Jump to content

Nightrider

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

385 profile views
  1. You have never done any research ,or analytical study, have you. It shows. Sorry but this is not a forum for teaching people the basics they should have grasped at school. I've told you what is wrong with them. IF you really wanted to know, you would do some resaerch yourself. Clearly you would rather arugue with someone trying to assist ... and than move off at a tangent... than address what is put before you. Frankly pathetic. You know my views on this and I have told you how I came by those views. I have also pointed out that the numbers of users of these products now suffering tinnitus is an indicator that more research is needed. One such made that clear on a FB shooting forum very recently. I don't and won't use any sonic type product because that do not offer adequate protection. I have let people know my concerns. When they would rather argue than seek information, particulalery from manufacturers (who stand to gain by selling the product and have the money and also had years to come up with verifiable evidence) I can do no more. There it is. Take it or leave it. Its your hearing and not mine. I have far more important things to do than carry on this nonsense. Be happy; even if you do end up deaf. I tried; I'm happy with that.
  2. Members 619 posts From:East Sussex Report post Posted 5 hours ago Those that are blinkered and stuck in their ways are also part of the problem. I know; I meet them all the time on here. Quite common over the many years it has been my job to answer technical questions regarding many aspects of shooting; I have met most types during that time. And they still abound. They have no knowledge of the subject, NO facts to back up their blinkered views (which they then present on sights like this as though they DO know); unbelievable...but happens all the time.. They are not even capable of doing the sensible thing; like ask the questions of themakers of poorly performing products, which they happiliy buy and support, in their blissful ignorance. You cannot help people with that mentality; so I shall waste no more of my time trying to help them protect their hearing. If they cannot think for themselves, life might be better for them if they cannot hear either. Its their hearing getting damaged, not mine. It is just a shame that such ignorance could lead to others, seeking advice, being confused and also buying less than satisfactory goods. That really is a shame.
  3. "And what I’m saying is 20 years ago they may not have worked 20 year ago you couldn’t use the net on your phone technology moves on and improves " And, what I am saying, the pysical laws that govern movement of any staionary object, namely INERTIA (the desire of any staionary object to stay in that state until sufficient force is applied to make it move) STILL applies and at the same rate it did 20,years, and 20million years ago... No; nothing has chnged to alter the problem as to WHY they didn't work 20 years ago IF they have found the magic formuat to overcome inertia at a rate previously unknown, I'm sure they would be famous by now. AND, as they make and profit from the product, it would be in their interest to TELL people. So, having had 20 plus years to test them and provide the proof, why do they not do so?? Because they cannot. ... And those who would rather argue the point made than seek truth are as much a part of the problem as those who supply the equipment.
  4. "Am no expert but if I take the plug out there’s a hell of a lot more bang so they can’t not be making it better for my ears and 20 year ago I had a car that was the bees knees with 150bhp but now I have car that is a diesel estate but yet will out perform the car from 20 year ago things change" P.s you prove it can’t be done -------------------------------------------- I think your first three words explain why you cannot seem to undesrtand what is being stated here. I got my information, over 20 years ago, from a USA Military physician, and Audiologists the Military had engaged to check if the hearing protection provided to the US Military was adequate. Tests they had done clearly showed that the Sonic type 'hearing Protection' could NOT act fast enough to prevent the sound pressure wave hitting the eadrums. The number of shooters who have used such designs of plugs for years, now suffering Tinnitus, rather indicates that the hearing experts were right all along. It is not my place to prove anything. But, and more to the point:... Why has no-one who is so happy to respond negatively to someone trying to help shooters from indavertently DAMAGING their hearing (through thinking they are adequately protected, when they may well not be)...BUT... do not have the gumption to ASK for PROOF that these devices CAN work from the folk who make, sell and profit from them??.... Typical of the short sighted nature of too many who shoot I'm afraid. ASK the MAKERS for prooof; they have had 25 years plus to come up with some!!
  5. What users of Sonic type plugs appear to fail to realise is that (as stated previously) there is NO WAY that the solid, stationary internal metal components of a sound activated blocking device can OPERATE at a speed in excess of the Speed of Sound. They would have to accelerate from Zero (stationary) to in excess of 1040 feet per second, in a millisecond, to be able to close the sound wave getting past them while the components accelerate up to that speed to close the mechanical valves. If anyone on earth can prove this can be done, PLEASE do so! Scientists and senior audioligists explained to me why this could not be achieved over 20 years ago. IF some miracle has happened since, I'll happily let that be known. Meanwhile I continue to believe it not possible. The Reason some folk think they work is for the reduced ongoing sound once the valves do catch up and close. The numbers of long-term users of such devices now suffering from Tinnitus type hearing conditions rather indicates the shortcomings of such devices.
  6. This chart from the Health &Safety Executive, following on-site and in use testing of hearing protectors, records the reuslts obtained. These are just for plugs, including foam plugs (as I had suggested). Good ones performed quite well (as they have before). The full document (long & very detailed) is available on the HSE web site. It has results for all types of hearing protection. Table 5: Range of earplugs/ canal caps tested Earplug model and number Description / SNR dB / Cost 1 EAR Caboflex Banded tapered canal cap / 19 / £4 2 EAR Ultrafit 20 Corded premoulded flange earplug / 20 / £2 3 Howard Leight Banded round ear canal ca p/ 23/ £3 4 Howard Leight Quiet Premoulded bulb shape earplug/ 28 / 30p 5 EAR Classic Compressible foam earplug / 28 / 20p 6 EAR Express Pod Foam earplug on stalk / 28 / 50p 7 EAR Ultrafit Premoulded flange earplug / 35 / £1 8 Howard Leight Max Compressible foam earplug 37 20p
  7. An SNR rating of 18 is pitifully low (and 12 SNR utterley useless) for shotgun hearing protection. The major issue with Sonic type plugs has always been that, being mechanical in operation, the discs and springs could NOT accelerate from zero to 1150 feet per second (speed of sound approx) fast enough to prevent sound impulse from a shotgun (obviously travelling AT the speed of sound) from reaching the eardrums. Maybe they have overcome this very difficult feat; if so, please provide factual evidence of such Because the 'sonic valves' can catch up later on, closing AFTER the initial 130 / 140 Decibel 'hit' to the eardrums, it gives the user the impression that they have usefully prevented the dangerous to hearing pressure level. Even SNR 24 is a minimal pass, IF it actually achieves this. I would want PROOF that these can offer adequate protection. NB: The hearing Protection Seminar I attended had audiologists who had worked on this issue with the military, including the US Miltary, who had looked into 'Sonic' type plugs. Do, please, obtain Proof that these type of protectors are now capable of providing adeqaute protection and I will happily make that known much more widely. Until then, waxed foam plugs are a proven better option (and also inexpensive). Let us get this correct; incorrect advice ultimately helps no shooter; but it does help folk selling cheap products to the unwary...
  8. A shame no one else saw it earlier to help the guy make an informed decision...
  9. I look forward to hearing about your purchase. Hopefully such devices have improved their performance over the years. I am particularly interested to know what Hearing Protection Rating they have now achieved. This will be the SNR / NRR rating figure usually printed in a circular motif with the rating figure, in decibels, printed in the centre. Some I saw years ago had SNR / NRR ratings so low ( as in low meaning low protection) that they did not even provide the tested ratings with the product! That meant no-one knew how poor they were. But, they are cheap, so a great many of those buying hearing protection didn't even know what the SNR / NRR ratings mean (and others didn't know they exist even...) Keep me posted, please.
  10. Put simply NO; sonic type ear plugs do not provide adequate protection. Being mechanically operated the moving parts cannot move from stationary to super-sonic speed fast enough to close off the high speed (speed of sound = 1150 feet per second approx) to prevent damaging sound levels reaching your eardrums. So many shooters choosing this cheap option over the years have ended up with tinnitus. Any shotgun hearing protection needs a SNR /NRR noise reduction rating of ideally 27db or greater. Some sonic plugs so low protection they get ratings barely in double figures.And SOME have no rating approval certificate marking on the packaging at all. I learned this 30 years ago (at at specialist hearing prevention seminar). And still folk don't know this today. Sad.
  11. The only recoil operated SKB semi auto I am aware of was pretty much a copy of the original Browning Auto-5. The manual for one of those should be pretty close on most things I imagine. Helpful when setting up the barrel bush friction rings etc (as in, the correct assembly for light and heavy loads etc).
  12. That depends. They can work very well with plastic wad loads, and particularly with steel shot loads (which, as you know, have very thick walled plastic cup wads). Extended Forcing cones are almost always found with over-bored bore sizes. The over-bored bore size helps the shot column to be slightly shorter (because the plastic wad shot cup expands to the larger bore size, effectively increasing shot cup capacity). This provides more opportunity for steel pellets, particularly large ones, to 'settle' into a slightly shorter shot column. This is ballistically advantageous and also (and much more importantly) helps to reduce the much greater pressure that steel shot pellets apply laterally, out onto the barrel bore. This makes the steel shot passing through less stressful for the bore, especially the chokes; but so far as lead shot is concerned this is much less of an issue. The problem with lengthened forcing cones is the increased diameter immediately after the gun's chamber where propellant gas pressure is still very high. Plastic wads can easily expand to seal the hot, expanding gas. But Fibre wads are less able to expand. This can, and does, allow gas to get past the fibre wad. In doing so it, at best, disrupts the pattern which is then often less dense... and less evenly distributed. It can also lead to shot being 'fused' together resulting in shot pairs, triples etc and 'Balling' ... and this has other implications far beyond just weaker patterns... Some guns, and some Fibre wads, perform less well than others in guns with extended Forcing cones. Only actual trials on a pattern plate will confirm which commbinations work better and less well.
  13. The cartridges I have found the differences with are premium competition loads, where a plastic wad and a fibre wad of the same type is avaialble. They are made to offer a performance level that is very close, so that people can use as near to the same performance with either type, when normally using plastic wads but attending grounds where they do not allow plastic wads. I mentioned the 23% figure being tests done in the last three weeks. I have been conducting similart tests over almost 3 years now. Previous tests using another similat premium cartridge fibre and plastic wad option gave even greater pellet density reduction. As you will see, wymberley ( a few comments above) got closer to 30% reduced density in his over-bored gun (with extended forcing cones). There is no need for all the powder/primer combinations you mention. These are premium cartridges made to be a match for each other. I have also tested them in standard bore guns, with standard size bores and short forcing cones, and in this type of bore they DO perform very similarly with MUCH less difference between the pattern densities. But, when the fibre and plastic wad versions were fired in over-bored bores with extended Forcing cones, the 20% to 30% reduced pattern density can be easily seen for yourself. I have actually done these tests, in depth; Have you??? Somehow I doubt it... as otheriwse you would already know.
  14. A top shot with 30% less pellets in his pattern will still outscore anyone with a better pattern that has not been put in the right place....
×
×
  • Create New...