Anons, in terms of hearing protection- how does it ACTUALLY work?Say you shoot a gun that hits 155 decibels.>wear ear plugs rated for 32 dbOK, that takes it down to 123 dbStill enough to cause instant permanent hearing loss after 10 seconds>now you double up and wear over ears rated for 23dbThat should knock it down to 100dbSounds pretty solid right? Considering a gunshot is a short crack then it’s over?BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!People online were saying that the way you’re ACTUALLY supposed to calculate it is taking the rating, subtract 7 then divide by 2..OK32-7=2525/2=12.5 (let’s say 12)23-7=1616/2=8 12+8=20Put it all together155-20=135135 decibels is still enough to cause instant permanent hearing damage. Therefore I ask you- WHAT IS THE POINT OF WEARING EAR PRO assuming this is accurate as to how you’re supposed to calculate it? Someone please explain?Is big earplug a Jewish conspiracy?
>>65490144The division by two is to account for improper fit, safety goggles breaking the seal, your luscious locks getting in the way, etc...Wear them properly and you'll find they are much closer to the rating on the box>what is the pointIt's on a logarithmic scale, 135 to 155 dbA isn't a small step, it's 100 times more energetic, even a small attenuation in dbA is a significant reduction in the damage done to hair cells, and a reduction in exposure reduces the severity of hearing loss tl;dr: wear your earpro, it's not a Jewish conspiracy If you want to talk about an actual Jewish conspiracy, big Teflon probably has you in their pocket and you don't even realize it
>>65490590>It's on a logarithmic scale, 135 to 155 dbA isn't a small step, it's 100 times more energetic, even a small attenuation in dbA is a significant reduction in the damage done to hair cells, and a reduction in exposure reduces the severity of hair lossIs that why some many professional gun guys are balding?
>>65490600That's a related phenomenon, but it's due to the rampant consumption of onions milk and other concomitant faggotries among professional gun guys
>>65490698Ok, but where is Saddam Hussien?
>>65490590So you’re saying if I sink those suckers in my ears, and move the hair out of my ears to make room for the over ears, it’ll basically be like the rating it’s rated for?
>>65490698But if soi milk raises estrogen like youtube influencers say it does, wouldn't that mean less gun guys would suffer from hair loss since hair loss is entirely tied to testosterone?
>>65490755A genuine failure on my part>>65490829Closer, certainly, the rating on the box is often on the C scale, so you should generally knock a few dbA off the rating because the C scale isn't really aligned with the risk to your hearing, most people recommend 7 but as far as I know that value is just picked out of thin air>>65490863>listening to bald influencers
The more you hear, the less you hear. Simple as
>>65490919>the rating on the box is often on the C scale>the C scale isn't really aligned with the risk to your hearingWhat do you mean by this? What is C scale?
>>65490946The different scales are just different weightings of the different frequencies, noise is made up of a mixture of waves of all different frequencies, some are louder than others, a measurement of the loudness of a noise is made up of measurements of the loudness of the various frequencies that make up that noiseThe human ear only responds to some frequencies, so they should probably be weighted more when determining if a noise is harmfully loud to a humanNRR values are headed towards 50 years old and when they were devised they used the C scale, most measurement today is done with the A scale's weighting for frequencies, whipping 7 off is shorthand, a somewhat accurate conversion that errs on the safe side, at some point the NRR will be reworked/updated and then it'll be unnecessaryA reasonable writeup: noisemeters dot com slash help slash faq slash frequency-weighting
>>65490144How come even with the giant red and black Peltors and earplugs I can still hear people talking next to me but gunshots are lowered? I know they are closer but hearing protection feels like it doesn't do shit at first and it's unnerving.
>>65491244That’s what I’m saying basically. Like don’t get me wrong, I DO think ear pro absolutely helps, but what concerns me is people online talking about how your hearing can still get damaged with ear pro. I mean- the whole mathematical thing to me is basically saying that. I just don’t understand, and I want to know. Because what am I supposed to do? Just stop shooting?
>>65491436Risk of hearing loss is fairly well correlated with exposure to loud noises So either stop shooting, or accept the risk and try to manage it as best you can Or just don't manage it at all, there's plenty of old faggots who have tinnitus and are deaf in one ear, they'll tell you they wish they wore earplugs
>>65490144>OK, that takes it down to 123 dbStill enough to cause instant permanent hearing loss after 10 secondsThe sounds firearms make are very different from a more static noise. Blasting a jet noise at 140db is much more damaging than a couple of gunshots at the same peak volume. The sharp, loud transients are very short. Under 1 ms I believe.
>>65491703Well I’m not saying I want to stop wearing earplugs. I’m just concerned about the actual effectiveness of them.
>>65490946C D E F G A B C
>>65490144It's pretty complex and science hasn't figured out everything yet.Sound damage is a bit like radiation damage, in the sense that three factors are important : power, duration and frequency. Being exposed to 90dB without earpro often and for long periods of time has more chance to cause damage than being exposed to 120dB once during a few milliseconds. The damage threshold for constant noises is around 80-90dB. Bear in mind this is for continuous exposure for several hours with repeated exposure like heavy machinery workers. The threshold for instant damage is around 110-120dB. At this level any exposure no matter the duration WILL cause damage. Depending on the environment (outdoors/indoor), distance from the origin of the sound and other factors like individual constitution, the amount of damage varies. It can go from temporary tinnitus to permanent hearing loss.Gunshot sounds range from 130 to <150dB. The best headsets provide around 30dB of protection. You can go up to 35 if you double up with earplugs. That means shooting guns will still expose you to 90-130dB WITH earpro. So, yes, il WILL cause damage over time, the amount of which depends on the factors cited above. There are things you can do to mitigate damage :>avoid indoor ranges as sound reverberates on the walls and increases exposure>avoid very loud guns like SBRs or .50BMG that produce shock waves that propagate through bone>use suppressors if possible>reduce frequency and/or duration of your range tripsSo, in short, earpro will avoid severe damage but if you spend a lot of time shooting for years you will ultimately get hearing issues. Depending on luck and your body's resistance you may not notice it, but for some people tinnitus can become unbearable. It's a danger like many others when using firearms. The choice is yours to decide if you want to take that risk.
>>65492453Thank you for all that, anon. I will definitely keep wearing earplugs pro. I don’t shoot a whole lot, so maybe no more than I shoot and considering I double up- maybe I’ll be fine.
>>65492453>avoid very loud guns like SBRs or .50BMG that produce shock waves that propagate through boneWait, so I can damage my hearing even if the sound doesn't go directly into my ears? I thought damage was caused by high pressure against the eardrum.
>>65490144I have kind of a dumb and tangentially related questionA lot of the sound from gunshots is still conducted via bone. Is there any way to muffle/lower that by wearing hoods/balaclava or what have you in addition to your earpro?
>>65492543He's just regurgitating pseudoscienceThe "bone propagation" thing only applies if you're shooting a fukken Carl Gustav
>>65492543Yes. Sound shock waves travel through your skull. Think about how you can feel your chest pounding when you stand near powerful subwoofers. Gunshots sounds make your skull vibrate and those vibrations are harmful to the cochlea. The amount of energy needed to cause damage is greater than through air vibration but there is nothing you can do to mitigate it contrary to air. So yes, even with ear protection you can get hearing damage through bone conduction if you shoot guns that produce powerful shock waves like .223 SBR or .50BMG.>>65492571This is highschool physics. Sound is a mechanical wave and just like any other wave it will be conducted, distorted and reflected when it passes through different materials.
>>65491244Bass travels through the outer ear area and behind the ear, your sinuses even, and that makes up a large percentage of what you hear. Gunshots have big boom and are directed typically away from you if not perpendicular, and voices are typically spread outwards in a cone. If you go to an aquarium and they have the exhibit for how fish hear, it'll show you.
>>65492604Best way to mitigate it is with a helmet like this. I think the navy uses them for aircraft carrier flight deck crew.
>>65490144there was once a guy next to me with a musket while i was shooting 22lr at 100 mt and had doned badly my ear muff, felt my earinsides explodes.though from experience in using larger calibers(.223) applying both muffs and plugs togheter does wonder, also sound intensity drops ^2 with distance.
>>65492876besides this is there a way to not have your eye protection fuck up earmuffs? if I put my safety glasses on first they fuck up the seal around my ears, but if I put the muffs on first the glasses are too high and fall off my face.
>>65490144if you're this worried, then don't wear earbuds or headphones when listening to music
>>65492905Either get thin/wire frames or get earcups with a cutout for the glasses.
>>65492876And these cost what? $800
>>65490144>Anons, in terms of hearing protection- how does it ACTUALLY work?You put them on and bam that's it. It's not rocket science dude
>>65492905I've got a pair of new eyepro coming tomorrow to try to minimize breaking the seal. If they work well, I'll let you know
>>65491884If you wanna be really safe, then just double up with foamies and muffs. You will maybe lose a negligible amount of hearing ability doing that. Also, run a suppressor on all your guns. Also also, don't shoot indoors or at an outdoor range with sound barrier that bounce the gunshot noise back at you.
>>65492926This is a retarded comparison, there's no volume slider on guns. And do you think that listening to loud music without earbuds or headphones means you can't get hearing damage? I'm sure concertgoers would love to hear this.
>>65492893Black powder is low pressure as fuck, i doubt it has even the db of a 223, especially out of a 36"+ barrel. You also type like you're retarded
>>65492893>>65495181Do you guys think black powder is quieter than modern cartridges?
>>65495417>thinkIt is a FACT that black powder weapons are quieter than smokeless powder weapons. Max pressure for even the hottest BP cartridges is 10k psi lmao. Even less in a muzzleloader due to blowby and inherent "straight walled" chamber
>>65495444would there be a difference at identical bullet velocity? otherwise it's apples and oranges
>>65495449>identical bullet velocityLmao you have no idea what you're talking about. You physically cannot accelerate black powder cartridges past 2000fps on actual black powder. You can push it a bit more using that white bullshit in a specially made inline, 2500 tops. Your average traditional muzzleloader in 50-58 cal is getting 1500fps maximum even if you load 120 grains of powder in it. Standard us civil war load was 60 grains pushing a 500gr minie bullet at 1000fps.
>>65495467So lower the load on the smokeless to match the black powder. Then they're doing equal work. Do they make the same amount of noise then? Not trying to be contrarian I'm just trying to understand.
Very insightful thread. I wish we were talking about health (sound, lead) more instead of arguing about the minute differences in gunsI once shot a Shotgun without hearing protection. My expectation was instant ringing but honestly it didnt hurt at all and i had no ringing. Went to a rave party once and had numb ears for a few days though. And remember, supressors are health care!
>>65495653Thanks anon.>suppressors are health care!I agree. The fact that it’s so hard to get suppressors is ridiculous. Even with suppressors you still have to wear ear pro. The people making these laws simply have no idea how suppressors even work.I would still wear and recommend wearing ear pro, but it’s just all so confusing to me.
>>65495165>I'm sure concertgoers would love to hear this.if they still could
>>65495631A smokeless load at 10k psi would be extremely weak even by pistol standards. For example a .380 acp is 21k psi. .22lr is 24k psi. Getting a smokeless load that low would be a challenge in of itself, but to answer your question for the hypothetical that it is, under those circumstances, it wouldn't be significantly different. It's just that those circumstances are not a practical reality. You can get pressure that low in a modern metallic cartridge using no powder at all, though, just the primer
>>65495631you can't use any amount of smokeless powder in a blackpowder gun unless you're trying to turn it into a pipe bomb. they have completely different combustion profiles.
>>65490144electronic muffs + foam plugs is the way. crank the volume so you can hear conversation through the plugs. don't worry bout the math, it's enough to make indoor ranges comfortable again and that's what matters
>Therefore I ask you- WHAT IS THE POINT OF WEARING EAR PROExcellent question! The answer is that damaging vs non-damaging isn't a binary, and the amount of damage scales up dramatically and is cumulative. Nearly all adults have worse hearing than teenagers from and children but remain within the normal human range.
>>65495925nta, but that’s simply not true. It’s recommended not to, because the gain you get without it turning dangerous is minimal, but the notion that you can’t use smokeless in a BP gun PERIOD is simply not true.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YPbXOLQr40A&pp=ygUhRXZlcnl0aGluZyBibGFjayBwb3dkZXIgc21va2VsZXNz
>>65492905My ESS ice glasses came in and they're about the same as the pair of MCR klondikes they're replacing, at least as far as I can tell without shooting. I'd probably be a bit disappointed if I hadn't got them half price but they're a little thicker and a one-piece lens, and that makes a difference in impact resistance.If you haven't found any yet, MCR has a few one-piece designs with slim arms for even less.
>>65490863>But if soi milk raises estrogen like youtube influencers say it does, wouldn't that mean less gun guys would suffer from hair loss since hair loss is entirely tied to testosterone?Late teenage hair loss is caused by a malformed IGF-1 receptor that gets blocked by dihydrotestosterone. 30+ year hair loss is caused by capillary regression which is an age related phenomena which appears to be strongly tied to autoimmune inflammation levels, meaning that age related baldness can be used as a proxy for your general vascular health level. BTW in Eastern Europe it isnt uncommon to see old women with age related baldness.
>WHAT IS THE POINT OF WEARING EAR PRO WHAT!? I CAN'T HAVE ANY BEER NOW "BRO" I'M HANDLING GUNS
Wear ear plugs, ear muffs and even bigger ear muffs over those: checkmate, noise
>>65492453The number one cause of hearing loss in the US is lawn equipment. Not that loud compared to guns, but long-term exposure is what does it.
>>65495631Why would you you that? God you're such a fucking retard.
