• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Firearm Muzzle Suppressors Far Superior to Ear-Level Protection Devices for Noise Reduction

by George Hashisaki, MD • September 17, 2014

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Do ear-level hearing protection devices or firearm muzzle suppressor devices offer greater noise reduction of firearm impulse noise?

Background: Recreational firearm use exposes users to intense impulse sound pressures. Commercially available ear-level hearing protection devices offer continuous noise reduction ratios of 0-31 dB at the ear, depending on design and proper fitting. Noise suppression devices affixed to the muzzles of firearms offer sound suppression at the noise source.

You Might Also Like

  • Ability to Heal from Hearing Damage Linked to Ear’s Circadian Rhythms
  • Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: Implant the Better- or Worse-Hearing Ear?
  • Middle Ear Implants Offer Potential: New breed of devices may stimulate compliance, experts say
  • MP3 Generation: Noise-induced hearing loss rising among children and adolescents
Explore This Issue
January 2012

Study design: Comparison of study measures to retrospective control data.

Synopsis: Impulse sound levels were measured one meter to the left of the muzzle and at the shooter’s ear for two pistols of different caliber and two rifles of different caliber, with and without noise suppression devices attached to the muzzles. For each firearm, five measures of sound level were taken without the muzzle suppressor device and 10 measures of sound level were taken with the muzzle suppressor device in position. Results were averaged. Measurements of sound level at the shooter’s ear ranged from 157.7–162.5 dB for the pistols and 155–157.2 dB for the rifles. The muzzle suppressor devices reduced the sound levels by 26–41 dB.

Publically accessible data exist for commercially available ear-level noise suppression devices with advertised noise reduction ratios of 19–31 dB. Based on a published review of 20 studies, it is difficult to achieve the advertised noise reduction ratio.

The author concludes that commercially available muzzle suppressor devices provide a greater degree of noise suppression than commercially available ear-level noise suppression devices.

Bottom line: Firearms generate extremely high impulse sound levels. Recreational firearm users should use noise suppression devices. Using a combination of ear-level protection and muzzle suppressor devices would produce the greatest noise reduction.

Reference: Branch MP. Comparison of muzzle suppression and ear-level hearing protection in firearm use. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;144(6):950-953.

Filed Under: Literature Reviews, Otology/Neurotology, Otology/Neurotology, Practice Focus Tagged With: noise reductionIssue: January 2012

You Might Also Like:

  • Ability to Heal from Hearing Damage Linked to Ear’s Circadian Rhythms
  • Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: Implant the Better- or Worse-Hearing Ear?
  • Middle Ear Implants Offer Potential: New breed of devices may stimulate compliance, experts say
  • MP3 Generation: Noise-induced hearing loss rising among children and adolescents

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939