electronic earmuffs

[F. Paul in Denver]

Looking at it purely from a practical perspective, I would not wear electronic ears to any ISSF event unless they were EXPLICITLY allowed.

The last thing I want and the last thing I need at an important match is to spend time trying to convince an official that my interpretation of the rule should prevail. Even if you win, you go to the firing line all hyped up with adrenaline - definitely not the way I want to start a match.

As a shooter, I confess I'm easily distracted. As a lawyer, I've learned to pick my fights carefully and that sometimes the timing of the fight is infinitely more important than the outcome.


F. Paul in Denver

[Mike T.]

Okay, I've been thinking about this for a while and here is my take on the queston:
Electronic earmuffs do not produce sound, they only serve to amplify existing sound. The sound already exists in the ambient air outside the earmuff for anyone else to hear. The circuitry of the earmuff raises the level of that sound to a level that a hard-of-hearing person can hear. This is a safety issue. Every competitor needs to be able to hear range commands - even when wearing earmuffs.
To suggest that electronic earmuffs are "sound producing" in the sense that radios and CD players and tape players are sound producing is a distortion of the term and and contrary to the context and intent of the rule being quoted. The intent is to avoid cheating by having a coach communicate to his shooter on the firing line by radio, or to avoid a shooter having access to soothing music or dialogue or pre-recorded coaching statements that are not simultaneously available to every other shooter on the firing line.
This argument needs to be presented to match officials during equipment check, so that the question can be settled long before the competitor goes to the firing line.
That said, since a number of match officials believe otherwise - in spite of Franz Schreiber's declaration - the ISSF still needs to inform match officials that "electronic" earmuffs that serve only to amplify existing ambient sound are not to be construed as "sound producing devices".
Mike T.

[jackh]

Is there a brand of earmuff offering electric amplification of voice, clipping of firing, and has a high 29-31NRR?
I have only seen 21-25NRR rated electronic muffs. That is not strong enough for my already damaged hearing.

[Fred]

Jack,

I have the same concern, so this is what I do. I bought electronic muffs with the highest rating I could find (I believe it's 25dB). Then I use these muffs over high-rated ear plugs (32-3 dB). Yes it's a pain to deal with two sets of noise-reducing devices, but it does work. When there is a loud noise, both devices muffle it. When there is relative quiet and there are range commands, the electronic muffs amplify the commands to make them somewhat understandable through the plugs. I still have a hard time hearing the commands, but the combined devices are very effective against noise.

HTH,
FredB

[Steve Swartz]

Wear ear plugs inside your ear muffs.

You will certainly get more than 25 dB reduction; even with a crappy set of muffs.

Steve Swartz

[jackh]

Col Steve that does not work for me. Double plugging just makes me completely deaf to commands and whistles even with electrics. I have a significant hearing loss between 2000-4000 hz

In CF and HB I do double plug with the 29NRR muffs to stop the percussion under close roofs. I guess I would rather start rapid from neighbors first shot than feel the percussion pain. A canned air boat horn works and i now carry one to league sites that do not have turning facilities. In gallery I have had a start whistle blow right behind me without hearing it. I resorted one time to a RO tap on my shoulder once. Thats throws off your alignment surprisingly easy.

On top of all that, extended use of foam plugs causes my pulse to just pound in my ears, both in feel and sound.

I am just a mess in the ear dept.

JackH
PS - thanks for all your posts. You are one of the best

[Steve Swartz]

Jack:

Thanks for the kind words. Here's another crazy thought . . . engineers in the house, please chime in if this won't work . . . but what if you got a set of those noise cancelling inserts (earplugs) *and* a set of noise cancelling headsets?

Maybe a light system at the range? Some of the bullseye ranges I have shot at have red/yellow/green/blue signal lights in the rafters above the benches (well, out where you can see them under the eaves of the roof). Reltively inexpensive and red means stop, green means go, yellow means ready, etc. A light system allows you to integrate deaf shooters into matches (I think the NRA has a pamphlet on range design for disabled shooters?).

I am lucky in that I always doubled-up plugs/hard shells during my years on the flight line and firing range and have only some loss (10% disability) at the higher frequencies. Yeah, I'm the guy who says "Can't this treble control go any higher?"

Oh well- glad you have a work-around at least; Keep Shooting!

Steve

[Ed Hall]

If it can help Jack (or others), I've posted a circuit diagram for a small Red/Green LED system I've thrown together in the past. Basically, it uses two wires to connect between the switch/battery unit and the LED unit. The one I built had the two LEDs mounted in a .22 Federal UM1-B plastic ammo box and the switch was actually a stereo plug to connect to a target controller. If Jack (or anyone else) could get close enough to the Range Officer and convince them to switch for him, maybe this device would be workable. The batteries were simply two AA cells; one for each polarity, mounted in a dual cell holder. The switch can be mounted right to the holder. The resistor should be chosen based on the LEDs used. I used Super-Brights for my project. You need to find out what the maximum current capability is for the LEDs chosen and calculate the resistance to provide an appropriately lower current while maintaining a good illumination level. Perhaps a unit like this could be placed within the shooter's peripheral view and help with Fire/Cease Fire signalling.

The circuit is viewable at:

http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/2wireledcircuit.jpg

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

[Jose Rossy]

To add to the ISSF inconsistency, here's what they have to say regarding electronic noise cancelling systems in the clay target shooting technical regulations:

9.9.4.6
Electronic Devices

9.9.4.6.1
Only sound reducing devices may be used. Radios, tape recorders, or any type of sound producing or communication systems are prohibited within hearing of the competition area during competitions and official training.

Maybe that should be the same exact wording that is used in the rifle and pistol tech regs.

[David Levene]

................Maybe that should be the same exact wording that is used in the rifle and pistol tech regs.

Maybe, or maybe the difference was deliberate.

That actually raises an interesting point. The last sentance of 9.2.8.1 says "Ear protectors incorporating any type of radio receiving device are not permitted."

Compare that to the last sentance of either 7.2.8 or 8.2.8 i.e. "Ear protectors incorporating any type of receiving devices are not permitted for shooters."

This difference was not there in the 2001 rules (any of the 4 printings). The word "radio" has only appeared in the 2005 shotgun rules.

[Jose Rossy]

David, what could possibly be gained by not writing the rifle equipment rules just like the shotgun rules are in regards to ear defenders?

Do you think that the rules regarding noise cancelling ear defenders should be harmonized and simplified between shotgun, rifle, and pistol?

[David Levene]

Do you think that the rules regarding noise cancelling ear defenders should be harmonized and simplified between shotgun, rifle, and pistol?

As this debate has been going on for MANY years I certainly think that the ISSF have missed several opportunities to clarify the position. By that I mean either a rule amendment/clarification or an interpretation signed by a member of the Judges Committee.

I haven't managed to find the proof yet but I am virtually certain that at least one version of the rules, before 1997, had a clear statement along the lines of "electronic ear defenders are permitted". If they could do it then.........

I have said it before, I want to allow electronic muffs but if even ISSF A class judges interpret the rules differently, what chance do the rest of us stand.

[Raymond Odle]

The only question I have with allowing electronic hearing protectors would this. How difficult would it be to secretly convert the muffs to radio receivers?

I know shooters would never do this, but.....

[Fabian]

That's exactly what I think is the reasoning behind the suppossed prohibition, it would be fairly easy to modify electronic muffs to become two way radios. Communication between a coach and a shooter could be a posibility if such a modification is performed. Although illegal, some people would try it to gain an advantage.

[Mike T.]

Two-way radio?
I think it would be easy to spot a competitor trying to carry on a conversation (with his coach) when there was no one standing beside him to whom he would be speaking.
As well, even ordinary ear muffs could be modified to receive radio transmissions, with no apparent change to the exterior.
Cheating is cheating and if it requires a bit more sophistication to detect it, well that is hardly news, is it? One needs only to look at the doping situation.

[Jose Rossy]

That's exactly what I think is the reasoning behind the suppossed prohibition, it would be fairly easy to modify electronic muffs to become two way radios. Communication between a coach and a shooter could be a posibility if such a modification is performed. Although illegal, some people would try it to gain an advantage.

ISSF allows them for shotgun shooters. Shotgun teams have coaches, do they not?

The NRA allows them to be worn in individual rifle and pistol matches, where coaching is not allowed.

If communication between coaches and shooters is such a concern, a radio frequency scanner available at any Radio Shack will weed out cheaters PDQ.

There is no rational basis for the inconsistency.

[Spencer C]

Strangely enough, reasonably alert range staff will pick up 'illegal' coaching fairly quickly, whatever form it takes.



Could it be that one coach consistently was heard to cough just before a rifle shooter fired a shot? The problem went away when one of the Range Officers got a tickle in the throat and had to have the occassional cough...

Could it be that a pistol shooter always adjusted his sights by the same number of clicks as the coach happened to tap his pen on the spectator rail? A jury member just happened to start tapping on the rail just near the coach...

Could it be that a coach started 'signing' whenever a prone rifle shooter was glancing back to the spectator area? The Range Officer happened to position herslf between the shooter and the coach...

There is more than one way to skin a cat.


If you see a coach whispering in his/her sleeve (or whatever) and at the same time the shooter appears 'attentive' you might get a little suspicious.



All things being equal, the potential problem is not so great for pistol where the shooter has time to legally go back to speak to the coach WITHOUT seriously interfering with the course of fire (not so for clay or running target) or the inconvenience for prone rifle.

Spencer C

[xeye]

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.[/quote]


From precision sports website FAQ's
Do electronic earmuffs offer better hearing protection than regular earmuffs?
Not necessarily.
Electronic earmuffs will do one or more of the following for you:
1. amplify ambient sound so you can hear weak noises, or conduct normal conversation in a noisy place,
2. allow connection to external audio devices such as radio, CD or cassette players via optional cables,
3. allow two way communication if optional accessories are attached properly,
4. allow listening to AM and/or FM radio in certain models.

However, the ability to attenuate sound still depends on the NRR value and not what it can do with the electronic circuit. For instance, the Ultimate 10 ( model H10A, NRR=29dB ) will offer better hearing protection than a Tactical Surround ( NRR=25dB ).