Was Suppressor Worth It??

[jonny rotton]

almost a year and a half ago i ordered a larue suurg II. well, i finallly have it now all done. it reduced the db level from 122 to 119. why did i do this?? what do i gain?? maybe someone could explain why i needed a suppressed 6.5 g.

[Double Naught Spy]

almost a year and a half ago i ordered a larue suurg II. well, i finallly have it now all done. it reduced the db level from 122 to 119. why did i do this?? what do i gain?? maybe someone could explain why i needed a suppressed 6.5 g.

I think you must have mistyped? I don't know of any unsuppressed Grendel rifles that will produce only 122 dbs. If you typed accurately, then you might want to recheck the calibration on your sound level meter, be sure that it can handle short duration sounds, and/or check your testing methods.

[LRRPF52]

With an unsuppressed Grendel, depending on barrel length, you will be somewhere in the 150-175db+ region (175db is more common with brakes) at shooter's ear.

122db would be the reading 10yd away from the muzzle with a really phenomenal can.

[Bigs28]

Ignoring your readings, have you stood back and listened to it being shot with and without the suppressor? Obviously with hearing pro on but what kind of difference did you hear?

[jonny rotton]

those numbers are the ones my friend wrote down. i will question him when i can.

[Klem]

I agree, there's no way an unsupressed high-power centrefire starts at 122db. A Grendel will be higher around 170db.

If you're going to talk to your friend ask him what device he is using. The upper limit of the device may be 120db and he is simply getting the max reading. Or it is a device that samples sound a number of times per second and it is missing the peak sound between samples. How far away, and where is it positioned from the gun (behind, to the side, in front)? All this detail is important.

[dl126]

Maybe old news to you guys.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ_BgeG0P1o

[rabiddawg]

After watching dns’ videos, and seeing hogs scatter on the shot I knew I had no use for a suppressor. I wear my hearing protection every shot no matter where I am.

[Randy99CL]

After watching dns’ videos, and seeing hogs scatter on the shot I knew I had no use for a suppressor. I wear my hearing protection every shot no matter where I am.

Lone Star Boars had a video a year or so ago where he shot with sub-sonic (300BO?) and a suppressor and the hogs ran at the sound of a bullet nailing one of their buddies. You could hear it too, kind of a slap.

[Double Naught Spy]

Lone Star Boars had a video a year or so ago where he shot with sub-sonic (300BO?) and a suppressor and the hogs ran at the sound of a bullet nailing one of their buddies. You could hear it too, kind of a slap.

This has been shown in a lot of subsonic hunting vids. The sound of the impact is actually quite loud, particularly if you are close to it and it startles the hogs. However, it isn't just the sound of the impact. It can also be the sound of the bullet tearing through the air such that even with a miss, a subsonic and suppressed shot will cause the hogs to run.

After watching dns’ videos, and seeing hogs scatter on the shot I knew I had no use for a suppressor. I wear my hearing protection every shot no matter where I am.

I still wear hearing protection while using a suppressor. The suppressor reducing the sound of the discharge, but does nothing for the sonic crack. Combined, the two can be pretty loud, 130-140 db (usually for centerfire rifles with decent suppressors)...to somebody that still has their hearing.

[HuntTXhogs]

those numbers are the ones my friend wrote down. i will question him when i can.

It always helps to have a friend help you but you should know what your expecting beforehand in order to question stuff like this at the time for yourself , otherwise you’ll just be chasing your tail...

LaRue can give you the expected before and after dB range - you should be within +\- 3 dB , if not refine your testing methods until you get close to the manufacture (experts) range

[LRRPF52]

The biggest value a suppressor brings is eliminating the muzzle blast of an unsuppressed firearm, because muzzle blast distracts from maintaining a good sight picture.

It just makes the shooting experience more pleasant and focused for the shooter.

[snarkscarbine]

In addition to LRRPF52's comment, the CDC did a study relatively recently that found that the only effective way to actually protect hearing with prolonged/repeated exposure to firearms was to use a silencer. Reducing the blast overpressure shockwave does far more than using ear protection can, even plugs+muffs. That's the biggest advantage to me. When I trotted that out to my wife, it was a no-brainer; I needed to get some silencers so that I could still hear some day when we're old.

[Klem]

In addition to LRRPF52's comment, the CDC did a study relatively recently that found that the only effective way to actually protect hearing with prolonged/repeated exposure to firearms was to use a silencer. Reducing the blast overpressure shockwave does far more than using ear protection can, even plugs+muffs. That's the biggest advantage to me. When I trotted that out to my wife, it was a no-brainer; I needed to get some silencers so that I could still hear some day when we're old.

Snarks,

Do you have a link to that study? Not arguing with you, just curious.

[just_john]

snarks, and if the logic worked in your house, then maybe.....

[bj139]

Since a compensator increases muzzle blast to the shooter, would that actually make matters worse?

[Double Naught Spy]

Since a compensator increases muzzle blast to the shooter, would that actually make matters worse?

Almost certainly. I can't think of a time when I heard a compensated blast that actually reduced the noise to the shooter, but I can't say they don't exist.

[grayfox]

Some compensators do not direct any blast back to the shooter, nor at any of 90* angles to bullet path, rather those comps direct it forward but at an acute (< 90*) angle to the flight path. In those cases it seems like there wouldn't be any increase (or maybe just marginal) to the shooter. However muzzle brakes, which typically do redirect some blast back toward the shooter, will increase the effect to that shooter.

[snarkscarbine]

Snarks,

Do you have a link to that study? Not arguing with you, just curious.

https://americansuppressorassociation.co...-exposure/

[Klem]

https://americansuppressorassociation.co...-exposure/

Thanks...After reading that 2011 study I see the term suppressor is mentioned only twice, and in the same paragraph. The report is more to do with the effectiveness of double-ears and the hazard of lead contamination at ranges. On suppressors the two authors say, 'The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors' (p5). Unfortunately they offer no empirical evidence to justify that statement and also note the defensive caveat, 'potentially...'. -they are basically wondering that this might be the case. This, in the context that the use of double-ears alone may not be enough.

The trouble with reports written by departments is they are not peer-reviewed. Obviously if they say anything too radical their bosses and the public might ridicule them but it is what it is, a guess in a report about how suppressors might be the answer to effective high-frequency sound reduction. They say this in the context that effective elimination of low frequency sound (vibration) is by mitigating it at the source, and mid to high frequency sound (gunfire) with barriers between the source and the person. They acknowledge that some states do not permit suppressors so they concentrate on the effectiveness of ear protection as a barrier, using information from manufacturers (potentially biased) and other studies.

Don't get me wrong, I have used these things for years and continue to do so but they are not all they are cracked up to be. In the 80's and 90' in the military we used double ears religiously when using suppressors. It was just standard SOP's at the time and we did without question. Then the medics starting advocating wearing of helmets as well given they were convinced sound pressure is transferred to the ear canal via the skull. Plus helmets supposedly mitigate the risk of mild epilepsy from being exposed to too many blasts however this is more related to explosives than gunfire.

Here is a more recent peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Audiology that determined that while suppressors reduce sound power at the muzzle (by no more than 30db) you still need to use ear protection as well.
https://docdro.id/OFYtQ6G

Just playing Devil's advocate here as like you I'm also convinced they lower sound, but their real advantage lies in improving accuracy by lessening and smoothing the recoil impulse and less blast in the face.