Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
Is the guy in the vid below being super macho by not wearing ear protection ? or is it totally safe to not wear protection because his suppressor is just that good ? at least I can't see any ear deals also any thoughts on what db he is experiencing ? Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency. Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first | ||
|
Member |
I have a short barrel bolt gun set up, not quite as fancy as his, and use a Rugged Surge suppressor. dBs come in well less than 140 at the ear and I've shot a few times with no ear pro just to see. Even with under 140 dBs sound pressure is cumulative and can still damage hearing with continued use. The famous OSHA less than 140 will not create permanent hearing damage is bunk as it is meant for a one time or seldom occurrence not pushing mid 130s for hours. Not positive but it may be a ThunderBeast suppressor and they are very good. P220 European P220 Scorpion P220 10mm Legion MK25 P226 Legion P226 SAO Legion P229 Legion 556 rifle, my favorite 556 P320 M17 (not the expensive one) with Leupold DPP P227 Tac-ops machineguns suppressors 07/02 | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Keep in mind that 50 years ago (and even more recently) hearing protection was the rare exception rather than the rule. Shooters were therefore exposed to full volume gunfire noise whenever they shot. After a heavy session my hearing was diminished and I experienced the typical ringing (tinnitus) sensation, but for several years of shooting both effects cleared up in time. If only a few shots were fired or I was exposed to only my own gunfire, the effects were typically less. Was I suffering long term damage? Certainly, but it wasn’t apparent at the time. Even after the event in Vietnam when I developed permanent tinnitus I didn’t notice any acuity impairment, and subsequent hearing tests for some years were close to normal. The same thing still happens today when LEOs are involved in gunfights or when hunters shoot without hearing protection. Very seldom do any of those shooters experience immediate and lasting noticeable hearing impairment. Today I have severe tinnitus and documented hearing loss, and I am very sensitive to loud noises. I have fired a 308 rifle with TBAC suppressor without hearing protection, and quickly realized that I needed to wear at least plugs whereas I always wear muffs when shooting unsuppressed centerfire guns. But the suppressed noise was quiet enough that I can certainly understand why some people would believe that they need no protection, especially in light of what shooters used to experience and tolerate. ► 6.4/93.6 “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” — Plato | |||
|
| Member |
The shooter in the video is using a Thunderbeast Ultra suppressor, either a 7" or 9". I have both. TBAC cans are among the quietest on the market. While using my 9" Ultra on a 26" barrel 6.5 Creedmoor in matches, ROs commonly state that my rifle is among the quietest they've experienced during the match. For people who are well back from the shooting location -- maybe 20 yards or more -- hearing pro isn't necessary for some. However, while on the rifle, I wouldn't even consider shooting without either foam plugs or electronic muffs. Same for when I shoot with my 23" barrel 308 Win and the 9" Ultra TBAC can. Noise levels at the shooter are noticeably higher for both an AR-10 and a short barrel. The noise levels for the shooter in the video were not hearing safe. He may be able to tolerate it because of previous hearing loss. Continued shooting in such a manner will only contribute to his hearing loss. **** On the the shooting itself. A rather tedious video. His accuracy at 100 yards is nothing special. Most people struggle with 308 Win semi autos accuracy, so that's nothing new. His accuracy on steel at 200 and 300 yards was pretty good. His accuracy at 475 was just OK the first time, and a little better the second time. Accuracy at 600 and 700 yards was OK, but nothing to write home about. He should have stopped there. His 1133 yard target was....big. Even then, he didn't hit it with any kind of accuracy or frequency -- it was well beyond the capabilities of the rifle, the ammo, and the shooter. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Shooters not wearing eye protection is another thing I find interesting. Again, like hearing protection, long, long ago it was uncommon to virtually unknown. I still remember, though, an advertisement for Ray-Ban glasses, probably in the 1960s, that pictured a man whose rifle (Garand—?) had suffered some sort of blow up. He was wearing the glasses that were severely pitted, including directly over his eyes, by whatever had blown out of the action. In those days “shooting glasses” had yellow lenses and were touted primarily because that tint was supposed to increase target contrast, but even though they didn’t offer the impact protection of modern products, their safety value was slowly recognized and has progressed to this day. The interesting thing for me, though, is not that they’re so commonly used, but when I notice that sometimes they’re not used. I conduct a fair amount of training with steel targets and still must sometimes admonish trainees to wear proper kinds. What really surprised me, though, was watching military sniper competitions and seeing that almost none of the shooters wore protective glasses. I’ve raised that question for precision rifle shooters here and it seems that not all of them wear glasses in competitions either. Is there no reason to fear eye injury with modern precision rifles if there is something like an overcharge blow up, or is the probability of its happening so low that it’s not worth the inconvenience (and handicap) of wearing glasses when shooting? I don’t like wearing glasses when shooting a precision rifle, but I just ordered (another) quite expensive pair in hopes that I won’t have to fight with them so much in the prone as with the many others I’ve tried. Am I just being paranoid? ► 6.4/93.6 “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” — Plato | |||
|
Member |
Sadly, I often forgo safety glasses behind my bolt gun but I wouldn't see it's a bad idea. They are always on for pistol and semi-auto work. I've had hot brass end up in all sorts of places. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
I just received the RE Ranger “Classic” eyewear I referred to above. At a total price of $238 (frames and lenses sold separately) I had to grit my teeth to put them on the card because I have so many other glasses already, but they are finally the glasses I’ve been seeking for a long time for precision rifle shooting. Because of the size and shape of the lenses I don’t have to constantly fight with them when shooting from the prone and the cable temple arms keep them firmly in place on my face. During the one session I’ve used them thus far it was possible to forget that I even had them on. They don’t have the impact protection of the glasses I use with handguns, but I believe they are adequate for bolt action rifles.* * From the company: “Our lenses are a polycarbonate lens made by Zeiss. Our Ranger shooting eyewear does pass Ansi standards first impact, but do not meet second impact standards. Any eyewear with removable lenses cannot meet that standard.” https://www.reranger.com/produ...NNv-h1MaArqVEALw_wcB ► 6.4/93.6 “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” — Plato | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024