IMHO: to determine best you have to first ask what grain bullets you are shooting, meaning are they subsonic or supersonic. Any caliber of supersonic round can be shot suppressed with negligible effect on ballistics. However, you're still going to get the supersonic crack that will not be hearing safe. There will still be greatly reduced noise and signature.
Next you need to look at barrel length and purpose. The .300blk was designed to burn all it's powder in a very short distance, allowing you to have shorter barrels on which to attach a suppresor too. Many other calibers with have greatly reduced relative velocity with something like a 9" barrel instead of a 16".
300 sets itself apart in it's subsonic short-barreled capabilities relative to other calibers. It also fits in standard AR-15 mags.
.300blk is great. You never need an excuse to NOT own a gun so go get one ASAP.
You never need an excuse to NOT own a gun so go get one ASAP.
This is a very compelling argument.
Thanks for your advice.
I bought a .22 suppressor for starters and I use subsonic rounds with it. When I shoot it on my Walther pistol it is overall louder than I would want it to be (I can shoot without hearing protection, of course). When I shoot it on my Ruger 10/22 it is a pretty satisfying result (quieter, you mostly hear the bolt cycling). That is quiet enough to leave it on the rifle in case I am tempted to shoot when/where I am "not supposed to". If I want super quiet I would get a bolt action .22 rifle and get rid of the cycling sound, but I don't feel it's worthwhile.
I had been considering getting a 9MM suppressor, but I haven't come up with a good enough reason to get one, especially now that I think a suppressed handgun just won't feel quite "suppressed" enough between the short barrel and the mechanical noise of the gun.
I have an AR pistol in 9MM that I am just starting to get more enjoyment out of since I got a better "brace" for it and put on a good red dot. I thought that might be a good host for a suppressor but I can only get one at a time, so I am considering 300 blackout and doing an AR rifle build. (I already have a standard AR rifle and have plans to build the next one.)
My main reservation getting into 300 blackout is feeding one more caliber and the cost of rounds -- basically trying to decide if it will be worth it. I need to find someone shooting one at the range and ask them if I can watch and listen for a bit and see if that helps me make up my mind.
5.56 round is out of an AR 15 is roughly 170db, OSHA says any exposure to 160db of energy for more than 1 second in a 24 hour period will cause permanent hearing loss.
I take no chances with hearing loss when I shoot my AR. My hearing is already compromised for other reasons, and I can't afford to lose any more. I use earplugs and earmuffs to tame the sound.
What concerns me is the possibility of SHTF. Somehow I don't think that charging into combat with my hearing fully deadened by both earplugs and muffs is a good idea. For that reason, I've toyed with the idea of a suppressor.
However...
Suppressed an AR 15 you can drop it roughly 30db, which is 28 seconds of exposure before permanent hearing loss.
28 seconds total isn't very long in a combat situation.
In ear hearing protection reduces 29 db, over the ear reduces 27 db. Combined you get roughly 39 is what one site says.
Okay, so here's what I'm getting, based on these figures:
Unsuppressed AR -- 170 db
Duppressed AR -- 140 db
earplugs -- -29 db
Muffs -- -27
Combination of the above -- -39db
So, then, using earplugs and muffs with an unsuppressed AR leaves us with 131 db.
Earplugs and muffs with a suppressed AR gives us 101 db.
To be honest, I think that some of these numbers are a little high. Nevertheless, working from them, I conclude that a suppressor alone isn't going to do anything useful to protect my ears in a sustained-fire environment. But even though it might be a bit awkward, plugs and muffs would save my hearing (131 db).
Yes, I realize you're thinking in terms of self-defense in an indoor environment, but I would never use an AR for that. I'm thinking of an outdoor combat scenario.
IMHO: to determine best you have to first ask what grain bullets you are shooting, meaning are they subsonic or supersonic. Any caliber of supersonic round can be shot suppressed with negligible effect on ballistics. However, you're still going to get the supersonic crack that will not be hearing safe. There will still be greatly reduced noise and signature.
Next you need to look at barrel length and purpose. The .300blk was designed to burn all it's powder in a very short distance, allowing you to have shorter barrels on which to attach a suppresor too. Many other calibers with have greatly reduced relative velocity with something like a 9" barrel instead of a 16".
300 sets itself apart in it's subsonic short-barreled capabilities relative to other calibers. It also fits in standard AR-15 mags.
.300blk is great. You never need an excuse to NOT own a gun so go get one ASAP.
This is a very compelling argument.
Thanks for your advice.
I bought a .22 suppressor for starters and I use subsonic rounds with it. When I shoot it on my Walther pistol it is overall louder than I would want it to be (I can shoot without hearing protection, of course). When I shoot it on my Ruger 10/22 it is a pretty satisfying result (quieter, you mostly hear the bolt cycling). That is quiet enough to leave it on the rifle in case I am tempted to shoot when/where I am "not supposed to". If I want super quiet I would get a bolt action .22 rifle and get rid of the cycling sound, but I don't feel it's worthwhile.
I had been considering getting a 9MM suppressor, but I haven't come up with a good enough reason to get one, especially now that I think a suppressed handgun just won't feel quite "suppressed" enough between the short barrel and the mechanical noise of the gun.
I have an AR pistol in 9MM that I am just starting to get more enjoyment out of since I got a better "brace" for it and put on a good red dot. I thought that might be a good host for a suppressor but I can only get one at a time, so I am considering 300 blackout and doing an AR rifle build. (I already have a standard AR rifle and have plans to build the next one.)
My main reservation getting into 300 blackout is feeding one more caliber and the cost of rounds -- basically trying to decide if it will be worth it. I need to find someone shooting one at the range and ask them if I can watch and listen for a bit and see if that helps me make up my mind.
Doesn't that kind of remove the point of a suppressor?
Well, that was a very thorough reply, thank you.
I take no chances with hearing loss when I shoot my AR. My hearing is already compromised for other reasons, and I can't afford to lose any more. I use earplugs and earmuffs to tame the sound.
What concerns me is the possibility of SHTF. Somehow I don't think that charging into combat with my hearing fully deadened by both earplugs and muffs is a good idea. For that reason, I've toyed with the idea of a suppressor.
However...
28 seconds total isn't very long in a combat situation.
Okay, so here's what I'm getting, based on these figures:
Unsuppressed AR -- 170 db Duppressed AR -- 140 db
earplugs -- -29 db
Muffs -- -27
Combination of the above -- -39db
So, then, using earplugs and muffs with an unsuppressed AR leaves us with 131 db.
Earplugs and muffs with a suppressed AR gives us 101 db.
To be honest, I think that some of these numbers are a little high. Nevertheless, working from them, I conclude that a suppressor alone isn't going to do anything useful to protect my ears in a sustained-fire environment. But even though it might be a bit awkward, plugs and muffs would save my hearing (131 db).
Yes, I realize you're thinking in terms of self-defense in an indoor environment, but I would never use an AR for that. I'm thinking of an outdoor combat scenario.
Any thoughts?