On November 18, 2024, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery issued a statement of support for the use of firearms suppressors as a means of reducing the risk of hearing loss. From entnet.org:
The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery endorses the use of firearm suppressors as an effective method of reducing the risk of hearing loss, especially when used in conjunction with conventional hearing protective measures.
The article contains a paragraph clarifying that the publication and organization are not making a legal or political statement. They are stating a medical fact.
The references listed with the statement make clear suppressors are superior to hearing protection that is worn (such as headsets or earplugs). Using both firearms suppressors and worn hearing protection is even better at reducing risk of hearing loss from the noise of shooting firearms or being near to where they are being shot.
References:
- Chen L, Brueck SE. Noise and Lead Exposures at an Outdoor Firing Range ─ California.Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 2011-0069-3140:5:5.
- Branch M,“Comparison of Muzzle Suppression and Ear-Level Hearing Protection in Firearm Use”, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 144(6): 950-953.
- Heiman D, et al., ibid; Le Prell CG. Sound level suppressors for firearm noise reduction: Implications for hearing conservation. Hearing Review. 2017;24(12):26-30
Reference #1 measures the dangers of firearm blasts for hearing loss.
Reference #2 measures the reduction in sound levels using firearms suppressors compared to hearing protection devices worn on the person. The branch found this result:
Conclusion: Modern muzzle-level suppression is vastly superior to ear-level protection and the only available form of suppression capable of making certain sporting arms safe for hearing. The inadequacy of standard hearing protectors with certain common firearms is not recognized by most hearing professionals or their patients and should affect the way hearing professionals counsel patients and the public.
Reference #3 reaches these conclusions:
Sound level suppressors (also known as “silencers”) on firearms reduce—but do not eliminate—hazardous noise exposure, especially for AR-15 or similar semiautomatic rifles. At this time, the best advice is dual use of both HPDs and suppressors—particularly for those shooting weapons that produce dangerously high sound levels. For shooters who are reluctant to use HPDs, electronic HPDs should be considered as an option.
The scientific evidence is clear. Silencers offer a significant way to reduce the risk of hearing loss. The commonly used term “suppressor” is more realistic if not more recent. Silencers/suppressors do not make firearms silent. They reduce the noise from a firearms blast to levels which are less dangerous to the user. Those who desire a disarmed population put forward two contradictory reasons as to why silencer/suppressors should be tightly regulated.
First, they argue silencers/suppressors make firearm noise “too quiet” so that crimes can be committed more easily. Second, they argue that silencers/suppressors do not make firearm noise “quiet enough” as the noise can still damage the users’ hearing with some suppressors in some conditions.
This is a form of Goldilocks gun control. Silencers/suppressors are always either too quiet or too loud. In the eyes of those who want a disarmed population, they can never be “just right.” When firearms suppressors were initially included in the controversial National Firearms Act in 1934, the science of hearing protection had not been developed. It wasn’t until 1948 that the U.S. Air Force took hearing loss seriously.
The American Air Force instituted the first recommended noise exposure limits in 1948 and the first enforceable noise regulations in 1958. Soldiers who experienced hearing loss from service in WWII or Korea had a much different experience than their grandfathers who served in WWI.
The military realized what workers know today – loud noises can impair situational awareness and decrease safety even beyond hearing loss.
The $200 tax on a silencer in 1934 was equivalent to about $4,000 today. A laborer in 1934 would make $200 in six months. It was effectively a ban for most people.
The effective economic ban on the use of firearm suppressors or gun mufflers has been one of the greatest governmental medical disasters of modern times. Certainly, millions, likely tens of millions of people, have significant hearing loss because of this regulatory misstep. The inventor of the firearm gun muffler invented the automobile muffler at virtually the same time. One became mandatory, and the other was banned. The difference was the overreach of government power by the FDR administration in 1934.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Understanding the NFA of 34 came about when the nations emotions were high due to the St Valentines Day massacre. AG Homer Cummings admitted before the congressional committee and prior to its passage that they had no idea what the outcome would be once law. Numerous testimony was provided and the outcome was clearly stated by the organizations supporting the gun industry, i.e.,law abiding citizens would be the majority adversely affected, for the intended recipients of this scheme, criminals cared less and would never comply. The NRA, one of the organizations as aforementioned, gave its blessing once pistols were taken… Read more »
I wonder if OSHA could sue the Federal gov’t over the risk to the hearing of firing range workers engendered by the inclusion of suppressors in the NFA and the unjust tax on a health & safety (hearing protection) device that entails, as well as the artificially high market price to the consumer that results from that inclusion, placing such hearing protection devices beyond the means of many lower-income Americans? Doesn’t the 14th Amendment require the gov’t to afford the same access to health & safety devices to the poor as the well-off get – i.e. a removal of gov’t… Read more »
I am a volunteer RSO at a public shooting range. I can tell you that firearms with suppressors are a welcome relief from high noise level guns, even when wearing conventional hearing protection. I look forward to the day when suppressors are removed from the NFA and then become more affordable because of increased demand.
I’m in the process of suppressing every one of my long guns as I can afford it. Just bought a can for one of my 5.56’s yesterday. The entire process is overbearing. The $200 tax fee, establishing a trust and the ATF wait is ridiculous. I’m anxious to see how long the waiting period will be this time. Last one was 8 weeks. Like many people my age, I have a significant hearing loss. In crowded rooms you might as well not talk to me, I won’t hear a thing unless you speak directly into my ear. I don’t want… Read more »
Just common sense that when you suppress loud noise a persons hearing benefits in the long run .
This heretofore totally unknown information was just released by the Institute for the Blazingly Obvious. Later today expect announcements that water is wet, sugar is sweet, and that drinking bourbon may cause intoxication.