Comparing Silencer Central’s Banish 223 Suppressors

1. “putting it closer to achieving “hearing-safe” levels (generally considered around 130 dB). ”

   hmmmm…not true.

   Decibels are the unit of measurement for sound, abbreviated dB. Sounds at or below 70 dB at our ears are considered safe for our hearing. That’s the sound of a normal conversation between two people.

   Sounds above 70 dB can and does damage hearing over time.

   • Key Words: “over time”. There is a broad consensus among safety organizations (not just suppressor manufacturers) that safe peak and continuous noise thresholds are far different. Even the latter is 85 dB for an 8hr workday; OSHA’s peak (gunfire is the epitome of peak noise) standard is 140. 70+ would only be damaging if you ran the gun on full cyclic for your entire life.

     • not really.

       It depends on what you mean by ‘damage’.

       If you are talking the OSHA 140 for gun shots, its based upon a value below pain threshold which basically is the point at which a person on average would feel intense lasting pain from a sound – it was derived from a requirement for a value for use by the military so basically that’s ‘safe’ because in testing it doesn’t cause immediate intense lasting pain for the majority average and in that sense its ‘safe’ but it doesn’t mean the 140 is actually ‘hearing safe’ though.

       All sounds over 70 dB do for a fact damage hearing. It can, sometimes, be temporary up to a certain amount, meaning it can be so temporary that one doesn’t even notice it. For example, did you ever hear a ‘ringing’ noise after a sudden loud sound and then it goes away quickly or seemed momentary? That was hearing being damaged, and even though you can no longer hear the ringing your hearing was damaged and the reason you no longer hear the ringing is because your brain tuned it out and keeps it tuned out, the body may even be able to repair the damage after a bit if its within its capability to do so and you may also never notice it again, but the damage happened. In the case of the example, the damage may be so small that the body can repair it for say a 20 year old but for a 40 year old because the structures of the ears are naturally aged more than the 20 year old the body may not be able to repair all that small damage. But the brain can only do so much and the body capability to repair damaged hearing is very limited.

       So although in the ‘immediate sense’ one could say, as you did:

       “Even the latter is 85 dB for an 8hr workday; OSHA’s peak (gunfire is the epitome of peak noise) standard is 140. 70+ would only be damaging if you ran the gun on full cyclic for your entire life.”

       “85 dB for an 8hr workday” > that’s actually not correct, in the OSHA standard its repeated exposures of 85 dBA or higher in an 8 hour period, and not dB, in short its telling you 85 dBA or higher will damage hearing not that lower than 85dbA can not damage hearing or that 85dbA is ‘hearing safe’. The ‘A’ stands for what is called ‘A-weighted sound levels’ and it judges ‘loudness’ that corresponds to the hearing threshold of the human ear. Loudness of a sound is not the same as hearing the sound, one is an energy pressure and the other is sensing that energy pressure. dBA measurement uses weighing to correspond to hearing threshold, not the point where damage happens but just to the threshold of being able to hear a certain level of sound. That’s the reason OSHA gives an 8 hour exposure, not to say, for example, a level of 80dBA can not damage hearing or is actually hearing safe but rather prolonged exposure to greater than 85 dBA for repeated periods of 8 hours long will damage hearing to a noticeable point and not that no hearing damage happens. So in the sense of no damaging effects noticeable then one could say ‘its safe’ but it doesn’t mean sounds below that level can not damage hearing.

       The maximum average human ‘safe’ level, for the majority of people, before permanent immediate hearing damage happens in dB is 85dB. But this ‘safe’ means immediate permanent damage, not necessarily ‘hearing safe’ below 85dB.

       Compared with dB measurement, A-weighted measurements underestimates perceived loudness (e.g. something can actually be ‘loud’ in a damaging sense but not sound ‘loud’ to you – its a brain trick) and low frequency components, especially at moderate and high volumes of noise. So dBA is not a very good standard upon which to base your hearing health actually.

       And, you have the wrong idea with “70+ would only be damaging if you ran the gun on full cyclic for your entire life.” – that’s not true because its a myth and its a myth because human hearing physical structures do not work that way because hearing damage is of two main types – immediate (with a time component) and cumulative (with a time component) and both types happen, period, its only a matter of how it happens and the extent of the damage.

       So while one could say “70+ would only be damaging if you ran the gun on full cyclic for your entire life” its actually not true because “70+” still causes damage but you may not have not noticed it yet because its has not ‘accumulated’ enough to be noticeable yet but the damage is still there and accumulating.

       • I’m not an audiologist (and I’m pretty sure you aren’t either), but think critically and take the speaker’s incentives into account. I’ll always scrutinize the hell out of “standards” set by somebody who stands to make a buck by shortchanging safety. Conversely, safety nannies – bureaucrats who care nothing about productivity, companies that profit by selling PPE – have no such incentive, and every incentive to grow their own ricebowls.

         I’m not sure why you phrased it in terms of permanent IMMEDIATE damage. OSHA’s mandate is regulating workplace conditions, meaning their entering assumption is to look at hearing safety in career terms (i.e. to make a machine shop safe for a machinist, not some suit just passing through). Also, they have tables accounting for a broad gamut of noise vs. duration.

         • 75 db is conversation level.
           I recently purchased their Banish 30. talk of it able to possibly reduce sound by up to 35 decibels. maybe if you fart into it.
           5 guns from 22 wmr to 300 HAMR, averaged -5 db about 140 to 114 db for the 300 HAMR.
           is it less? sure.
           do you pick up fps? 10-30 below 5.56, 30- 60 above.
           are the groups tighter? yes, dut to the fps gain.
           are the user instructions good? no.
           machining tolerance don’t match assembly instructions leading one to believe it’s not assembled correctly.
           is customer service good. absolutely not. these clowns don’t know their product or technical speak.
           buying process? you better watch them, they’re lax.
           would I buy from them again? hell no!

         • I’m not an audiologist, I’m a physicist. I specialize in energy physics for practical applications… ballistics, sound, energy generation, propulsion, weapons (including high performance specialized very high dB reduction suppressors), etc… I’m pretty familiar with what sound energy does to human hearing and we have docs we consult with also when we get around to testing when it involves human hearing ear structures.

           I also suffer from some hearing loss due to weapons fire in a defense incident. Although its not deafness and I overall now hear OK there are certain sounds I can’t hear as clearly as before the incident, and the tinnitus sometimes keeps me awake more often. My travels through the hearing loss medical landscape has let me learn a lot too.

           So just bringing out the side based on my education and experience. And when I see ‘hearing safe’ applied for anything including suppressors it perks me up to look closely at it because I already know scientifically, educationally and training and experience, wise ‘hearing safe’ is a very relative term that can mean more than just the words and what they imply.

           “I’m not sure why you phrased it in terms of permanent IMMEDIATE damage.”

           because it is immediate permanent damage, even the cumulative type. it damages hearing permanently when it happens, its just a matter of degree. A little different with the temporary type, there its a matter of if the body can fully fix it or not but if not then that damage is also permanent and its just a matter of degree.

           Human hearing structures are pretty resilient yet vulnerable at the same time, but its not impervious like gun owners think if they don’t notice any obvious signs of hearing damage.

           So I’m pretty familiar with the effects of weapons fire sound energy on human hearing including with suppressors.

         • I replied to you yesterday, but it went to moderation for some reason and has not appeared, sooo.., not sure of the words I used which would have caused that, but another attempt with leaving out some wording and some rewording that might have triggered it…

           “I’m not an audiologist (and I’m pretty sure you aren’t either), but think critically and take the speaker’s incentives into account.”

           I’m not an audiologist, I’m a physicist. I specialize in energy physics for practical application, including sound energy. I do a variety of things dealing with energy… propulsion, sound, power generation, weapons systems and devices (including specialized very high dB reduction suppressors), light, armor, lasers, etc… on sound energy projects for experiments we have doc’s involved when it deals with human hearing and ear structures.

           What people perceive as ‘sound’ is really energy in frequency ranges the human/animal ear or other senses (e.g. feeling vibration) can sense.

           I am thinking critically, its what I do. Incentives or not, incorrect information is still incorrect information.

           I’m not saying a suppressor can not be a ‘hearing safety’ device because it can if designed correctly – but ‘hearing safety’ and ‘hearing safe’ are actually two different things. Life preservers are also ‘safety’ devices but that does not mean people are safe from drowning simply because they are wearing a life preserver, and indeed there are cases of people who did indeed drown while afloat wearing a life preserver. However, I know for a scientific fact the term ‘hearing safe’ is relative and more than what the words are and the term implies. So when I see the term ‘hearing safe’ crop up, it makes me take note and look at it more closely. ‘hearing safe’ does not mean becoming impervious to hearing damage like people and manufacturers seem to tout it or imply.

           I’ve also had my own hearing damaged from weapons fire, in a defense incident. Was not using a suppressor but in the conditions of the defense incident it would not have made a difference and provided no ‘safety’ level from hearing damage, I know that for a scientific fact as I took a team and instruments back to the scene and actually tested it using a ‘ well known’ commercial market suppressor. Its not deafness, I can hear ok mostly. But there are certain sound frequency ranges I can not hear as well as I could before the incident, they sound sort of partially muted and fuzzy – not ‘clear’, and the tinnitus ‘buzz’ keeps me awake sometimes and sometimes its barley noticeable but its always there. In my travels through the medical landscape for hearing loss I discovered a lot too.

           • ‘hearing safe’ is absolutely the worse term suppressor manufacturers, advertisers, advocates, and users could have ever adopted. It makes me cringe every time I see it. And it makes me cringe because I know for a scientific fact there is really no such thing as ‘hearing safe’ for suppressors or weapons fire and many other products that are not gun related. What they should have been touting was the ‘hearing safety’ aspect as the only aspect because there is such a thing as a ‘hearing safety’ aspect for suppressors and weapons fire.

             They should have adopted the shooter hearing protection devices concept (e.g. ear muffs, buds, foam plugs, etc…) aspect as a ‘hearing safety’ device instead of letting and using ‘hearing safe’ to be synonymous with ‘hearing safety’ because they are two different things.

             Yes, I know that sometimes now suppressors are touted as a ‘hearing safety’ device. But at the same time advertisers and manufacturers and advocates and users still use ‘hearing safe’.

             Even in this ‘advertisement’ article it says “putting it closer to achieving “hearing-safe” levels (generally considered around 130 dB” which is not true. I’m not saying the untruth was intentional, but its reflective of the idea, and implies and states, that there is a level that’s ‘hearing safe’ at 130 dB and that is not true physically, actually, and scientifically no matter how many people think its ‘generally true’ or its ‘generally considered’ as ‘hearing safe’.

             Suppressors are not ‘hearing safe’ devices no matter how many measurements and claims, and can’t be because ‘hearing safe’ is a vague aspect that varies with the individual and conditions and time.

             Suppressors can be ‘hearing safety’ devices (if designed and manufacturer correctly) because, basically, they reduce sound energy levels of weapons fire thus lessening sound energy levels that can cause or contribute to immediate or long term or temporary or ‘conditional’ hearing damage… like, in comparison, the shooter hearing protection devices concept (e.g. ear muffs, buds, foam plugs, etc…) aspect of reducing sound energy level reaching the inner ear (where the sound energy is ‘felt’/sensed). So in the reality and scientific aspect they are ‘hearing safety’ devices, and not ‘hearing safe’ devices.

         • “I’m not sure why you phrased it in terms of permanent IMMEDIATE damage.”

           Because it can be in actuality.

           “Also, they have tables accounting for a broad gamut of noise vs. duration.”

           Sure they do, but they don’t have tables for what ‘hearing safe’ is. And there is a reason for that. The reason is ‘hearing safe’ is not quantifiable, where ‘hearing safety’ is based upon some determined value baseline and is quantifiable under conditions upon which the table is based for the ‘environment’ for which it is applied but in a general sense and not individually.

           ‘hearing safe’ is a vague aspect that varies with the individual and conditions and time even if all are in the same ‘environment’ doing the same work conditions/activity. There are thousands of valid claims every year for people who got hearing damage under the conditions the OSHA/government/military tables and standards indicate as ‘safe’.

           • “Valid” as in you personally reviewed video of every moment of the claimant’s life and found zero neglect of PPE, off-duty noise (Harleys or lawnmowers), or even unexpected-unprotected bursts of noise? OK – 180 out from my experience.

Comments are closed.