Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
How loud are brakes, to the shooter, in a hunting situation, in the woods?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aspenbugle" data-source="post: 1341941" data-attributes="member: 6481"><p>Rich,</p><p></p><p>My post is irrelevant, only if the original questions from Bigeclipse are irrelevant. If you think his whole post and line of questioning is flawed (which you seem to imply), then why even read the thread, let alone respond? I understand your point, if an unbraked rifle is loud enough with just one shot and no hearing protection, to permanently damage your hearing, and a braked rifle is at least as loud or worse, then who cares how much louder or worse it is, just always use hearing protection (simple answer). Nevertheless, that is your opinion and not was Bigeclipse was asking - he started the thread. He wanted to know, relative to an unbraked rifle, how much worse is a rifle with a brake and is it more likely to damage your hearing? <u>Facts</u> addressing those questions are what is relevant (at least to this thread; maybe not to you). That is what I was trying to answer, with facts the best I knew them, without preaching or judging. Of course, like I've already said, and nearly every person on this thread has said, always using protection is the safest, wisest approach - we all agree! However, that wasn't the primary point of the thread. For example, if you want to add something relevant, instead of opinion, why don't you share any facts and proof that just one or two unprotected hunting shots a year produce long-term, permanent hearing loss. You imply that you believe that and since you are a cautious guy, you always use protection, yet you offer no proof to substantiate that view. Worse, if someone doesn't agree with your unproven opinion, you imply they are immature and foolish. I assume Bigeclipse and his wife are adults and capable of forming their own opinions and they don't need our unsubstantiated preaching to help them. Let's share the facts we know, and let them make their own decision. If you think it is "irrelevant" to parse the differences between braked and unbraked rifles and hearing loss, move to the next thread. If you have facts that help prove when permanent hearing loss begins occurring and how bad it is for braked vs. unbraked, then please offer them - that is what is most relevant to this thread. Unsubstantiated opinions and judgements aren't so relevant or helpful.</p><p></p><p>By the way, I'd argue that 90+% of all big game shots in the West each year still occur without the shooter wearing electronic hearing protection (based on what I see and hear talking to hunters). I'm not saying that is wise, but it does show that most hunters aren't as cautious as you and either think there really isn't permanent hearing loss from that occasional shot, or they aren't worried by it since it seems to be small. In any case, those 90% (thousand of them) of "immature" hunters out there may be interested to learn if their braked rifle is twice as loud and twice as likely to damage their hearing (if that is true). It is an interesting topic to investigate, and compare facts on, and maybe we can all grow wiser by sharing facts and data (not necessarily opinions). If parsing the difference between braked and unbraked is immature and irrelevant to you, then please move on. Otherwise, give us some facts and proof, so we can all make an informed decision on the topic (vs. being preached at with no facts).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aspenbugle, post: 1341941, member: 6481"] Rich, My post is irrelevant, only if the original questions from Bigeclipse are irrelevant. If you think his whole post and line of questioning is flawed (which you seem to imply), then why even read the thread, let alone respond? I understand your point, if an unbraked rifle is loud enough with just one shot and no hearing protection, to permanently damage your hearing, and a braked rifle is at least as loud or worse, then who cares how much louder or worse it is, just always use hearing protection (simple answer). Nevertheless, that is your opinion and not was Bigeclipse was asking - he started the thread. He wanted to know, relative to an unbraked rifle, how much worse is a rifle with a brake and is it more likely to damage your hearing? [U]Facts[/U] addressing those questions are what is relevant (at least to this thread; maybe not to you). That is what I was trying to answer, with facts the best I knew them, without preaching or judging. Of course, like I've already said, and nearly every person on this thread has said, always using protection is the safest, wisest approach - we all agree! However, that wasn't the primary point of the thread. For example, if you want to add something relevant, instead of opinion, why don't you share any facts and proof that just one or two unprotected hunting shots a year produce long-term, permanent hearing loss. You imply that you believe that and since you are a cautious guy, you always use protection, yet you offer no proof to substantiate that view. Worse, if someone doesn't agree with your unproven opinion, you imply they are immature and foolish. I assume Bigeclipse and his wife are adults and capable of forming their own opinions and they don't need our unsubstantiated preaching to help them. Let's share the facts we know, and let them make their own decision. If you think it is "irrelevant" to parse the differences between braked and unbraked rifles and hearing loss, move to the next thread. If you have facts that help prove when permanent hearing loss begins occurring and how bad it is for braked vs. unbraked, then please offer them - that is what is most relevant to this thread. Unsubstantiated opinions and judgements aren't so relevant or helpful. By the way, I'd argue that 90+% of all big game shots in the West each year still occur without the shooter wearing electronic hearing protection (based on what I see and hear talking to hunters). I'm not saying that is wise, but it does show that most hunters aren't as cautious as you and either think there really isn't permanent hearing loss from that occasional shot, or they aren't worried by it since it seems to be small. In any case, those 90% (thousand of them) of "immature" hunters out there may be interested to learn if their braked rifle is twice as loud and twice as likely to damage their hearing (if that is true). It is an interesting topic to investigate, and compare facts on, and maybe we can all grow wiser by sharing facts and data (not necessarily opinions). If parsing the difference between braked and unbraked is immature and irrelevant to you, then please move on. Otherwise, give us some facts and proof, so we can all make an informed decision on the topic (vs. being preached at with no facts). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
How loud are brakes, to the shooter, in a hunting situation, in the woods?
Top