2016 SHOT Show: Suppressors

emerson said:
The next best thing is to measure the sound on video and compare it to other common loud noises we hear every day. Share that video widely while referencing Workplace safety regs about allowable sound levels at work. I don't have access to the gear, but someone must.
Click to expand...

Video is actually a terrible way to "hear" or compare suppressed gunshots. All video cameras will clip the top off the sound event which has the effect of making them all sound the same. Very specialized sound equip,net is required to capture all of the sound of a gunshot.
 
Suputin said:
Every one of the manufacturers, testers and professionals that I know that use these things use the term "silencer" a much as anyone else. Both of Alan Paulson's books use the term "silencer" in their titles and those books are widely regarded to be the bibles of the subject.
Click to expand...

I think the push to use the term suppressor instead of silencer is more of a political move than a technical one. "Silencer" seems to have a evil connotation attached to it thanks to Hollywood. So pro gun people are trying to replace the term lol
 
Suputin said:
Because the CDN ban on silencers violates our Charter Rights to Security of the Person as well as the OH&S Laws on reduction of sound at the source.

Shooting without a sound suppressor is nothing short of uncivilized. We nearly the only G8 nation that bans the use of silencers by civilians.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that I misunderstood your comment in the reverse. Probably needed a cup of coffee first!:) We deal with ignorance and simple minded people who are lead around by the nose like retarded sheep as they know no other as their only teacher are the movies and and sensationalist media stories, with little or no bearing in fact. The dictionary definition of a buffoon:rolleyes:
 
I believe it is law in some countries that you must use a moderator. It would be great if we could use this string to put together enough information to submit to the powers that be. I feel strongly that my hearing has been damaged because of government interference with my ability to protect myself from excessive noise. Eg, at the gun club where I have no choice but to shoot there because of government interference. I have no control there over other people who want to shoot high power rifles and deafen me.
 
Hearing protection only offers 20-30 decible noise reduction. A high powrr rifle can be as.loud as 140 DB. 130 decibles cause immediate permanent hearing loss. Anything over 90 decibles will cause damage over time. The higher the number the shorter the time.
 
I have never really understood why we can't have them in Canada. Can anyone point me to the article that forbids them? We seem to be so safety conscious in Canada it would seem logical to pitch them as a hearing conservation implement. I use them extensively in South Africa every year. They reduce noise and recoil, generally allowing better accuracy. My wife's shooting definitely improves with our suppressed rifles over there. I have them on the .308 and the .300 Win MAG and thoroughly enjoy shooting them. I will be using the .300 on a night hunt for Hyena this summer!
 
After having hearing loss personally and have to ask people to repeat them selves when there on my right side, one can only hope...
This would help from having greater hearing loss & would also reduce noise complaints.
 
Parcatol said:
Hearing protection only offers 20-30 decible noise reduction. A high powrr rifle can be as.loud as 140 DB. 130 decibles cause immediate permanent hearing loss. Anything over 90 decibles will cause damage over time. The higher the number the shorter the time.
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, and ..... wrong.

The top hearing protection is typically rated around 30 dB but that is only under laboratory conditions. Typically OH&S reduces the NRR number by at least 7 dB to get a more realistic value

Most centre fire rifles will produce around 165 dB at the muzzle.

The OH&S limit for impulse noise is 140 dB.

A rifle generating 165 dB combined with ear muff only capable of reducing 20 dB of noise results in the shooter receiving 145 dB with each shot which is damaging the hearing with each shot.

All good sound suppressors are capable of reducing the muzzle SPL to less than the 140 dB limit.
 
KMG Canada said:
I have never really understood why we can't have them in Canada. Can anyone point me to the article that forbids them? We seem to be so safety conscious in Canada it would seem logical to pitch them as a hearing conservation implement. r!
Click to expand...

The Criminal Code classifies them as "prohibited device" the same as brass knuckles, switchblades etc. The ban does not appear in the Firearms Act.
 
Suputin said:
Wrong, wrong, and ..... wrong.

The top hearing protection is typically rated around 30 dB but that is only under laboratory conditions. Typically OH&S reduces the NRR number by at least 7 dB to get a more realistic value

Most centre fire rifles will produce around 165 dB at the muzzle.

The OH&S limit for impulse noise is 140 dB.

A rifle generating 165 dB combined with ear muff only capable of reducing 20 dB of noise results in the shooter receiving 145 dB with each shot which is damaging the hearing with each shot.

All good sound suppressors are capable of reducing the muzzle SPL to less than the 140 dB limit.
Click to expand...

That high eh? That's really bad news. I knew it was bad but I have trouble with those numbers. Where did you gather that information? If they are so ineffective then what's the big deal?? 140db is a hell of a bang lol.

What do they want from us? Perhaps a flashing light as well?
 
Suppressors are legal in Finland.

In fact, their sporting use by firearms owners is supported by their Government as a method of preventing excessive health care costs due to hearing loss. Too bad we don't have any forward thinking politicians like those here in this country. Our solution is always to raise taxes to pay for the extra health care costs. Very one dimensional...!
 
jakester said:
Suppressors are legal in Finland.

In fact, their sporting use by firearms owners is supported by their Government as a method of preventing excessive health care costs due to hearing loss. Too bad we don't have any forward thinking politicians like those here in this country. Our solution is always to raise taxes to pay for the extra health care costs. Very one dimensional...!
Click to expand...


Whats the ratio of Finnish firearms owners to population?
 
I lost the hearing in my left ear when I was 4 years old.

Now in my late 50's I grew up in an era of people not understanding hearing protection due to this and shooting so much I now have lost high tones in my right ear.

I'm thinking that a class action lawsuit by those of us that have significantly lost our hearing against the government for not allowing suppressors is in order and maybe the only way suppressors are ever allowed in Canada.

My uncle fought in world war 11 he lost his hearing due to being one of the guys shooting the big guns he collected a military pension with extra coverage for his hearing loss.

I have two rifles a a 23" barreled T/C Contender carbine and a 22" barreled Rem 700 SA LTR both in 6.8SPC that I would mount suppressors onto if it was legal oh yeah I'd be hunting deer/coyotes with these quiet capable combos in a heartbeat.

and for the close minded mor*ns spewing against the use of suppressors here in Canada try living with hearing loss for a while before you spew against them = it costs me over $3500 for just one hearing aid that I have to replace every 3 - 4 years.
 
Parcatol said:
That high eh? That's really bad news. I knew it was bad but I have trouble with those numbers. Where did you gather that information? If they are so ineffective then what's the big deal?? 140db is a hell of a bang lol.
Click to expand...

I have tested silencers with Alan Paulson, who wrote the book on silencer testing "Silencer History and Performance Vol 1" as well as Phil Dater from Gemtech and a number of other top testers and manufacturers. I also test silencers myself using the equipment and test protocol specified in Alan Paulson's book, which is consistent with the Mil Std.

A 22 rim fire rifle will produce approx 140 dB. Keep in mind that impulse sound is quite different from constant noise due to its very short duration. A gunshot covers roughly 50-80 microseconds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom