.44 Magnum Remington 180 grain JSP
Ruger Super Blackhawk 7.5" barrel (#1 & #2 held meter next to the grip, #3 held the meter near my left ear).
#1: -, 87.3, 67.3, 68.6, 84.9, -
#2: 66.6, 71.7, 88.8, 67.7, 68.7, 66.9
#3: 67.3, 68.0, 67.1, 67.4, 67.3, 66.2
Desert Eagle Mk VII 6" barrel (#1 held meter next to the grip, #2 held the meter near my left ear).
#1: 88.7, 68.7, 87.3, 86.6, 86.5, 86.3
#2: 66.8, 67.8, 67.7, 69.0, 85.7, 66.9
.44 Magnum Hornady 240 grain JHP XTP (did not have enough 300 grain to complete the test).
Ruger Super Blackhawk 7.5" barrel (#1 held meter next to the grip, #2 held the meter near my left ear).
#1: 67.7, 68.6, 68.4, 86.6, 68.1, 67.8
#2: 67.7, 66.9, 67.3, 68.2, 67.7, 65.6
Desert Eagle Mk VII 6" barrel (#1 held meter next to the grip, #2 held the meter near my left ear).
#1: 69.4, 68.3, 86.6, 68.6, 68.0, 68.1
#2: 68.3, 67.9, 66.7, 67.5, 67.5, 67.1
Notes:
A. #1 in the Remington 180 grain has two missed data points due to not setting "hold max" feature on the meter.
B. Some discussion in the e-mail centered around the 40ms sampling and that it might not be sufficient to capture the report at its loudest. It would appear that is the case as the meter never even reached 90 decibels.
C. I added to the test by firing six rounds with the meter held next to the grip and an additional six with the meter held near my left ear. This was done in hopes of learning something about the location of the "ear" vs. the noise level experienced.
D. I will be compiling this in a better format and with what few pictures (none shooting) were taken.
E. I will be doing some research on how best to accurately measure the report of the firearms and will try this again... hopefully soon.
So it was equipment limitation that was the problem?
ReplyDeleteCertainly your use of a standard audio dB meter is going to be a problem. I think you'd have much better results with a recording oscilliscope and a high-quality microphone with a flat response, placed far enough away to avoid any clipping.
ReplyDeleteYes, the results will be hard to quantify via a single number, but then again that's why there's so much punting on the subject of impulse noise by everyone from OSHA down to the manufacturers of those little foam earplugs.
The readings are so much lower than I would have expected. Most posted Db readings for a .44 mag. are around 160 db for just about any round. So, how can your meter be that far off? Or is there something wrong with the official tests?
ReplyDeleteI have several .357's, and I've had to fire them and shotguns in emergencies, without earplugs. I didn't sustain any hearing damage and I honestly didn't notice the noise much. I wonder if the true decibel levels reaching my ear were far lower than expected?
What would be interesting to try is rifle vs. pistol, with both clamped in a rest and the Db meter at the base. That could work for revolver and semi-auto, as well as being an test that could be easily duplicated by others. Dang, now I'm going to have to add a Db meter to my equipment to purchase list!
I have come to believe that I used the wrong type of device for measuring an instantaneous noise like a muzzle blast. As a few folks have pointed out, the sampling rate of my borrowed device was likely insufficient to capture the "point" noise. I will add that it "heard" around 50 dB both during the hammer draw on the Ruger and the safety disengage on the Desert Eagle.
ReplyDeleteA more complete report of findings is in progress; and, I am working on what to do next. I have gotten a few excellent suggestions that all require constant monitoring. All meaning that anyone with input will be read and absorbed. ;)