TargetTalk

which mfr has the best price/quality compromise in electronic ear protectors?

TIA

I do not know which brands are the best buy,selection up here in the great white north is limited.I have an older pair of Silencio "rangesafe
RSX - 85 'sthat have performed very well over the past few years.
Dan

Dan Cryderman wrote:I do not know which brands are the best buy,selection up here in the great white north is limited.I have an older pair of Silencio "rangesafe
RSX - 85 'sthat have performed very well over the past few years.
Dan

Thanks,
I just checked mine and they are not marked as to brand. But they were bargain basement types. They work but they seem to be too slow to switch on and off, ie, you miss part of the conversation while you wait for them to come back on.

Dan Cryderman wrote:I do not know which brands are the best buy,selection up here in the great white north is limited.I have an older pair of Silencio "rangesafe
RSX - 85 'sthat have performed very well over the past few years.
Dan

Thanks,
I just checked mine and they are not marked as to brand. But they were bargain basement types. They work but they seem to be too slow to switch on and off, ie, you miss part of the conversation while you wait for them to come back on.

I've had the worst experience with two pairs of Silencio RSX-85s. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard anything good about them. They were heavy and bulky. On one of mine, the on/off switch loosened, allowing it to rotate freely. On both of them, the performance was very poor, clipping speech and ambient sounds, while occasionally letting in part of a shot. Eventually, both stopped functioning altogether. Even without the amplification, the seals were very thin and started hardening to the point they were very uncomfortable and failed to seal completely, allowing noise in.
All of the above occurred within a period of three years.

I really cannot stress how horrible these things were.

If I were you, I'd look at the Peltor Tactical 6S or similar quality electronic ear protection. Something relatively light weight with soft, wide, comfortable padding, and reliable electronics. The separate volume controls for each side are also nice.

I have had the Dillons for about two years. Battery life outstanding . . . stereo sound level adjustment works great . . . sound level discretion (sharp sounds blocked, voices amplified) excellent. $100 a pair or therabouts.

Steve Swartz.

I believe those are not permitted in official international competitions. (Electronic Muffs)

Fabian wrote:I believe those are not permitted in official international competitions. (Electronic Muffs)

Once again...
I wish that this myth would go away (and stay away)!

Electronic hearing protection IS allowed - Communication devices are not allowed - There is a difference.

Regards to all,
Spencer C

Steve Swartz wrote:I have had the Dillons for about two years. Battery life outstanding . . . stereo sound level adjustment works great . . . sound level discretion (sharp sounds blocked, voices amplified) excellent. $100 a pair or therabouts.

Steve Swartz.

I've heard good things about Dillons too. Stay away from Silencios...

Spencer C wrote:Once again...
I wish that this myth would go away (and stay away)!

Electronic hearing protection IS allowed - Communication devices are not allowed - There is a difference.

But Spencer, the ISSF seem to be doing their best to create the confusion.

From the discussion in March 2004 it was clear that Franz Schreiber (at least) at the ISSF was happy that electronic earmuffs were allowed under the rules in force at that time.

Since that time however we have had a new addition of the rules, a perfect opportunity to remove any ambiguity.

Although I agree that electronic earmuffs should be allowed, I can find no justification in the rules for doing so.

The last sentance of 8.2.8 is clear, "Ear protectors incorporating any type of receiving devices are not permitted for shooters." We need to note that this does not specifically refer to "radio" receiving devices.

Rule 8.4.1.3 is slightly more confusing, "Only sound reducing devices may be used. Radios, tape recorders, or any type of sound producing or communication systems are prohibited during competitions and any training." Whilst electronic earmuffs are obviously a certain type of "sound reducing device", because of the way they work they are also "sound producing" and should not be allowed.

I would love to allow shooters to use electronic earmuffs, I believe that the ISSF intended them to be allowed. It's about time that they issued clarification on this matter in the same way as they have, for example, on the 25m malfunction rules.

At 576 pages there is already enough in the rule book without adding too much more. If the ISSF starts to cover every point the pedants bring up it will soon double in size and no longer fit in my jacket pocket...

A degree of common sense is needed; if a rule 'works' for the vast majority of shooters (and officials?), why complicate it further?

Spencer C

I have been using a set of Pelto 6S electronic muffs for about 3 years now.

I love them when I'm coaching. It makes it much easier for me to talk with a shooter on the line.

I see no advantage to shooters using them during competition (unless it is to hear an un-authorized coach talking to them) I want my shooters to ignore distractions. Amplifying sounds is not the way to do that.

This past summer I upgraded from a cheap pair of Remington brand e-muffs to Peltor Tactical 7. They are much better in most ways.

The Remington muffs were smaller and collapsed in on themselves so they took less room in the range box. That and their price (less than $100US) were their only positives. They were reasonably comfortable, but if I wore them for more than an hour without interuption they would get uncomfortable. They padding in the seal was thin. The sound quality was acceptable, but not great. The noise reduction was not as much as any other ear muffs I have tried (about 10 different kinds). They used an "N" type battery which was ok, but not common. The power switch tended to turn on in the box. It had seperate batteries, switches and volume for each ear.

I now have the Tactical 7 and like it a lot. The only thing I don't like is that they are a little tight on my big fat head. They have good and comfortable ear seals. The noise reduction is similar to non e-muffs. It uses a single 9V battery and a single switch, which stays off. You can play sound (with an extra cost cable) in the muffs with an extra cost cable, which is handy for training. All in all I like them a lot.

Steve T

I prefer the Peltor tac. 7's over the 6's. The 6's take 2 batteries in each side and does not have as much room for your ears as the 7's do. The 7's are larger at the ear pieces but make up for this in comfort.
Mr. Famous

I prefer the Peltor tac. 7's over the 6's. The 6's take 2 batteries in each side and does not have as much room for your ears as the 7's do. The 7's are larger at the ear pieces but make up for this in comfort.
Mr. Famous

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

An electric ear muff will cut of a sound over, say, 82 decibels....that means that the microphone shuts off, or at least does not transmit that high level sound to your ear. BUT, doesn't that mean that during a shot, what you hear is dependent on the passive decibel NRR of the ear muff, right?

So if I am used to 25 NRR, and prefer that level of reduction ear muffs, an electric pair that is rated at 19 decibel NRR will still be louder than I want even when the mike cuts out during shots? ..err right?

David,
Now I'm not trying to start a 'flame', but when you said
"I would love to allow shooters to use electronic earmuffs, I believe that the ISSF intended them to be allowed", it seems to imply that you do not accept Franz Schreiber's reply to Philip Lee's inquiry as being sufficient justification for permitting the use of electronic earmuffs by ISSF competitors.
I agree that it would be best if the rules spelled this out explicitly, but surely, in view of Mr. Schreiber's response, there can be no justification for denying a competitor the use of such earmuffs?
Mike T.

xeye wrote:
So if I am used to 25 NRR, and prefer that level of reduction ear muffs, an electric pair that is rated at 19 decibel NRR will still be louder than I want even when the mike cuts out during shots? ..err right?

Correct.

But I also understand that the electronic muffs are not rated quite the same as the standard hearing protection. So that 19db reduction may not be the same as a 19db rating in a non electronic pair of muffs.

Mike T. wrote:I agree that it would be best if the rules spelled this out explicitly, but surely, in view of Mr. Schreiber's response, there can be no justification for denying a competitor the use of such earmuffs?

I probably didn't make my concern clear enough.

Franz Schreiber's reply in March 2004 was fine, it cleared up the ambiguity in the 2001 rules (1st to 4th printings) which when read to the letter had banned electronic earmuffs.

The problem is that, since that time, we have had the 2005 rules and they have not been changed. The presumption is therefore that they say what they mean.

A few weeks ago I was talking to a member of the ISSF Pistol Sub-Committee who is also an A class judge. He was of the opinion that electronic earmuffs were banned under the rules. When I pointed out the response from last year he said that he would raise the subject at the Pistol sub-committee the following week. When I spoke to him last week he was still waiting for an answer.

(Edit note:- I forgot to mention that during my initial discussion with the A class judge there were also 2 other A judges present who had never heard of the 2004 "clarification" and also thought that electronic muffs were banned.)

Don't get me wrong, I want to allow electronic muffs. I just want confirmation from the ISSF that I am allowed to do so under the 2005 rules. They issued clarification on the 25m malfunction rules which just confirmed what the rules already said. I don't think it unreasonable to expect them to issue a clarification if the rules on sound producing devices are not to be applied to earmuffs.

xeye wrote:Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

An electric ear muff will cut of a sound over, say, 82 decibels....that means that the microphone shuts off, or at least does not transmit that high level sound to your ear. BUT, doesn't that mean that during a shot, what you hear is dependent on the passive decibel NRR of the ear muff, right?

So if I am used to 25 NRR, and prefer that level of reduction ear muffs, an electric pair that is rated at 19 decibel NRR will still be louder than I want even when the mike cuts out during shots? ..err right?

I had the oportunity to borrow several earmuff sets from a friend who is in safety equipment. I took them to the range and stood behind the firing line where pistols of several sorts were being fired. After that, 29NRR rated muffs are as low as I will go. I was totally impressed by the improved comfort of big muffs over any 25NRR sets. Electronics be hanged, I want high NRR. I settled on Bilsom Viking at 29NRR.