Hearing Protection During COF

[ima45dv8]

Now, for a trickier scenario.

Consider a shooter who always shoots double plugged, and there is enough evidence/witnesses that this point is not subject to dispute. The shooter arrives at the line with only plugs, and the RO is someone not familiar with the shooter. The shooter is given the signal, engages the first target, and then stops himself invoking the rule under discussion, and informs the RO he was not wearing adequate hearing protection. There are no muffs on his head to "prove" he "intended" to double protect. Do you give him a reshoot? If you answer is yes, what if it's a 32 round field course; the shooter has hit a few no-shoots; and he stops himself before the very last target of the stage and asserts the same claim?

As that new-to-him RO you mentioned (not knowing they "always double-plug"), I'd gladly give them a reshoot if they stopped shortly after beginning their attempt at the CoF and pointed out their lack of ear protection (muffs, in this case).

But, as has been said before, if they went all the way through, or almost all the way through the 32-round CoF you mentioned, before declaring they didn't 'double-plug", I'd cast a suspicious eye on that competitor and simply tell them to prepare better for the next stage.

[aztecdriver]

Now, for a trickier scenario.

Consider a shooter who always shoots double plugged, and there is enough evidence/witnesses that this point is not subject to dispute. The shooter arrives at the line with only plugs, and the RO is someone not familiar with the shooter. The shooter is given the signal, engages the first target, and then stops himself invoking the rule under discussion, and informs the RO he was not wearing adequate hearing protection. There are no muffs on his head to "prove" he "intended" to double protect. Do you give him a reshoot? If you answer is yes, what if it's a 32 round field course; the shooter has hit a few no-shoots; and he stops himself before the very last target of the stage and asserts the same claim?

As that new-to-him RO you mentioned (not knowing they "always double-plug"), I'd gladly give them a reshoot if they stopped shortly after beginning their attempt at the CoF and pointed out their lack of ear protection (muffs, in this case).

But, as has been said before, if they went all the way through, or almost all the way through the 32-round CoF you mentioned, before declaring they didn't 'double-plug", I'd cast a suspicious eye on that competitor and simply tell them to prepare better for the next stage.

+2

[Rob Boudrie]

It's a factual determination, not an opinion. Earplugs are enough even for a rifle. You won't damage your ears...there is no rationale for allowing a reshoot.

Can you cite an authorative source, such a peer reviewed article by a qualified expert in a professional journal, or a study that followed proper scientific protocol? Proof by assertion, or simply referring to the NRR on the package doesn't count.

For example, I use "foamies" that have an NRR of 32-33dB. This is more than enough for any shooting event, indoors or out. Typical over-ear muffs and molded plugs have an NRR of 22-23dB. Electronic ones may get upwards of 28dB. Enforcement of the NRR can be problematic, though. It would basically be on the honor system

NRR is a laboratory measurement, and does not account for things like fit to the ear canal, loss of acoustic seal due to the interaction of glasses with muffs, conduction through bone surrounding the external ear, etc. They are generally good for comparative purposes, but don't tell the entire story.

[ErichF]

NRR is a laboratory measurement, and does not account for things like fit to the ear canal, loss of acoustic seal due to the interaction of glasses with muffs, conduction through bone surrounding the external ear, etc. They are generally good for comparative purposes, but don't tell the entire story.

Well, unless you got an acoustic chamber and all the related testing equipment, NRR is all that we consumer-level folks have to judge the protection factor of a given hearing protection product. Personally, I don't care if one were to stuff foamies and a pair of socks, put on muffs, and wrap their head in a bedsheet...I know what works for me.

Also, if you read the source sites I posted earlier, there's a reason why OSHA automatically deducts 7 dB from any NRR to come to a "corrected" NRR. This is because most folks usually don't properly install foamies and molded plugs. It's also amazing how much noise can enter through the mouth/nasal cavity, bypassing anything you put on/over your ears.

[aztecdriver]

NRR is a laboratory measurement, and does not account for things like fit to the ear canal, loss of acoustic seal due to the interaction of glasses with muffs, conduction through bone surrounding the external ear, etc. They are generally good for comparative purposes, but don't tell the entire story.

Well, unless you got an acoustic chamber and all the related testing equipment, NRR is all that we consumer-level folks have to judge the protection factor of a given hearing protection product. Personally, I don't care if one were to stuff foamies and a pair of socks, put on muffs, and wrap their head in a bedsheet...I know what works for me. [snip]

And that's exactly the point. IF you know what works for you - how can an RO judge adequate?

[PKT1106]

I don't think its for the RO to judge "adequate". It's for the shooter and it's the shooters responsibility to come to the line prepared. If I am running someone and I see they have eyes and ears, I must assume they are ready to go. If someone comes to the line with plugs in and muffs on their head, I will aske if they want to put them on their ears, but if they don't, nothing you can do. They chose to go with just plugs, which is fine by USPSA.