Pros & Cons Of HD Shooting Using Ear Protection

Permanent noise induced hearing loss is made worse by cumulative exposure. A single incident can, however, cause permanent impairment.
Click to expand...

This is true and a shot fired in an enclosed space such as your home results in multiple exposures with a single shot because of surface reflection (echo) of the sound waves) that generally happen so fast that you don't realize it, but it happens. So in a typical room, you could get 6 major reflections from the ceiling, floor (5 if carpeted), and 4 walls. Each of these reflections, in a typical sized home, will be loud enough on their own to cause hearing damage. Then you have the secondary reflections of the reflections which also can be loud enough to cause hearing damage. So that is another 5 or 6 damaging pulses.
 
You're right, DNS, and it's actually even worse than that.

It's no different from a ricochet. A bullet that bounces off a hard surface can still have enough kinetic energy to injure you, and reflected sound can have enough acoustic energy to damage your ears.

If you're firing a handgun with a muzzle blast that measures 165 dB in a small room with reflective walls, ceiling, and floor, that's going to produce six reflected impulses within a few milliseconds of the direct sound; if the reflected impulses each measure around 150 dB, which is entirely possible, your ears have now been exposed to seven potentially damaging acoustic events instead of just one, and to the extent that the impulses overlap when they reach your ears, they'll act like a single, more intense acoustic event, and the SPL will be the sum of their acoustic energy, and will have even more potential for causing hearing damage.

The damaging effect of noise is cumulative: exposure to several intense acoustic events is more harmful than exposure to just one, and a longer event will do more damage than a short one of the same intensity. It makes no difference to your ears if these events are direct, from the original sound source, or reflected.
 
Last edited:
manta49 said:
So the chances of having to shoot in your home very low the chances of a few shoots causing permanent hearing loss lower again. So to me its not worth considering.
Click to expand...

The chances of using a gun in a self defense situation are actually very low, so why even bother with a gun?
 
Food for thought. Police Officers wear ear protection on the range. How many of them have you seen working the streets with muffs.
Click to expand...
I don't sit around my living room wearing them, either, or sleep in them.

Police officers are at the top of the list of occupations with the highest risk of job-related hearing loss. Guess why.
 
Last edited:
Armsmaster, perhaps I wasn't clear. What I was saying was that compared to other occupations, police officers have a very high risk of job-related hearing loss, not that hearing loss is their most frequent occupational injury. I believe you're correct, that's back injury.
 
Police officers are at the top of the list of occupations with the highest risk of job-related hearing loss. Guess why.
Click to expand...

With the amount of officer involved shootings being fairly low I would guess NIHL-noise-induced hearing loss due to time spent on busy road sides with trucks roaring by and directing traffic around jack hammers and other road construction machinery.
 
deepcreek said:
With the amount of officer involved shootings being fairly low I would guess NIHL-noise-induced hearing loss due to time spent on busy road sides with trucks roaring by and directing traffic around jack hammers and other road construction machinery.
Click to expand...
We have a winner! :D

In fact, traffic cops and dispatchers are the ones most at risk. As deepcreek points out, the chances that a given police officer will be involved in a shooting are very low, so it wouldn't make sense for them to wear muffs all the time, any more than it would for me to wear them while sitting in my living room, just on the off-chance of a home invasion.

Having them available is another matter.

(Yes, that was a trick question... ;))
 
Suppressed handguns for HD seem to be more common these days and hearing loss concerns is one of the reasons why is what I am told.

I think they will only get more popular as they are legal in so many states now. I think the cost and a tax stamp are the downside and what limits more people from using them.
 
The chances of using a gun in a self defense situation are actually very low, so why even bother with a gun?
Click to expand...
I don't.

Police officers are at the top of the list of occupations with the highest risk of job-related hearing loss. Guess why.
Click to expand...
Why? I would assume they wear ear protection at the range like most people. And very few probably use their firearms in anger.

In fact, traffic cops and dispatchers are the ones most at risk.
Click to expand...
They should use electronic ear protection then.
 
Last edited:
OldMarksman said:
Hiker 1 said:
I prefer auditory exclusion
Click to expand...
Unlikely to prevent damage.
Click to expand...
Auditory exclusion will not prevent hearing loss. It's a psychological effect, similar to tunnel vision, and it doesn't negate the laws of physics.
manta49 said:
Vanya said:
Police officers are at the top of the list of occupations with the highest risk of job-related hearing loss. Guess why.
Click to expand...
Why? I would assume they wear ear protection at the range like most people. And very few probably use their firearms in anger.
Click to expand...
Manta, go back and read my post #89.
 
Auditory exclusion will not prevent hearing loss. It's a psychological effect, similar to tunnel vision, and it doesn't negate the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

...physics and biology. Those brittle little ear hairs will still break off whether you notice the intensity of the noise or not. It is the outer auditory hair hair cells that are responsible for amplification of more quiet noises.

Not only that, but auditory exclusion isn't universal or consistent, not even at the individual level. So you can't even count on it to work in dampening what you perceive.
 
Manta, go back and read my post #89.
Click to expand...
OK As we were talking about hearing loss connected with shooting and police were mentioned as a example, I assumed that hearing loss in the police connected to firearms use was why they were put up as a example.
 
What was brought up regarding LEO, was not patrolman, resource officer etc. it was about swat teams , entry teams using flash bangs and other divisions the regularly encounter loud noises. Another example might be military training exercises, or even actual battles. On the history channel where it shows soldiers loading and firing cannons, its no wonder they came home shell shocked.
 
Auditory exclusion will not prevent hearing loss. It's a psychological effect, similar to tunnel vision, and it doesn't negate the laws of physics.

Yes, I know. Just trying to lighten things up. :D
 
When I'm standing next to someone at the range who is shooting a 50 BMG --- I seem to feel a pressure wave from the muzzle brake after the gun is discharged. Is this the same type of pressure wave that you get from explosions such as in fertilizer bombs? I've read it's not the noise that kills in these bombs...but the pressure wave that first affects the ears, then the brain and finally stops the heart.
 
When I'm standing next to someone at the range who is shooting a 50 BMG --- I seem to feel a pressure wave from the muzzle brake after the gun is discharged. Is this the same type of pressure wave that you get from explosions such as in fertilizer bombs? I've read it's not the noise that kills in these bombs...but the pressure wave that first affects the ears, then the brain and finally stops the heart.
Click to expand...
It's called concussion, and, yes, it's the same physical force, only amplified to extraordinary levels in explosive ordnance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top