Was Suppressor Worth It??

[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.com/cdc-study-use-suppressors-to-reduce-noise-exposure/

[Klem]

https://americansuppressorassociatio...oise-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The trouble with reports written by departments is they are not peer-reviewed.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.

[snarkscarbine]