Electronic Hearing Protection Headset Recommendation

[3D]

I'm looking to replace my Peltor headset with one of the newer electronic types. Before I drop over $100 on one of these muffs, I would like to know if it's worth it and if they would give the same benefits as a passive set. I shoot both air and free pistol. I really like the low frequency attenuation that the my Ultimate 10's give over the fold-up style Shotgunner especially when I'm trying to concentrate shooting free pistol at the local range along with a crowd of large bore boomers.

I would rather a pair of a the fold-up type to fit easily into my range box. The NRR ratings vary widely between the models as does the price. Does any particular model stand out as the best choice? Are there any models that have a fluid-filled ear cushion? I would really appreciate any subjective opinions.

[xtreme]

If you are trying to concentrate in Free pistol, I would say the electronic earmuffs would be a distraction, as they pick up EVERY little sound thats around you. Even the click/clack of the action being reloaded 3 bays away. You would end up turning the volume right down/off, so whats the point.
They are useful for ranges and speed events that start at a whistle or beeper, but for Air or Free, I don't see a need for electronic muffs.
Thats just my view, but others would probably disagree with me.

[Sid Post]

How much distraction do you want in your muffs?

Mine work really well when I am listening to conversation in the parking lot 50 feet away from the training bench.

The sound of the action working is pretty nice too!

On a range with verbal commands, they work great for their intended purpose. For your shooting, they probably aren't what you will want.

[Mark Briggs]

I don' want to rain on anybody's parade, but electronic muffs are not allowed in any high-level match as they may be capable of receiving radio signals from a coach in the stands. Yes, the ones you're looking at are not designed to accomplish this particular function, but with only a minor modification undetectable by match officials, they could be capable of acting as a radio receiver. Since this is the case, the matches that I've seen have mandated the batteries be handed over to the range officials prior to commencement of shooting.

If you're worried about being able to concentrate on the shot then you want noise attentuation. Go for the very highest NRR you can get and comfortably carry with you. And then wear earplugs inside them. When I do this I find the annoyance caused by .40S&W's popping off beside me to be much reduced. Now if only I could find a way to stop their empty casings from bouncing off the side of my head... LOL


Mark.

[Spencer C]

Twaddle!

There is a BIG difference between electronic earmuffs and communication devices and electronic earmuffs ARE allowed in ISSF competitions.

[R.M.]

Well Mr. Balderdash, according to ISSF rule 8.2.8 "Ear protectors incorporating any type of receiving
devises are not permitted for shooters." Note the word "ANY".
Most club level matches will bend the rules to allow them, but as the rule states......

R.M.

[TomF]

Electronic hearing protectors are not receiving devices. And as far as I know they are legal.

If an official thinks a coach is using a transmitting device and the ear muffs are a receiving device, then it is up to him to prove that. And if an official catchs anyone using a transmitter and receiver, then kick their cheating butts out and dont let them play anymore.

But the assumption that Electronic hearing protectors are all recievers is pure ignorance. If an official tried to take my batteries he would get them, and a whole lot more, after the match.

[Spencer C]

Dear RM,
would it change your mind if an ISSF Judge gave an interpretation on your understanding of 8.2.8 (7.2.8, 9.2.8 & 10.2.7) or would you prefer to doggedly insist on your own understanding of these rules vis-a-vis electronic earmuffs?

[R.M.]

I'm just relaying what I interpret the rules to say, and what I've experienced on the line. I have shot at the World Cup level, so possibly I've seen a bit more than the average shooter.
Personally, I couldn't care less what kind of muffs he buys. I just want him to be aware that some range officer someday could enforce the rules and force him to remove the batteries or wear different muffs.

R.M.

[Claudio]

When my favorite ear protectors fell apart, I used my electronic ear protectors. I had to shut them off as it was too distracting but it was interesting to hear what people were saying in the background when I wasn’t shooting. In practicality, I don’t think electronic ear protectors to be of any use and only a hindrance in ISSF shooting.

When I was getting ready for an air pistol match, I was told by a range official, that my electronic ear protector was not legal. He said he knew I wasn’t being coached but those were the rules and warned me that at any major competition I wouldn’t be able to use them. I said, “no problem, I will start using something else right away”. I used my small plug in ear protectors, as it’s only for concentration purpose anyway. I now have a pair of regular ear protectors, like I once had for all ISSF shooting.

I am into electronics and it would be impossible for any range official to determine if an electronic ear protector or device has been modified or capable of receiving signals from a coach unless they had electronic surveillance. On their own, almost all of these electronic protectors can pick up regular conversations at a fairly good distance. It would be easy for a coach to talk normally behind an athlete and give advice. Without trying to understand or interpret this rule, my point would be, this rule would be useless if it does not cover all electronic devices.

[Sandy Eisele, Ph.D.]

Please note that the electronics along with the microphone and speakers have not gone under any scientific review. You have noted that the NRR's are lower than most muffs and may not provide enough protection in an indoor range. I have tried to reach several companies concerning the "insides" of their systems and what the are really producing in acoustic output. All I get is silence or " they have been tested in house".
I do use these devices, but I also combine them with a light plut and then turn the device all the way to maximum. That way I have increased the NRR a couple dB and can still hear.

[Len_R]

Many should be tested to an ANSI standard, either ANSI S3.19-1974, ANSI s.12.6-1997 (A or B) or the older s.12.6-1984. They should be able to provide a clear decible reduction (normally about >24) but again they are frequency shifting devices so there is an average normalization to below 85db.

Please note that the electronics along with the microphone and speakers have not gone under any scientific review. You have noted that the NRR's are lower than most muffs and may not provide enough protection in an indoor range. I have tried to reach several companies concerning the "insides" of their systems and what the are really producing in acoustic output. All I get is silence or " they have been tested in house".
I do use these devices, but I also combine them with a light plut and then turn the device all the way to maximum. That way I have increased the NRR a couple dB and can still hear.

[Spencer C]

1/ For ISSF, there is always the avenue of a protest if a RO tries to enforce a personal interpretation of the rules

2/ Range Officers and Judges have eyes and these work extremly well when it comes to detecting any coach giving unathorised 'instruction' to a shooter (better than electronic surveillance)

3/ It is easy for a coach to talk to a shooter and remain within the rules.

Spencer

When my favorite ear protectors fell apart, I used my electronic ear protectors. I had to shut them off as it was too distracting but it was interesting to hear what people were saying in the background when I wasn’t shooting. In practicality, I don’t think electronic ear protectors to be of any use and only a hindrance in ISSF shooting.

When I was getting ready for an air pistol match, I was told by a range official, that my electronic ear protector was not legal. He said he knew I wasn’t being coached but those were the rules and warned me that at any major competition I wouldn’t be able to use them. I said, “no problem, I will start using something else right away”. I used my small plug in ear protectors, as it’s only for concentration purpose anyway. I now have a pair of regular ear protectors, like I once had for all ISSF shooting.

I am into electronics and it would be impossible for any range official to determine if an electronic ear protector or device has been modified or capable of receiving signals from a coach unless they had electronic surveillance. On their own, almost all of these electronic protectors can pick up regular conversations at a fairly good distance. It would be easy for a coach to talk normally behind an athlete and give advice. Without trying to understand or interpret this rule, my point would be, this rule would be useless if it does not cover all electronic devices.

[Len_R]

Let me just add, from Peltor
"N.B. Please note that as of 1997 I.S.S.F. has ruled that all electronic ear-muffs are not allowed in its competitions. However, these devices are still most suitable for range officers, coaches, hunters, police and military personnel, as well as many other competitions."

Targetshooting.ca

"Now, there are also electronic ear protectors. According to the ISSF Technical Rules for All Shooting Disciplines (Rule 6.2.3, Ed. 2001), "Ear protectors incorporating any type of receiving devices are not permitted for shooters." If you're using them, you may very well be in for a protest. As such, I wouldn't recommend them."

All one needs to do is google it and there are quite a few references.
That being said, it is a low grade amplifier/receiver built into the ear muffs, it does not receive radio frequencies but receive audible sound frequencies ( 250-4000 Hz). Of the two ISSF events I have gone to in my life, both did not allow the electronic muffs.

[Guest]

Now that the rules have been established, back to the question!

If you're fireing indoors, you may find the electronic muffs distracting. This depends on the range. For example I used to shoot at a small 50' range where the reverberation of the shooting was really irritating and I'd just have to shut them off. In a competition they can really be annoying when you hear stuff that you shouldn't be paying attention to like the time I was in a fun match knocking down steel plates with my pistol. A spectator standing 6' behind me said "Oh he's GOOD" to another person next to them and I just started laughing and missed a plate. Got to go back and pick it off, but since it was timed, that made a big difference. :)

Ok, how about brands? I have a set of peltor low-profile muffs and love them! I later bought a set of the heavy Pro-Ear muffs for non-shotgun shooting (thought they would offer more protection from magnums) and hate them! The sound quality is very poor with a raspy static coloring all sounds you hear. I tried the muffs of the guy who recommended them to me and they sound the same way! Turns out he can't hear the difference (or won't admit it).

[Spencer C]

This is 2004, not 1997

Spencer C

Let me just add, from Peltor
"N.B. Please note that as of 1997 I.S.S.F. has ruled that all electronic ear-muffs are not allowed in its competitions. However, these devices are still most suitable for range officers, coaches, hunters, police and military personnel, as well as many other competitions."

Targetshooting.ca

"Now, there are also electronic ear protectors. According to the ISSF Technical Rules for All Shooting Disciplines (Rule 6.2.3, Ed. 2001), "Ear protectors incorporating any type of receiving devices are not permitted for shooters." If you're using them, you may very well be in for a protest. As such, I wouldn't recommend them."

All one needs to do is google it and there are quite a few references.
That being said, it is a low grade amplifier/receiver built into the ear muffs, it does not receive radio frequencies but receive audible sound frequencies ( 250-4000 Hz). Of the two ISSF events I have gone to in my life, both did not allow the electronic muffs.

[Len_R]

The rule has been in place for SEVEN years, people should understand it by now.

It started in 1997 and has carried through. Or are you saying that in 2004 the rule has been changed? Please show us the rule change that allows for it.

This is 2004, not 1997

Spencer C

Let me just add, from Peltor
"N.B. Please note that as of 1997 I.S.S.F. has ruled that all electronic ear-muffs are not allowed in its competitions. However, these devices are still most suitable for range officers, coaches, hunters, police and military personnel, as well as many other competitions."

Targetshooting.ca

"Now, there are also electronic ear protectors. According to the ISSF Technical Rules for All Shooting Disciplines (Rule 6.2.3, Ed. 2001), "Ear protectors incorporating any type of receiving devices are not permitted for shooters." If you're using them, you may very well be in for a protest. As such, I wouldn't recommend them."

All one needs to do is google it and there are quite a few references.
That being said, it is a low grade amplifier/receiver built into the ear muffs, it does not receive radio frequencies but receive audible sound frequencies ( 250-4000 Hz). Of the two ISSF events I have gone to in my life, both did not allow the electronic muffs.

[David Levene]

The rule has been in place for SEVEN years, people should understand it by now.

It started in 1997 and has carried through. Or are you saying that in 2004 the rule has been changed? Please show us the rule change that allows for it.

It seems to me that this is really a matter of interpretation. Are electronics in ear muffs sound reducing devices or are they receiving devices.

I would have thought the intention of 8.4.1.3 was to allow electronic ear muffs.


8.4.1.3 Sound Producing Equipment
Only sound reducing devices may be used. Radios, tape recorders,
or any type of sound producing or communication systems are
prohibited during competitions and official training.

[Spencer C]

"It started in 1997 and has carried through. Or are you saying that in 2004 the rule has been changed? Please show us the rule change that allows for it."

No, the rule has not changed, but for most people the misinterpretation of it has.

[Pradeep]

IMHO electronic earmuffs of the sound reducing type are perfectly legal for ISSF competition. They reduce sound. They do not receive from an external transmitter. If you took it to appeal you would no doubt win.

That said I prefer the tranquility that lies behind the Peltor double cup passive muffs (Ultimate 10). Especially in ISSF competition it's not like there are many varied range commands. With Free and Air you only need to hear Start and Stop. If you've been very naughty then you can see the warning and disqualification cards with your eyes :D

BTW R.M, Spencer has been to a few World Cups himself ;)