WARNING! NEVER shoot near a muzzle brake or compensator!

[buckhorn_cortez]

I'd question any rule that involved firearms deemed "too noisy."

The problem is setting a level and then measuring the level as you have to quantify at what point "too noisy" occurs. You can't do it by someone's opinion as that's not fair and it's not repeatable.

You can only do it using an impartial method like a sound meter. Sound meters capable of 160 dB or more impulse peak are expensive and take training to use accurately.

Sound falls off with the square of the distance, so there would have to be an entire set of test criteria developed in order to quantify what's too noisy and what isn't. Based upon distance from the source to the meter (or source to another shooter).

Since some people are more sensitive to sound than others, then you get into the entire range of subjective interpretation of the noise level and what is objectionable.

Then you have to set who gets priority - the person who was their first with the noisy gun, or the person who came later that objects to the noise.

While it may seem simple in theory - I'm not sure setting noise limits at a gun range is really something that can be done without excluding shooters who have brakes on their rifles and should be able to shoot just like anyone else.

 

[zukiphile]

Yup, every range I've ever been to has rules, especially for safety but I've never seen a sound limitation put on a firearm on any range I've ever been too.

I'd question any rule that involved firearms deemed "too noisy."

Gentlemen, if you review the thread, you will understand that the issue isn't whether a firearm is "too noisy" or whether one with such an arm may shoot it, but whether the rules of the OP's club should require use of the device that redirects the blast of ported rifle away from adjacent benches.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Gentlemen, if you review the thread, you will understand that the issue isn't whether a firearm is "too noisy" or whether one with such an arm may shoot it, but whether the rules of the OP's club should require use of the device that redirects the blast of ported rifle away from adjacent benches.

Banning all firearms would be much more effective, and protect all members - not just those that don't own a ported rifle, but shoot next to one; but ALL members.

Why not just cut to the chase and finish this pissing contest early?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Gentlemen, if you review the thread, you will understand that the issue isn't whether a firearm is "too noisy" or whether one with such an arm may shoot it, but whether the rules of the OP's club should require use of the device that redirects the blast of ported rifle away from adjacent benches.

He wants the device used because the "VERY high intensity" ported rifle was too loud for him under the roofed outdoor range, not because his spare targets and paperwork were blown off his bench by a blast. So it is about the firearm being too noisy. So he wants the rule change so that he won't have to endure the noise.

 

[zukiphile]

So it is about the firearm being too noisy. So he wants the rule change so that he won't have to endure the noise.

This is too easy to understand by just reading the OP's narrative.

Requiring use of the devices isn't triggered by a noise threshhold, but by the use of ported barrels or compensators.

At my orientation for the club, I brought up that I noticed sewer pipe sections at the end of the benches and asked if they were used for comped guns. I was told that's what they are there for, but it's up to the RO to decide whether to REQUIRE comped guns to be used with them.

As to others' concerns, Lavan hasn't called for a prohibition on the use of any arm, no matter how loud.

I do NOT believe ANY type of firearm should be BANNED from a range...

rif

 

[TimSr]

Since some people are more sensitive to sound than others, then you get into the entire range of subjective interpretation of the noise level and what is objectionable.

Then you have to set who gets priority - the person who was their first with the noisy gun, or the person who came later that objects to the noise.

Why does everything have to be spelled out in legalese these days?

Am I that old, that simply being considerate of other people is obsolete?

The OP said these pipes that solve the problem are already there. Is there some harm or inconvenience in using them, or this just about people demanding to assert their right to be as obnoxious towards others as they wish, just for the sake of making sure they are getting attention? Really, Id like to know why you would NOT use something provided if it reduces your being annoying to another person. Someone please explain why using these are so aggravating that you would prefer to harm another because his hearing protection is sufficient for his guns and but in your opinion, insufficient for YOURS. I don't understand the "serves him right" attitude when the solution is provided and right there.