In-ear or behind-ear muzzle blast protection

[Naphtali]

Hunting season approaches. At the shooting range I use solid ear plugs plus passive ear muffs to protect my hearing. In the past I have used my solid ear plugs when hunting, and they work. . . . But I want to be able to hear normally - I can live with "enhanced" hearing - while having instant muzzle blast protection that approaches the protection afforded by my solid plugs.

One solution I reject completely is to acquire muffs incorporating electronic blast cut-off. . . . I will not consider these. Less obtrusive devices, such as in-ear and/or behind-the-ear devices would be acceptable, but I will not consider devices having custom molded ear canals whose fit I would be unable to adjust as my ear canal changes over time. . . . Another "but": User reviews I have found for such devices have pertained 100 percent to the hearing aid or "enhancement" facet. So far, I have not read a single review (Amazon.com) that evaluated noise cut-off relative to shooting.

Devices I have considered have prices from under $20.00/pair (chump change) through nearly $300.00/one unit. I cannot identify a solution within this price range although this does not mean a solution is not available. I have no idea whether a significantly higher price range will afford devices that will do what I want done.
***
Since I have successfully hunted for decades with plugs that suppress all sound, forcing me to rely on vision only, I do not need to buy something just to be buying. Times change. Technology improves. And I have not been paying attention to improvements.

Those of you who have solved blast reduction the way I want to solve it - please, PLEASE, PLEASE furnish me with details.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I have tried the Walker $20.00 hearing aid/protection thingys. Totally wuthluss. Get constant sound that can't be turned down and tests (with a .22LR) tell me the suppression thing doesn't work.
If you try the $300.00 models do buy from some place that will take them back if not satisfactory for you.

 

[troutabout]

I sometimes find myself at the range and without my foam 32 decibel reduction ear plugs. I'm a smoker and it's easy to cut the filters off a couple of cigarettes and pop 'em in my ears. The noise reduction seems close to the amount I get from foam but I can hear better during conversations. I can also hear birds and crows in the distance - pulling one out is like daylight and dark. They fit well and are comfortable. You might give that a try next time out. Heck, bum a couple of smokes from a friend and try it around the house. But tell your wife what you're doing before she notices and whacks you up side d'head ! :yakyak: :rotf:

 

[LRB]

I don't worry about it when hunting, but use plugs or butts on the range.

 

[jamesthomas]

Same here, I don't want anthing to limit my hearing while hunting. I do use earmuffs at the range.

 

[Billnpatti]

I am an Industrial Hygienist and I can tell you that cigarette filters provide little to no actual hearing protection even though they may seem to provide some. The actual protection provided by cigarette filters is about equivalent to that provided by cotton which is almost nothing. My advice is to use only OSHA approved hearing protection devices. Protection from hearing damage caused by loud noises (noise induced hearing loss) is perminent. The cilia in the cochlea are destroyed and do not grow back. Hearing aids can help somewhat but cannot restore normal hearing. Use correct, approved, not "Jury Rigged" earing protection when around loud noise. The price for doing otherwise is too high.

Just a tip from someone trained in the prevention of noise induced hearing loss. :thumbsup:

 

[BadHorse]

ok,,,,,,, a couple of things here.

1. the sound wave from a black powder weapon is subsonic. verses modern center fire cartridges which hare hyper-sonic, causing by far more hearing damage.

2. after all your talking about hunting,,,so like what 3 shots in a day? like i was saying above the subsonic shock wave is by far less harmful. i would rather hear my prey,,,,, than to worry about that. your not shooting a high power 30-06

 

[hawkeye2]

Sound waves travel at the speed of sound, no such thing a subsonic sound wave.

 

[Maynerd62411]

I believe he is refering to the projectile speed being subsonic, not the speed of sound.
I hunt with a friend that is completely deaf. He can't hear a shotgun ,firing slugs, 100 yards away, but can hear my muzzleloader 1/4 mile away. It's a different tone, I guess.

 

[necchi]

1. the sound wave from a black powder weapon is subsonic.

Where'd you get that idea?

Granted, some lower powder chagres do create sub-sonic speed. But by far, most folks develop hunting loads with velocity well over the 1126-1180fps

 

[Stumpkiller]

I don't wear hearing protection when hunting.

When target shooting I use the slip-in Sonic II Ear Valves.

 

[cas]

For years I was a dedicated handgun hunter, so of those single shots shooting large, might as well be rifle rounds. You don't want to shoot them without ear protection, even once.

I found electronic ear protection to be more trouble than it's worth. You lose much of your sense of (hearing) direction, other sounds like the collar on your jacketed make you crazy. Plus you can turn them up and make every squirrel sound like a grizzly bear going through the leaves. :grin:

I used a combination of rubber and foam plugs, which depends on where I'm hunting and how. Sometimes there's nothing TO hear but wind”¦ I used to sit corn fields in the snow and my hunting partner would laugh because I would wear earmuffs. I'd say 1. My ears are warm, are yours? And 2. What's to hear? Sub zero wind whistling in my ear?

For hunting (or just woods bumin') I keep a pair of rubber ear plugs on a cord around my neck at all times, mostly for backup. (I always have foam plugs in my pants pocket, pretty much 365 days a year.) Then in my coat pocket I keep a few pair of foam plugs, and usually a set or two of reactive rubber plugs. Again situations determine how I use them, but as of late I usually keep a foam plug in my right ear (not as deep as I would if I were just shooting) and keep a reactive rubber plug in the corner of my mouth. If I'm sitting and not moving much I'll stick it behind my ear.

I always hear "The way I hunt I can't blah blah blah”¦" Maybe they mean poorly. I've never missed any game because I took one extra second to stick the plug in my ear. Or both rubber plugs in my ears for that matter. And should one day I miss a chance because of it”¦ oh well. I won't starve.

 

[Billnpatti]

"Subsonic sound waves" is an oxymoron. Sound waves travel at the speed of sound. Hence the term "speed of sound". I am not implying that anyone has to do as I say, that is their personal choice. All I can do is to offer my professional recommendation. Each person is certainly free to make their own choice to either use proper hearing protection or rationalize not using it. But, when your hearing is gone, it is gone forever.

 

[hanshi]

I think what Karwelis is referring to is the sharpness and intensity of the sound. A centerfire round has a very sharp, rather high pitched sound that differs somewhat from the lower pitch waves of sound from a muzzleloader. It's sort of like the difference between a scream and a growl.

At the range I use both plugs and earmuffs. In the woods I rarely use any muffling device unless a LOT of shooting is anticipated. The lower pitch sound of an ML travels through the air with a different quality as far as being able to hear it at various distances, etc. In the woods where maybe only two or three shots will be fired - or none at all - doesn't bother me at all.

Back when I use to hunt deer with a handgun (revolvers) I used either muffs or a pair of earplugs with a sound baffle in them that closed from high intensity sounds. They really worked and I still have them. Hearing was fairly good while wearing them and I could still hear deer footfalls in the leaves. Still, they did muffle the hearing noticeably in general.

 

[Naphtali]

You may be the person best qualified to identify in-ear and behind-the-ear devices that will, in fact, do what I want done.

Please identify what in your professional experience allows reasonable hearing - keep in mind I have been essentially "hearing free" when hunting - with blast reduction that approaches (I'll leave the NRR number to your judgment) my solid plugs.

While I prefer to keep my cost per pair as low as possible, cost is not a deal breaker since they will work.

 

[Robert Egler]

I've checked on some subsonic ammunition (to clarify: the sound wave isn't subsonic, but the projectile is moving below the speed of sound) for rimfire guns, and to be honest there is very little difference between high velocity (1330 fps) and subsonic (1050 fps) rounds. In fact mixing them in the same magazine at random, I couldn't tell which was which, but on the other hand the hypersonic rounds (about 1650 fps) were very noticeably louder and 'sharper' in sound. I've never heard a similar 'sharpness' to a muzzleloader shot, even though they are much louder. Just my experience.

That's not to say hearing protection isn't a good idea, I'm sure it is, but I'm not worried about it for the couple of shots outside in the woods that may happen hunting. The 8 hours of diminished sound perception isn't worth the protection for 3 seconds of possible noise from gunshots. To me.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Someone finally understands. BP gases expand at the muzzle at velocities that exceed the Speed of Sound, and create that "Crack" we hear. However, most ML projectiles don't exceed the Speed of Sound. They can, and there are a lot of shooters who load their guns above the Speed of sound, and put up with the added recoil for it.

My best example to educate shooters about this came from watching, listening to, and then talking to my friend, George Mitchell, fire his .69 caliber slug gun. He shoots 350 grains of FFFg powder, behind a 1760 grain, 2-piece bullet, at a velocity of 1050 fps. measured 20 feet in front of his muzzle. That is well below the speed of sound. I can assure you that the Muzzle Blast from that gun gets your attention, as does the recoil.

George told me that he shaped the custom-made bullet( mold) after the shape of the .22 Long Rifle bullet, because Army ordinance testing done more than 100 years ago showed that round nose shape was the most accurate for bullets traveling under the speed of sound, for long range shooting. He has a 500 yd. target he shot with that gun, showing 10 shots hitting in 5.26" center to center.

Conversely, there are many CHUNK GUN shooting match shooters, shooting RBs at well over the speed of sound, in an attempt to keep the ball still above the speed of sound at the 60 yard distance it is to the target. Some shooters, using small bore calibers, find they can't deal with the strange winds that occur regularly at Pall Mall, Tennessee, for the Sgt. York Memorial Chunk Gun Match, held each March. Others seem to have settled on the .45 caliber barrels, but find the recoil a problem over the 10-shot match. The larger caliber balls do buck the winds better, but the powder charges needed to keep those bullets supersonic can affect accuracy.

So, there is plenty of room for the age-old arguments about which delivers more accuracy- a fast flying, small bore ball/bullet, or a slower moving, large bore ball/bullet.

Get your popcorn and your front row seat early for these arguments! :shocked2: :blah: :rotf: :rotf: :idunno: :surrender: :hatsoff: :hatsoff:

 

[2172]

I wear some expensive in-ear hearing aids (the result of relying on Marlboro filters in the army) and their noise supression feature works well. at the range, I can hear all conversation, and receive no blast shock. I would not want to block off all sounds while hunting..Hank

 

[Stumpkiller]

The speed of sound in air is "only" 1,125 fps; +/- for elevation & temperature. I'd say the majority of m/l rifles launching patched round balls exceed that at the muzzle by a good margin.

I'm sure hearing protection while hunting is a good idea, but I would rather have my ears free to be able to hear approaching game before the shot and not mess with the added movement to insert or fit hearing protection for the shot once a deer has arrived.

 

[Billnpatti]

There are a number of devices that will do what you want. It is all up to your own comfort and pocketbook. If it were me, I'd favor the in-the-ear type of plug that allows near normal hearing but close off a sonic valve when there is a loud noise. You want the highest NRR rating you can get, of course. I don't thinnk a device that offers a NRR of less than 30 dB(a) should be considered. Then to determine the actual sound reduction, I always use half the published NRR. Therefore, a device providing a published test NRR of 30 will give a real world reduction of 15 dB(a). This is because the published test NRR is based on a single frequency while in the real world, sound is composed of many different frequencies. Not all frequencies are reduced at the same rate so using half the published NRR provides you with something closer to the actual noise reduction.

All this to say buy the best OSHA approved device you can afford with the highest NRR and that is most comfortable to you. Since comfort is a very subjective thing, I cannot make any more specific recommendation than this. Look in your phone directory or go online and find a safety supply company or go to a top shelf sporting goods store. You may or may not be able to try the various devices for comfort but you can ask.