With larger calibers in the velocity range of say 2300 to 2800, how would you think ear damage would work out in the following scenarios:

1) Muzzlebrake with ear muffs vs no muzzle brake and no ear muffs

2) Muzzle brake with muffs and plugs Vs no muzzle brake and muffs only

3) Calibers like 375, 416. 450s etc loaded to lower pressures with muzzle brake and ear muffs Vs calibers like 300 Ultra etc with full loads and earmuffs.

I know it is very subjective, but you best guess will do.

Thanks.

Mike

Mike,
As long as you don't hold me to scientific decibel measurements inside the ear canal, the winners are (less deafening in old age):

1) Muzzle brake with muffs.
2) Muzzle brake with muffs and plugs.
3) It depends, I'm not sure, could be a tie.



Guess we will have to specify the loads and guns to be compared and set up the scientific equipment in somebody's ear.

Mike, this is going to vary constantly depending on barrel length, load and I believe even the powder used. IMHO you are pretty much asking an impossible question...at least for any technical answer.

No, I'm not a doctor. I'm just basically shooting from the hip and a lot of years of ear damage.

Dagga - Are you saying hearing damage is LESS in old age? If so, I'll go on record as opposing this notion. Since I AM an old fart, I think I kinda know. As you get older, everything gets less "supple" and elastic. Muzzle blast today hurts like hell and I don't think it would take much raw blast to make me totally deaf. I think the older a shooter is, the more fragile his hearing becomes.

Now, some doctor tell me I'm all wet.

Pecos,

I think Ron has rated them as "less" in old age.

My ears sound like yours and I am 54, but I have fired some shots in my time.

The conclusion I have reached is that I am better off with a claiber/gun that forces me to use hearing protection no matter where or when I shoot.

At the range I use, calibers like 300 Wby and Ultra with no brake, will make my ears sore after maybe 30 shots and with both plugs and muffs.

A 270 with lots of shots and just muffs, will leave me with sore ears at the end of the day.

A 375 with muffs only and fired lots of times does not leave my ears sore.

Big bangers like the 416 and 460 Wby loaded to lower pressures and with brake, do not hurt my ears when muffs are on. Although this relates a bit I think to the range. The range has a board that runs alway along the benches and is to stop shooters elevating the rifles. I think the brakes keep the balst frombouncing back of the wall.

My general feeling at the moment is that I am better off with the like of the big 416s with a brake and muffs and plugs rather than the 375. The reason b eing that in the field the the braked 416s will force me to use muffs but the 375 will not. Remember also that for us, in the field still means lots of shots. You blokes have the guns but nothing to shoot and we have the animals but not many guns

One day America will buy Australia for its 51st state and we will all be better off

Mike

Mike,

The decibel scale is based on a logarithmic scale. To make it real simple:
The threshold of hearing is 1x10^-12 w/m^2 or 0 dB.

A jack hammer is 90 dB's or 10^9 times more energetic. That is a billion.

A 175 dB gunshot is 10^17.

How is this in the real world?

the difference between a quiet conversation in your living room with your wife ~60 dB vs. someone yelling at you at the office ~80 dB is 2 steps or a factor of four louder, that's 1000 times louder though perceived loudness isn't the same, this is the intensity of the sound at your ear.

I hope this helps.

Roger,

Some years ago the range where I shoot was noise tested, but this at a distance from the range. The biggest "noise" makers were the 375s, 458s and muzzle loaders. But of course as we both know, a 257 Weatherby or 6mm/06 with 68 grainers feels like someone stuck a spike through your ears.

A 10 cc model aeorplane engine with no muffler almosts rips your ears out but a Kenworth semi reving right up is no problem. But you will hear the semi much further away.

I am imagining that the Kenworth and big bores disturb" a lot more air but that the distrubance in any given part or volume of the air is less than for the 6mm/06 and model aeroplane engine. Soty of like comparing and oxy/acetylene torch witha bush fire. Far mor heat in the bush fire but the oxy torch would bring a 1" cube of steel to red hot far quicker than would the bushfire.

Does all this sound right in realtion to what our ears get belted with?

Mike

Pecos45,
You interpreted my parenthetical clause wrongly. Mike375 has given you the proper interpretation. The winner combinations will help to preserve one's hearing in old age. You are sure right about the loss of elasticity in old age, and even more danger, with noise exposure, of losing what little hearing we have left as we get older. Senility is a bummer.

Mike,

Can't even hazard a guess, but I can tell you this, I take no chances anyway; I wear plugs and muffs, all the time. And I buy the Dave Clark muffs, with the big plastic ear shell, then stuff a bunch of extra high-density foam inside.

Just last night I was reading "The Temple Tiger and Other Maneaters of Kumaon" by Jim Corbett, where he lost hearing in his left ear due to muzzle blast.

Same thing with shooting glasses -- except for the old(er) guys at the range who need glasses anyway, I never see anyone wearing them. Stupid, stupid, stupid -- you're one bad cartridge casing away from going through life tapping in front of you with a white cane...

Todd