ENTtoday
  • Home
  • COVID-19
  • Practice Focus
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Departments
    • Issue Archive
    • TRIO Best Practices
      • Allergy
      • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
      • Head and Neck
      • Laryngology
      • Otology/Neurotology
      • Pediatric
      • Rhinology
      • Sleep Medicine
    • Career Development
    • Case of the Month
    • Everyday Ethics
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Medical Education
    • Online Exclusives
    • Practice Management
    • Resident Focus
    • Rx: Wellness
    • Special Reports
    • Tech Talk
    • Viewpoint
    • What’s Your O.R. Playlist?
  • Literature Reviews
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Events
    • Featured Events
    • TRIO Meetings
  • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Triological Society
    • Advertising Staff
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise
    • Place an Ad
    • Classifieds
    • Rate Card
  • Search

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

by George Hashisaki, MD • September 17, 2014

  • Tweet
  • 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

No related posts.

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:

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

The Laryngoscope
Ensure you have all the latest research at your fingertips; Subscribe to The Laryngoscope today!

Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Open access journal in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery is currently accepting submissions.

Classifieds

View the classified ads »

TRIO Best Practices

View the TRIO Best Practices »

Top Articles for Residents

  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Why More MDs, Medical Residents Are Choosing to Pursue Additional Academic Degrees
  • What Physicians Need to Know about Investing Before Hiring a Financial Advisor
  • Tips to Help You Regain Your Sense of Self
  • Should USMLE Step 1 Change from Numeric Score to Pass/Fail?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Some Studies Predict a Shortage of Otolaryngologists. Do the Numbers Support Them?
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name
    • Neurogenic Cough Is Often a Diagnosis of Exclusion
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • New Developments in the Management of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Eustachian Tuboplasty: A Potential New Option for Chronic Tube Dysfunction and Patulous Disease
    • Tympanoplasty Tips: Otology Experts Give Advice on the Procedure
    • How Treatment for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) Is Evolving to Give Patients a Better Night’s Sleep
    • Vestibular Schwannoma Position Relative to Internal Auditory Canal Helps Predict Postoperative Facial Function
    • Vocal Fold Lipoaugmentation Provides Long-Term Voice Improvements for Glottal Insufficiency
    • Upper Lateral Cartilage Mucosal Flap Enables the Successful Closure of Larger Septal Perforations

Polls

Do you think there will be a shortage of otolaryngologists in the next five to 10 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Visit: The Triological Society • The Laryngoscope • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology

Wiley
© 2022 The Triological Society. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN 1559-4939

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.