also be surprised if you didn't lose some amount of hearing if you were exposed to enough muzzle blast. I only say that because the trap and skeet ranges up here are full of retired guys who shot for years without ear protection. The all proclaim how stupid they were to neglect their hearing and have turned their preaching to the younger generation about saving their thiers. It sounds like a good dose of wisdom to me.

No disrespect meant, but the analogy of the playstation doesn't quite work for me. It would work if the the guy practicing for tactical scenarios was using one of those little blue or red, spring loaded dart guns with the suction cups on the end, for training. Obviously the differences between tactical firearms training and a child's dart gun are huge, as are the difference between a game console and a real race car.

Instead, I'd liken the lack of ear plugs while shooting to the exact same lack of earplugs while driving an open header'd race car. You can do it and you might even get more audible feed back from the level of grip in the tires but at the same time you're doing irreversible damage to your hearing.

Since saving your hearing is a win, win, situation and professionals train daily while using hearing protection, I'm unable to think of an analogy which would support forgoing hearing protection, even if occasionally.

 

[binky]

SureFire isn't electronic.

It uses the Hocks Noise Brake System.

SureFire lists EP-3 at only 16 dB noise reduction (NRR), and the EP-4 at 19.
The $20 Peltor earmuffs are 30 dB.

While far less obtrusive than the Peltor's, the SureFire's seem to offer only 1/10 the sound reduction, don't they? Am I missing something important? I want to get this right.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

I used to advocate letting off one or two rounds a year without hearing protection, for exactly the same reasons Alpg88 mentioned.

Then I had a couple encounters where I had to draw my firearm and was taking up the slack in the trigger when the bad guys ran away. Being "used" to hearing unprotected gunfire wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference, I was too focused to hear the shot or feel the recoil.

I no longer advocate shooting without hearing protection, even "just" a .22.

:buddies:

 

[NeonLights]

Suggesting shooting any firearm that isn't suppressed without hearing protection is horrible advice (an exception being self defense, but few people are ever in such a situation). No, you won't go deaf, but you can, and likely will suffer permanent hearing damage. A couple of boxes of .357 and 12 ga when I was a teenager was enough to do it for me, I occasionally wore hearing protection, but didn't at least half the time.

Just because you don't go deaf doesn't mean your hearing isn't damaged. I have had a constant ringing in my ears for about ten years now, never goes away, I also have noticeable hearing loss in the upper ranges, and I'm not even 40 yet. My doctor said most of the damage is likely due to shooting without hearing protection. I now wear either foam earplugs or inexpensive over-the-ear muffs, or sometimes both, when shooting, even .22LR.

I do have a friend who went to the expense and bother of getting a suppressor for his AR-15 he uses for home defense. With the suppressor installed shooting .223 it sounds about like a .22 long, with the .22LR converter kit installed, all you hear is the action cycling. His reasoning is so his hearing (and that of his family) won't be damaged if he ever needs to use his AR inside for home defense.

 

[LukeA]

SureFire lists EP-3 at only 16 dB noise reduction (NRR), and the EP-4 at 19.
The $20 Peltor earmuffs are 30 dB.

While far less obtrusive than the Peltor's, the SureFire's seem to offer only 1/10 the sound reduction, don't they? Am I missing something important? I want to get this right.

My $.16/pair earplugs are 33dB, so count me among those who don't get the SFs.

 

[Search]

The way I understood it was with the stoppers in (it has little caps that plug the holes that allows noise to come through that is blocked with the Hocks Noise Breaker).

I know I've shot an M16 for 6 hours straight and the noise came through the same level as people yelling. Which was still VERY comfortable.

 

[KC2IXE]

I have a nice set of non electronic muffs, and a whole box of disposable earplugs, and I wear both on the range. That said, I just bought a set of electronic muffs - no, they are NOT as good, but I didn't buy them for actual "on the range" use. I work the kitchen oh, 20-30 yards from the firing line quite often. You can ALMOST get away with no hearing protection - most of the time!! I got the electronic muffs to wear there - so I can hear while taking orders, and when the occasional guy with a thunderboomer starts up on the range, I don't end up deaf

 

[Lightraven]

If you fire off a few shots without hearing protection and hit the target, then that's about all the training of this type that is required. You get the experience and keep the hearing damage to a minimum.

I have experience shooting everything from a .22 to a 105mm. I have rarely shot without hearing protection for various reasons, including "non paper" shooting.

Given the choice between good hearing and shooting experience without protection for the various types of criminal encounters, I choose good hearing every time. I can sneak up on my dad with a marching band because of his hearing damage from his year on an aircraft carrier during the Korean War. That is not the deficiency you want clearing a building.

 

[BigHonu]

Disposable foam plugs (inserted correctly) AND muffs for me regardless of what I'm shooting. The only thing I might consider shooting on a consistent basis without hearing protection are 'sub-sonic' or 'standard velocity' .22lr out of a full length rifle. Not much louder than your average pellet gun.

I was looking at the Surefire plugs as well, but their advertising is confusing. Anything over 80db gets reduced to 80db, but their NRR rating is only 16db? How does that work?

 

[greenLED]

A little off topic but any word on using them off the range?

Yes, I've worn my EP3's for 4-6 hours while using power tools - very comfortable. I couldn't do that with foam plugs because after a while the pressure against my ear canals gets uncomfortable.

I have a pair of ProEars Dimension II electronic muffs for range use. I got them after I got tired of missing range commands because the foam plugs were in too tight. I'd have to take the plugs out to listen to commands, and then scramble to get them back in my ear before shooting.

I like my ProEars very much. However, once in a while a shot will "squeeze past" the seals and I get the full blast - not good. I haven't gone shooting in a few months, but next time I hit the range I'll be doubling up EP3 + ProEars.

 

[BigHonu]

GreenLed, do you find the SF plugs adequate for range use by themselves?

 

[V8TOYTRUCK]

I use foam plugs as I try to hit the range 2x a month. $.14/cents a pair and a high NRR. Also during the summer months its too hot to have my ears covered, plus they get in the way of getting a comfortable cheek weld on my rifles. I will give those EP3s a shot though.