quote:

you post ZERO of your own actual experience..

Jeff,

I've shared quite a lot of my experience with AR. And not with an attitude like yours, which is the key point if you want to make an issue around that. For instance, CZ accessories and fixes to my gun and other rifle chit chat. The best thread I think, was my M700 trigger safety issue. A problem which many members of AR were totally unaware. Yes unaware!

Safety and hearing loss two relevant issues to the sport. I quote Art, since my prior comments along these lines were derided. This started out as a good discussion.

I do listen. You might try that yourself. I may even change my mind from time to time, another foreign concept for some.

What I do not do is resort to personal attack and other tricks to derail technical debate on firearms topics. You seem to have an agenda.

I dont kowtow to anyone just because he acts like king crap. I though you been doing better lately. But, here we are again, same old same old.

Rebates, magazine capacity=2 and brakes. I dont like those things. I dont see why I have to keep quiet about it. A few 1000's here and there and all those issues could have been done away with. That is a different thread.

Anyway, I got my own thread going here, not hijacking a conversation among happy 600ok shooters. You should be fine with that.

efbie..
do you reload your 505 gibbs, yourself, on your own press?

until you gain experience, you are still inexperienced.

how i act, is how you find me in person. one is generally treated in the same vein they interact. responding in kind, it is called.

you shoot off your mouth, but don't have the experience. that's annoying. don't like it? then change YOUR actions... because if you are waiting for ME to change, you are backing up. the only person you control is yourself. hell, son, you'd have an easier time ordering my dog about .. good luck with that.

kick sand at me, the first couple times, you get "do you mind".. afterwards it becomes a known that you are merely trolling/looking for a fight.

you've not been extremly disrespected here.. quite the contrary, your experience has been noted. Your ATTITUDE, which greatly exceeds your deeds, is a PITA

since YOU keep bringing up the 600 design .. please list all the ultra big bores you have designed, funded, and brought to a shootable condition, with results being verified by 3rd parties.

none?
Okay, how many rifles have YOU gunsmithed to make feed in a single stack OR made feed?

none?

I guess not a single one you've brought from concept to reality, did the loaded dev, feeding, and solved all of its problems, to deliver the most in an affordable action?

still zero?

let's see .. (0*0)/0=your net experience in the matter of design of ultra big bores

raise that to the power of gibbs cases you have reloaded
((0*0)/0)^0

Let me know if i've missed any of your prior work, okay?

do you reload your gibbs, yet? do you even have a press than CAN?

then-- have you ever shot a big bore with a muzzle brake (not a BMG)? that should be an easy one... reaching out here.. trying to find ground where you life experience builds some common ground for those your FREELY criticis

Well, Larry, after all the diatribe on this thread, you and I are the ONLY ones who have mentioned the original reason for the muzzle brake ie. muzzle rise reduction. On my CZ 416 Rigby it is much faster to return to POA. I use custom moulded ear plugs when I hunt. Designed primarily for skeet shooting they slip in very quickly and provide full filling of the ear canal.
I am honestly not sure of the wisdom of the PH offering his shoulder for the hunter to rest his rifle on.
Peter.
PS. Thanks for the DVD's. Great Lion! Very fast follow up shots, but I am not sure I saw a brake on your rifle.

I see this Muzzle Brake issue as an individual choice with the shooter. I shoot Trap, Skeet and 3000 plus rounds each year with high powered rifles. I shoot the rifles to prepare myself, my son and grandsons, as well as my hunting buddies rifles for hunting seasons. I use hearing protection when I shoot and when I hunt, anyone that doesn't needs a stupid sign on their neck. If you lost your hearing from guns, it is your fault. I have a brake on nearly all rifles I shoot larger than my .300 Winny. That includes .340 Wby, .338 Lapua, 2 --.358 STA's, .416 Rem and Rigby, and a 7mm STW with a Boss system which is the only one smaller than the .300 Win. I shoot on my private benchs so no one else has a say in what I do. After years of shooting the above rifles and using them for Big Game all over the world I have no problems using hearing protection in the field. They will all shot one hole groups (3 holes touching) for me when I have a good day pulling the trigger. My opinion is that the extra weight on the barrel the Brakes provide help stabilizing the barrel while shooting, as well as provide recoil reduction and and barrel jump. If your big rifles will do this without brakes, great for you, this is how I do it and will continue as will my bunch.
good shooting.

Just ordered a pair of Walker Game Ears per Shakari's suggestion. Ordered the accessory kit to try different ear adapters as well.

If it works for Shakari, I'm sure it will be good enough for me.

Peter:

I have custom plugs as well. They are on a string. I attempt to have one in an ear with the string going around my neck and the second plug going in my pocket of my shirt. The idea being that I can still hear well and for the most part, I can quickly put the second plug in.

If I recall correctly, these plugs cost me $35. I have a pair of custom made electronic plugs. They suck and cost me $1,600!

A few results from testing supressors:
6.5x55 calibers 26" barrel
dB measures at left ear 152 without brake, and 162dB with a brake. From 123dB - 142dB with moderator (depending on size)
dB measured at right ear 148without brake, and 157dB with a brake. from 120dB - 138dB with moderator(depending on size)
It is comonly known that most hunters have clearly more hearingloss at left ear, if righthanded.
Muzzlebrake often increase measurements at shooters ear by up to 10dB extra.
Only 4 dB difference result in significant difference in hearingloss.
A gunshot has most of its energy in the range from 10 - 1000Hz. A supressor reduces the lowfrequent (10 - 1000hz) noise by up to 40dB.
A pair of standard earmuffs reduces the lowfrequent noise from 14dB to 20dB
By using muzzlebrake and earmuffs, you only reduces the nois by 4 - 10 dB lowfrequent compared to a traditional rifleshot without using earmuffs.

A muzzlebrake is a thing invented by the devil in anger, to keep the hearingaids mfg wealthy.

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
A few results from testing supressors:
6.5x55 calibers 26" barrel
dB measures at left ear 152 without brake, and 162dB with a brake. From 123dB - 142dB with moderator (depending on size)
dB measured at right ear 148without brake, and 157dB with a brake. from 120dB - 138dB with moderator(depending on size)
It is comonly known that most hunters have clearly more hearingloss at left ear, if righthanded.
Muzzlebrake often increase measurements at shooters ear by up to 10dB extra.
Only 4 dB difference result in significant difference in hearingloss.
A gunshot has most of its energy in the range from 10 - 1000Hz. A supressor reduces the lowfrequent (10 - 1000hz) noise by up to 40dB.
A pair of standard earmuffs reduces the lowfrequent noise from 14dB to 20dB
By using muzzlebrake and earmuffs, you only reduces the nois by 4 - 10 dB lowfrequent compared to a traditional rifleshot without using earmuffs.

A muzzlebrake is a thing invented by the devil in anger, to keep the hearingaids mfg wealthy.

Thanks for the results posted here. Can you point me to the reference for this study? I like reading the source material myself to get a better understanding of the methods, analysis and results.
Thanks again.

Well what a surprise that Dumb-bore doesn't like muzzle brakes and worships Art Alpin. What else would you expect from a true Troll? I have a nice Heym .600 NE with no brake and no recoil reducers, I'll pay money to see you shoot Dumb-Bore! Same load as max in my .600OK. 900 grs at 2400fps. I'm calling you out Dumb-bore. I'll supply the gun and the load and we will agree on the time and place. 3rds. I'll shoot the same load in the .600 OK. No sissy pads, lead sleds. Etc. You stand on your own two feet. How about Jeffes big bore shoot in Texas? I want to video a real bullshit artist like you getting the crap kicked out of them. A real man like you Dumb-Bore doesn't need any sissy stuff like a muzzle brake or recoil reducers and you can't argue the .600NE is too much gun for you can you? It's time to man up or shut up Dumb-Bore! You got the sand Troll? You back out of this challenge and we will all know exactly what you are won't we?-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
A few results from testing supressors:
6.5x55 calibers 26" barrel
dB measures at left ear 152 without brake, and 162dB with a brake. From 123dB - 142dB with moderator (depending on size)
dB measured at right ear 148without brake, and 157dB with a brake. from 120dB - 138dB with moderator(depending on size)
It is comonly known that most hunters have clearly more hearingloss at left ear, if righthanded.
Muzzlebrake often increase measurements at shooters ear by up to 10dB extra.
Only 4 dB difference result in significant difference in hearingloss.
A gunshot has most of its energy in the range from 10 - 1000Hz. A supressor reduces the lowfrequent (10 - 1000hz) noise by up to 40dB.
A pair of standard earmuffs reduces the lowfrequent noise from 14dB to 20dB
By using muzzlebrake and earmuffs, you only reduces the nois by 4 - 10 dB lowfrequent compared to a traditional rifleshot without using earmuffs.

A muzzlebrake is a thing invented by the devil in anger, to keep the hearingaids mfg wealthy.

Huh?

Shooting 460 Wby from bench with brake. Full power 500 grain load, sporting foam plugs AND quality muffs - barely a peep out of the rifle. (less than a 22 LR without gear for sure. More like a big thud. Been doin it for years and regular hearing tests indicate no hearing loss, NADA!

Rob,
that's mean.. you are trying to get a sucker to pull the trigger on the heym?

i'll video it.. shootaway came last year, and turned out to shoot very well.

we'll have a shoot in early may ..
it'll likely only be in the low 90s, so bring a sweater

News flash1 - Most people with firearms related hearing loss have High Frequency loss not low frequency loss. Noise canceling muffs reduce high frequency noise by over 30 db making the biggest boomers hearing safe.
Newsflash2- The bigger the bore the more the noise signature shifts to lower frequency.
News flash 3 - if you shoot a gun while hunting you rarely hear the shot.
Newsflash4- if your PH doesn't like muzzle brakes, Get a new PH! That could be the first sign your PH is a dick head! -Rob

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
News flash1 - Most people with firearms related hearing loss have High Frequency loss not low frequency loss. Noise canceling muffs reduce high frequency noise by over 30 db making the biggest boomers hearing safe.
Newsflash2- The bigger the bore the more the noise signature shifts to lower frequency.
News flash 3 - if you shoot a gun while hunting you rarely hear the shot.
Newsflash4- if your PH doesn't like muzzle brakes, Get a new PH! That could be the first sign your PH is a dick head! -Rob

Yeah well I don't shoot little guns like you Rob!

Jeffe- I can make May! Yup I will be pleased to let Dumb-Bore shoot the Non-braked, non modified .600 Heym at full tilt! We will need someone your size to stand behind and catch it though! it is a $15,000 gun after all. Dumb bore needs to pay for the ambulance ride though. I hope his insurance will cover the reconstructive surgery and I need to not be held liable. Otherwise it will be real fun!I am not being mean, sometimes you just have to call BS. After all I will be shooting the exact same load through my terrible .600 Ok. That load hurts like hell and I'm not sure I can handle 3 rds myself! At least I have the balls and confidence to do it!-
Rob

Just a little clue. Did you ever notice that in Musical instruments the larger the hole the lower the frequency ( flute vs tuba). Works the same in guns! If you ever really shot a .50 or greater caliber they all have a low frequency report that is easy to dampen with muffs, electronic ears etc. If your hearing damaged it's because your also brain damaged. duh! -Rob

Actually, the lower frequency is produced cause of a longer tube. Reason an Alphorn is looooong. Loudness is a function of pressure - course a smaller tube moving the same air requires more pressure. (your point) Then there's the variable of the source. Wind instruments amplify the signal produced by the mouthpiece. Play the mouthpiece removed from the horn and it sounds ... er ... the same. Back to you Rob ... FauxBore is waiting I'm sure.

Mac-we are saying the same thing. Basically the loudest highest frequency firearm I've ever been exposed to is a high pressure 6mm on a .378 why case. .50 BMG and above all have a low frequency pulse that is easy to dampen and no where near as obnoxious. bad muzzle brake designs increase the frequency ( multiple sub-caliber holes) larger hole brakes or vents actually can decrease the frequency. ever hear a clamshell on a .50 bmg vs a vias design? Big difference! This is a stupid argument. The reason for a muzzle brake is recoil reduction and controllability in recoil how loud it is is irrelevant if you invest in a 25 dollar pair of muffs.-Rob

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. Personally, I've never owned anything with a brake bigger than the 460. Would I? Hell yeah. My comfy level is about 50lb of recoil at 25ish FPS. Comparatively, the 30-378 full hot with brake is NOT as loud as the 460. The 460 drives other rifle shooters off the range.

quote:

News flash 3 - if you shoot a gun while hunting you rarely hear the shot.

And, RobGun this is relevant exactly how? Are you saying if you don't hear it there is no hearing loss?
Please enlighten us.
Peter

I don't use a break or a mercury tube on any of my rifles. I have a 505 Gibbs which weighs in at 11 lb and a 416 Rigby which is 10 1/4 lb. The Rigby is realtively easy to shoot. The Gibbs took a bit if getting used to, but once you learn the right technique (and practice it a lot) I don't believe any of those recoil reducing devices are necessary. Have a look at this:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HIIVOatxCY
I don't think there is too much muzzle rise there. That load is 130gn AR2209 behind the 600gn Woodleigh which exits at 2270 fps for 102 ft lbs of recoil. It is a handful, and it took me a while to get used to, but I can now get 8 shots out (with 2 reloads) in under 35 secconds in one of our timed competitions (special snap), and I normally get a pretty decent score, and in a hunting situation I nailed three pigs (one standing and the other 2 on the run) in about 6 seconds, and didn't deafen the person next to me, and didn't notice the recoil. In the end practicing the right technique will pay off.

quote:

I am a PH and have lost over 40% of my hearing in one ear and over 60% in the other and suffer severe tinnitus every minute of every day....... and it's a real pain in the arse!..... most of my deafeness is due to muzzle brakes. I've even had someone let 3 shots off from a braked .416 Blaser right next to my ear whilst I was holding my binos to my eyes and telling him not to shoot yet....... and consequently I hate the bastard things.

There are several other alternatives:

Fit a mercury tube or tungsten bead recoil arrestor etc.

Shoot a smaller calibre if you can't handle a larger one.

Get used to shooting a large calibre.

I also wish I'd discovered Walker's Game Ears a few years earlier.

Muzzle brakes are a fuc**ng abortion that should be illegal worldwide.


Steve "Shakari" Robinson
Kuduland Safaris (Africa) Ltd

Sums up point made by Art and presented by me, very nicely. Tragic first hand experience.

Just some observations, none lof which may be relevent.

The biggest caliber I have now is a 375 H&H, I think my 300 Weatherby is louder, but none of my guns have brakes on them.

At enclosed, not neccessarily indoor, but enclosed gun ranges, from my experience, normal muzzle blast from un-braked rifles is magnified, braked rifles are even louder, even with ear protection.

I have been shooting various firearms and around other folks shooting various firearms since the 1960's and have not suffered any appreciable hearing loss, other than what occurs aas a normal part of the aging process, and I only wear hearing protection at ranges where it is required.

When hunting, I hear the report of the rifle when I shoot, but because I am not in a confined area, it seems to be less in tense.

I don't like being around anyone with a brake on their gun at a gun range. When hunting with someone with a brake, I position myself as far away as possible from the brake before the shot is taken.

I think some of the recoil reduction measures i.e. mercury tube or whatever, including making sure the stock actually fits the shooter, are better options than the bnrakes, but that is just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by fourbore:

Sums up point made by Art and presented by me, very nicely. Tragic first hand experience.

and yet, not YOUR first hand experience. Which has been the point, all along.

You remember how you said you like to challenge the status quo? challenge your OWN, and actually DO rather than yak!

So, you are going to ignore the questions, and or challenge made for you? Just going to whistle in the dark, hands in your pockets, and pretend that you aren't being engaged?

and later on, you'll complain that you are treated rudely.. when men have asked to help you out and gain some experience?

until then, you can be safely catagorized as
all hat, no cattle

The deafness is a real bastard but far worse is the never-ending tinnitus so I'd recommend any and all shooters to start using good protection such as game ears as soon as they possibly can.

As for recoil. I reckon everyone copes with it differently but I'd recommend a mercury tube or tungsten bead arrestor for any large calibre rifle. I'm not a doctor but from hindsight, I'd say that even of you think you can handle a big rifle it can still damage your neck and possibly upper spine later in life.

One thing's for sure, they can't do any harm!

Geez jeffe, why don't you just drop it or take your tiff with fourbore off line? I for one am getting tired of it.
Can I put a moderator on ignore?
Peter.

quote:

far worse is the never-ending tinnitus

Absolutely.

Later in life? Get out of your library Steve and into the gym then you won't be such a frail old man.

Peter,
Sorry you are tired of it. I am tired of FB continuously kicking sand and not having anything to stand on, then playing the victim. why don't you address fourbore to stop his constant whining, he'll get the message. ask him to stop playing the victim and to TRY to gain some experience.

By all means, you may place me into your ignore list.

The problem with an indoor/enclosed range is the REDIRECTION of the sound energy from a MB...instead of the sound energy going more downrange, the sound energy is redirected at right angles to the barrel bore which means in a circle around the MB then off the walls, ceiling, other items in it's path and then towards the other shooters on both sides...

Ths sound is NOT AMPLIFIED per se...just REDIRECTED. Sound reacts the same way as light as it reflects off surfaces...physically speaking.

Anyone who has been around loud machinery, loud music or loud anything else that is over about 80 db without hearing protection is in trouble...that means if you shot off all those neat fireworks or "cap's" back in the good old days you're liable to have hearing loss...

AND hearing loss is cumulative...the more you get hammered the more damage occures. I remember whacking a whole roll of caps with a hammer just to get that concussion head spin and smell the burned powder. You get the same with a braked rifle in an enclosed space.

Again...there are physical means of mitigating the effect...just use them...the rest of the "stuff" is just "stuff".

LUCK

Peter- Don't know what your problem is, but your question is rather naive. Have you actually gone hunting? Ever shot a gun outside of a Rifle Range? If so You'd know the answer. Thats why I'm so surprised at your question. Please tell me you've been 25 ft from a Cape Buffalo and fired and the sound of the gunshot hurt your ears! What a memory that would be!
In my Humble opinion Muzzel Brakes are Fuckin GREAT and should be standard equipment on any gun over .375. Art Alpin and Dumb-bore can both Kiss my Ass!-Rob

Well in an effort to try to revive a rational discussion here is a quote from wikipedia:

"Measurements indicate that on a rifle a muzzle brake adds 5 to 10 dB to the normal noise level perceived by the shooter, increasing total noise levels up to 160 dB(A) +/- 3 dB.[16]. Painful discomfort occurs at approximately 120 to 125 dB(A),[17] with some references claiming 133 dB(A) for the threshold of pain.[18] Active ear muffs are available with electronic noise cancellation that can reduce direct path ear canal noise by approximately 17-33 dB, depending on the low, medium, or high frequency at which attenuation is measured.[19] Passive ear plugs vary greatly in their measured attenuation, ranging from approximately 20 dB to 30 dB, depending on whether or not they are properly used.[20] Using both ear muffs (whether passive or active) and ear plugs simultaneously is a practice that is often used for obtaining the maximum protection, but the efficacy of such combined protection relative to preventing permanent ear damage is not conclusive, with evidence indicating that a combined noise reduction ratio (NRR) of only 36 dB (C-weighted) is the maximum possible using ear muffs and ear plugs simultaneously, equating to only a 36 - 7 = 29 dB protection against a 160 dB(A) noise level.[18] Relative to a noise level of 160 dB(A), this means that even using ear muffs and ear plugs simultaneously cannot protect a shooter against permanent ear damage when using a muzzle brake, through leaving a shooter exposed to noise levels of approximately 131 dB(A) that is 11 dB above the point where permanent ear damage occurs.

In the European Union (EU), employees are protected by law against impulsive or impact noise exposure over 137 dB(A), with an absolute limit of 140 dB(A).[21] Individual member states often define even lower levels by national law; the United Kingdom, for instance, opted for 120 dB(A), which is where many references indicate that permanent ear damage occurs."

At the risk of repetition, it seems that even with a combination of active and passive hearing protection, there is still a significant risk of hearing loss (cumulative) at levels approaching 160db. The question was raised earlier about the efficacy of hearing protection at various frequencies. Anyone have any more information on this? It would also be good if the original poster who posted information about actual levels would respond with his sources.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
It would also be good if the original poster who posted information about actual levels would respond with his sources.
Peter.

Yes, that source material would be interesting.
I don't trust anything in Wikepedia (or its medical counterpart, UptoDate). Inadequate verification of information presented as "fact" on these sites.

quote:

Originally posted by FOOBAR:
The problem with an indoor/enclosed range is the REDIRECTION of the sound energy from a MB...instead of the sound energy going more downrange, the sound energy is redirected at right angles to the barrel bore which means in a circle around the MB then off the walls, ceiling, other items in it's path and then towards the other shooters on both sides...

Ths sound is NOT AMPLIFIED per se...just REDIRECTED. Sound reacts the same way as light as it reflects off surfaces...physically speaking.

Anyone who has been around loud machinery, loud music or loud anything else that is over about 80 db without hearing protection is in trouble...that means if you shot off all those neat fireworks or "cap's" back in the good old days you're liable to have hearing loss...

AND hearing loss is cumulative...the more you get hammered the more damage occures. I remember whacking a whole roll of caps with a hammer just to get that concussion head spin and smell the burned powder. You get the same with a braked rifle in an enclosed space.

Again...there are physical means of mitigating the effect...just use them...the rest of the "stuff" is just "stuff".

LUCK

Nicely written and explains why I named the link in my post above "Take a step back". If you click on the link it will open the formulae to calculate attenuation by distance.

Well their sources to the natural sciences (Physics, QM, cosmolgy etc)have been pretty good to me, but, they have shown the sources, so, where do we challenge them? Clearly a comment like "a $25 pair of hearing muffs will solve the problem" stands in stark contrast to what they are saying. So, which is correct? Additionally, we intuitively believe that hearing protection is additive, ignoring the logarithmic scale of the decibel measuring system, so, I am not sure that human intuition or perception provides an adequate answer either.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Well in an effort to try to revive a rational discussion here is a quote from wikipedia:

"Measurements indicate that on a rifle a muzzle brake adds 5 to 10 dB to the normal noise level perceived by the shooter, increasing total noise levels up to 160 dB(A) +/- 3 dB.[16]. Painful discomfort occurs at approximately 120 to 125 dB(A),[17] with some references claiming 133 dB(A) for the threshold of pain.[18] Active ear muffs are available with electronic noise cancellation that can reduce direct path ear canal noise by approximately 17-33 dB, depending on the low, medium, or high frequency at which attenuation is measured.[19] Passive ear plugs vary greatly in their measured attenuation, ranging from approximately 20 dB to 30 dB, depending on whether or not they are properly used.[20] Using both ear muffs (whether passive or active) and ear plugs simultaneously is a practice that is often used for obtaining the maximum protection, but the efficacy of such combined protection relative to preventing permanent ear damage is not conclusive, with evidence indicating that a combined noise reduction ratio (NRR) of only 36 dB (C-weighted) is the maximum possible using ear muffs and ear plugs simultaneously, equating to only a 36 - 7 = 29 dB protection against a 160 dB(A) noise level.[18] Relative to a noise level of 160 dB(A), this means that even using ear muffs and ear plugs simultaneously cannot protect a shooter against permanent ear damage when using a muzzle brake, through leaving a shooter exposed to noise levels of approximately 131 dB(A) that is 11 dB above the point where permanent ear damage occurs.

In the European Union (EU), employees are protected by law against impulsive or impact noise exposure over 137 dB(A), with an absolute limit of 140 dB(A).[21] Individual member states often define even lower levels by national law; the United Kingdom, for instance, opted for 120 dB(A), which is where many references indicate that permanent ear damage occurs."

At the risk of repetition, it seems that even with a combination of active and passive hearing protection, there is still a significant risk of hearing loss (cumulative) at levels approaching 160db. The question was raised earlier about the efficacy of hearing protection at various frequencies. Anyone have any more information on this? It would also be good if the original poster who posted information about actual levels would respond with his sources.
Peter.

This is all supposition. Assumes this does that then causes this, yada, yada. Good SPL meters aren't cheap otherwise we could all go out and measure our own gear. I seriously doubt any of us is getting 130Db under muffs and plugs at the range and certainly not in the open. I'd be completely deaf by now if that were the case.

This is a great topic for a clean test based results thread.

Oh well! I tried!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Oh well! I tried!
Peter.

Peter,

Didn't mean for my post to be taken as discrediting your effort. Meant that from a POV of logic/methodology there is no beef in the Wiki info. Like I said, this could be a great data collective in a new thread if someone wants to get it started. I can spend the next year doing lab work but it's just my work and doesn't benefit from the empirical observations of the Borg here.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Well their sources to the natural sciences (Physics, QM, cosmolgy etc)have been pretty good to me, but, they have shown the sources, so, where do we challenge them? Clearly a comment like "a $25 pair of hearing muffs will solve the problem" stands in stark contrast to what they are saying. So, which is correct? Additionally, we intuitively believe that hearing protection is additive, ignoring the logarithmic scale of the decibel measuring system, so, I am not sure that human intuition or perception provides an adequate answer either.
Peter.

Peter,
I am not arguing with you, not at all.

What I am saying to do just what you are doing - don't take people at their word, not even Wikepedia.

Read the references you quote as well as the sources of the references themselves (one such is a retailer of hearing protection). I think you will be surprised.

OK! Points well taken and i stand corrected. Here is what I take away from all this so far (and I say this as someone who has a MB on a 416 Rigby):

There is significant risk in taking a rifle that already has a large sound pressure level (say 150 db) and then redirecting it back towards the shooter! The effects of this technique could be greatly exacerbated by a non open shooting environment, yet this seems to be precisely the mechanism via which recoil reduction is obtained in calibers that already have heavy recoil and high sound pressure levels. So, this might indicate a point of no, or at least diminishing returns if recoil reduction is the aim.
Muzzle rise reduction could presumably be obtained via a different mechanism (as in pistols for example) whereby the gases are vented upwards and not necessarily backwards. Vendors, of course, want to use both as inducements to buy their product. This indicates an upper limit, which I suspect we already acknowledge subconsciously but don't want to admit as others might impugn our manhood (see other posts).
However, below this upper limit, we might well want to use MB's to achieve other objectives like increased accuracy, decreased fatigue, speedy target recovery etc. as long as we understand the risks, and realize that our perception of hearing discomfort does not necessarily match physical reality (due in part to different frequency attenuations).
If this holds, then it would be interesting to know the sounds pressure levels of the various factory cartridges at some fairly standard point so that we know the starting point. However, based on what we know now, we seem to have an upper limit based on current technology of sound suppression.
Peter.

The sourse for my information, is a mesuresession, we performed during a supressortest. We used 2 different Norsonic meters, with full frequence report. The 1.st meter was positioned varyes places around the shooter during fiering, primarily to test eficiency, but also to try to figure out, at witch position you could obtain roubust and repetable mesurements.
The 2.nd meter was positioner 50meters away in 45deg to the bulletpath(apx 30 meters from the bulletpath)
Our testresults indicated that the standard millspech position 1meter 90deg to the muzzle, was a werry poor and unreliable point of mesuring, as only moowing the meeter 10cm forwards or backwards, could change the reading by up to 8dB. This problem grew worse, the better supressor you tested.
Measuring at 1meters distance behind a 45deg angle backwards to the muzzle, was werry roubust instead, and was almost only effected by "sound shadows"

My conclutions about noise, is that the energycontents of a sound is efected by the dB, multiplied by the amplitudehight ( sound of 140db at 100hz contains mutch more energy than a sound of 140dB at 15.000hz)
A sound of 140dB and 15.000hz, is easily stopped by 1 single layer of glass, at a distance of 30yds, while a sound of 140dB at 100hz, requires multiple layer og concrete and insulation to stop it.

The sound reductions quoted for the muffs, was from an independent test of 2 different brands (Sordin and Peltor) I focused at the lowfrequent reduction, as our tests showed, that the powderblast of a rifleshot, mainly is in the range from 10hz - 1000hz Most of the noise abowe that frequency levell is generated by the supersonic crack from the bullet.This asumption is based on a test with a supressor, thatshowed readings in the 130dB range, when shot in the open. But the same setup was reduced to 115dB, when the bullet was trapped in a plastictube after 20cm of free flight.

Personally i for the first 25 years of shooting feld immortal acording to hearingloss. But over the last 15 years i have realized that i was not. So now i have sever dificulties to understand what people says when also exposed to background noise. The first ability you loose is the ability to hear highfrequenced sounds, like hiss and all the othe small sounds that refine language. But looking at it from the bright side, those highfrequenced words is often spoken form people with a destinkt feemail woice. (i often use this hearingloss at that specific frequense, as an excuse for not hearing my whifes comands )