Barrel Length and Noise

[I Dont Care About You]

As long as it can pick it up and give a rough idea of the decibel variation between the two rifles I’ll be fine with it, it’s just for curiosity sake as it’s a noticeable difference when shooting.

It cannot make such a measurement. If the sound meter cannot react fast enough to capture the sound event (tall, sharp spike) then it will only measure a portion of the noise and we have no idea how much it can measure. ie owe have no idea how much of the peak noise will be missed.

Think of it as trying to use a bicycle speedometer to measure the top speed difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. The instrument is not capable of the measurement it is being asked to make.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Wouldn't it be the way we measure sound, not the sound itself, that has a logarithmic nature?


Also, CDC says 120db is enough to cause injury. So by THAT standard rimfire will absolutely damage your hearing. Its just not an OSHA violation...

Shouting or barking in the ear 110 Hearing loss possible in less than 2 minutes
Standing beside or near sirens 120 Pain and ear injury
Firecrackers 140–150 Pain and ear injury


https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html

The very quote you included says Firecrackers (which are an impulse noise) cause pain and injury at 140-150 dB. That is exactly what I have posted previously. The 120 dB level is for a siren, which is a constant noise.

I am not an expert in the determination of how sound is quantified.

The measurement of sound is an attempt to equate the manner in which we humans perceive sound. Although there was an older measurement scale called "Sones" which also followed a logarithmic scale, just in actual values. At some point we are measuring sound energy, which is easier to quantify on a scale. Otherwise how would we describe the "loudness" of a noise as perceived by an individual? Keep in mind that frequency mix affects our perception of loudness and each of us experiences sound and frequency individually. These things were all worked out decades ago by people smarter than me and I choose to accept that.

 

[Suther]

The very quote you included says Firecrackers (which are an impulse noise) cause pain and injury at 140-150 dB. That is exactly what I have posted previously. The 120 dB level is for a siren, which is a constant noise.

I am not an expert in the determination of how sound is quantified.

The measurement of sound is an attempt to equate the manner in which we humans perceive sound. Although there was an older measurement scale called "Sones" which also followed a logarithmic scale, just in actual values. At some point we are measuring sound energy, which is easier to quantify on a scale. Otherwise how would we describe the "loudness" of a noise as perceived by an individual? Keep in mind that frequency mix affects our perception of loudness and each of us experiences sound and frequency individually. These things were all worked out decades ago by people smarter than me and I choose to accept that.

Siren is an example of something at that level, but they are saying injury takes no time at that level of noise. They are not making a distinction between impulse or not, but if hearing damage takes no time then is that distinction meaningful?

All I know for certain is my hearing was ####ed by stuff much quieter than guns, so I'm going to wear ear pro even if it's a 22lr and I'll recommend the same to everyone else.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Siren is an example of something at that level, but they are saying injury takes no time at that level of noise. They are not making a distinction between impulse or not, but if hearing damage takes no time then is that distinction meaningful?

"No time" is not quantified. All calculations of sound exposure involve exposure time as well as sound level and that exposure time is generally measured in hours. Therefore it is entirely possible that what the CDC means by, "no time" could be 5-10 minutes.

Gunshots are on the order of microseconds. As a rough estimate a gunshot is approximately 100 microseconds. It would take exposure to 1000 gunshots to equal 1 second of exposure. For a 22 rimfire a person could shoot 2 bricks of ammo and have a grand total of 1 second of noise exposure over the course of an entire day. Honestly you'd end up with more injury to your trigger finger than to your ears.

 

[*lawrence]

The 'felt' or 'perceived' sound varies depending on whether it's semi indoors like many ranges or out in an open field.

In an open field my Brno No2E with a long barrel is completely different than my Savage FV SR with a shorter barrel shooting the same amo.

The Savage is uncomfortable to the unprotected ear while the Brno is very, very quiet in comparison.

My Norinco JW15A-13 (13 inch barrel) needs ear protection.

All three of them require ear protection at most ranges which are semi indoors (for lack of a better term).

 

[Butcherbill]

It cannot make such a measurement. If the sound meter cannot react fast enough to capture the sound event (tall, sharp spike) then it will only measure a portion of the noise and we have no idea how much it can measure. ie owe have no idea how much of the peak noise will be missed.

Think of it as trying to use a bicycle speedometer to measure the top speed difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. The instrument is not capable of the measurement it is being asked to make.

We’re going to find out I guess lol, it’s a free app I’ll test out next time I go to the range. Doesn’t cost a dime to try it.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

We’re going to find out I guess lol, it’s a free app I’ll test out next time I go to the range. Doesn’t cost a dime to try it.

You don't need to find out, I can assure you 100% that what you are going to try will not work.

There are only 3 suitable sound metering systems for testing gunshots and they are all expensive and/or difficult to source. The cheapest option is the most difficult to find and will run at least $5000. The easier system to source will run the better part of $10,000.

 

[Butcherbill]

You don't need to find out, I can assure you 100% that what you are going to try will not work.

There are only 3 suitable sound metering systems for testing gunshots and they are all expensive and/or difficult to source. The cheapest option is the most difficult to find and will run at least $5000. The easier system to source will run the better part of $10,000.

Lol, don’t worry about it bud. I’m going to do it regardless, you know for shít’s and giggles.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Lol, don’t worry about it bud. I’m going to do it regardless, you know for shít’s and giggles.

Oh I knew you would. I have never managed to talk someone out of such silliness, regardless of how many facts I lay on them. Not sure why people insist on this pointless "measurement" but they do and worst of all they always come back to explain how much they learned from the useless and incorrect numbers they got. It never fails.

Remember, the reference location is 1m to the left of the muzzle, 1.5m above grass with the mic oriented perpendicular to the plane of the muzzle.

 

[Longstud]

Your at the range and shooting sub sonic 22 rimfire ammo out of your heavy barrel target rifle and its comparable in noise to Pfffff. You don’t notice buddy three spots down has just taken out his 478 Gelloudenboomer and touches off the cannon! To your surprise there’s a really warm smelly mess running down your legs and your ears are ringing and buzzing for the next four days. Just wear hearing protection always. Simple

 

[metalbender]

In a controlled situation, as in only two of us at the range, I shot my 542 Ultra Lux inside without ear protection with quiets. A tad louder than a pellet gun. The 28 inch bbl keeps the bang to a minimum.

 

[*lawrence]

478 Gelloudenboomer

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Actually it was the 22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer

Wikipedia:
Ackley was not just a wildcatter but a researcher as well, often testing firearms to destruction in the search for information. He also produced a number of experimental cartridges, not intended to be practical, but rather to test the limits of firearms. One of these experimental cartridges was the .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer. This humorously named cartridge was developed by Ackley for Bob Hutton of Guns & Ammo magazine, and was intended solely to exceed 5,000 ft/s (1,500 m/s) muzzle velocity. Ackley's loads only managed 4,600 ft/s (1,400 m/s)(Mach 4.2), firing a 50-grain (3.2 g) bullet. Based on a .378 Weatherby Magnum case, the case is impractically over-capacity for the bore diameter, and so the cartridge remains a curiosity.

 

[350tracker]

In a controlled situation, as in only two of us at the range, I shot my 542 Ultra Lux inside without ear protection with quiets. A tad louder than a pellet gun. The 28 inch bbl keeps the bang to a minimum.

I have to agree on how the 28" barrel works well on my 542 ultra lux as well.