Jet engines in the military cost me most of my hearing so I probably could not tell the difference.

 

They did say rifle and not pistol and it makes a big difference. But I agree they are a "little" loud and I wear ear protection anyway. But I bet it is right at 68 decibel with a 16 inch barrel.

 

try it from a bolt action with a 16+ inch barrel.

 

I've shot some from my lever action Henry with a 20" barrel and it is a lot quieter than with the 10/22.

 

As said above...distance from the muzzle is a big deal...

It also makes a HUGE difference where you are in addition to barrel length...in the woods you are in an echo chamber...

Out in a wide open field and NOT shooting at the ground close to you...it's completely different...

Under those circumstances...regardless of barrel length...there is a BIG difference in noise level between loads...

Staying with one brand that you are using...keeping cartridge length and bullet size constant...varying the charge for velocity...

Velocitor...hyper velocity...1435fps...is louder than a Mini-Mag at 1235fps...you can tell the difference with a rifle and ear plugs...with a pistol and no plugs the noise of the lesser is enough to hurt you and once you cross the pain threshold relatively small (changes in decibels) increases in noise power will be harder to detect...

Going down to CCI SV at 1080fps in the same rifle with no ear plugs from Mini Mags will be a drop from pain to simply loud...dropping from SV to CCI Quiet at 750fps will be pleasantly quiet...

Take that same rifle into the woods...especially in hills...very loud...

If you want to least noise from your pistol try Aguila Colibri... under 400fps... equal to a low power pellet rifle...you can barely hear out in an open field...

 

As a kid, I probably ran a thousand rounds a year through my .22 LR rifle reducing the ground squirrel population on various farms and ranches and never had a problem with the noise. These were all either standard velocity .22 LR or - later - high velocity .22 LR loads. When I later joined the Army, hearing tests confirmed that I hadn't damaged my hearing in the slightest.

Of course, the important point is that I was shooting in wide, open fields with nothing to reflect the sound back to me and I was using a rifle with an 18" barrel, which got the source of the noise out in front of me. I wouldn't try this at a range, with berms and walls to reflect the sound, or in the woods, where trees and leaves can reflect the sound.

I used Colibri and CB .22 ammunition when I was teaching my youngest son how to shoot (he was pretty sound-sensitive, even with hearing protection). Even though they are the lowest-power .22 rounds available (I checked to make sure the bullet exited the barrel for each round), hearing protection was still necessary at the range - even an outdoor range - and when shooting in the woods.

I am surprised that CCI would claim "no hearing protection required". I also question their unqualified claim that the sound was "68 dB at the shooter's ear" - this number would vary considerably depending on the barrel length. Even if the powder is completely consumed within the chamber, the pressure inside the barrel when the bullet exits the muzzle will be four times higher out of a 4" barrel compared to a 16" barrel, which would dramatically change the intensity of the sound, even at the muzzle.

Jim

 

As a kid, I probably ran a thousand rounds a year through my .22 LR rifle reducing the ground squirrel population on various farms and ranches and never had a problem with the noise. These were all either standard velocity .22 LR or - later - high velocity .22 LR loads. When I later joined the Army, hearing tests confirmed that I hadn't damaged my hearing in the slightest.

Of course, the important point is that I was shooting in wide, open fields with nothing to reflect the sound back to me and I was using a rifle with an 18" barrel, which got the source of the noise out in front of me. I wouldn't try this at a range, with berms and walls to reflect the sound, or in the woods, where trees and leaves can reflect the sound.

I used Colibri and CB .22 ammunition when I was teaching my youngest son how to shoot (he was pretty sound-sensitive, even with hearing protection). Even though they are the lowest-power .22 rounds available (I checked to make sure the bullet exited the barrel for each round), hearing protection was still necessary at the range - even an outdoor range - and when shooting in the woods.

I am surprised that CCI would claim "no hearing protection required". I also question their unqualified claim that the sound was "68 dB at the shooter's ear" - this number would vary considerably depending on the barrel length. Even if the powder is completely consumed within the chamber, the pressure inside the barrel when the bullet exits the muzzle will be four times higher out of a 4" barrel compared to a 16" barrel, which would dramatically change the intensity of the sound, even at the muzzle.

Jim

They said with a rifle barrel. They make no mention of a pistol.

 

I have to agree with the OP on this one. I got 10 boxes of these CCI quiet .22's to aid in the war on squirrels on my property. I previously had the CBee 22's which were far more quiet. These CCI's are not much different than their standard velocity .22lr's shooting out of both a Savage bolt action and a Remington 597. I have a Gamo Pellet gun that will work just fine but it takes a little longer to reload for a follow up shot (break barrel). I prefer the smack of the .22lr much more but the noise can be an issue.

 

Dozer01, I agree. The sound from my 10/22 with 18.5" barrel was about the same as standard velocity .22LR. There was probably less of a snap but still close.

I forgot to mention in my original post that I had invited a friend to come out with me yesterday morning. One reason was that I was wanting to get his opinion and sort of show off I guess in that we could have some fun without having to worry about hearing protection. I don't have any open fields close by (this is NC so it is mostly woods, but we weren't anywhere deep in the woods). After those first few rounds we looked at each other and agreed it was louder than we thought it was going to be. He was standing maybe 10 ft away from me.

I'm still wondering how CCI came up with 68 decibal rating. According to a decibal comparison chart, this is typical rating and means it would be just above normal conversation sound.

0 dB = weakest sound heard
30 dB = whisper
60-65 dB = normal conversation
80 dB = telephone ringing
85 dB = city traffic
90 dB = train whistle at 500'
95 dB = jackhammer at 50'
100 dB = motorcycle
140 dB = jet engine at 100'
165 dB = 12 gauge shotgun blast

 

I'm still wondering how CCI came up with 68 decibal rating. According to a decibal comparison chart, this is typical rating and means it would be just above normal conversation sound. ...

I can't help wondering if it's a misprint - maybe they meant 86 dB.

Another possibility is that they used the wrong setup for measuring the sound. Impulse noise - like gunshots - usually have a very different frequency distribution than machinery or other continuous noises, generally with more energy in the high frequencies, which are more damaging to hearing. Measuring the energy of gunshots requires a more expensive instrument, one that can measure peak energy over a much shorter time period.

Jim

 

The cost of a set of foam ear plugs is what? A quarter? Think about it.

 

I think their posted "68 Db" is either an error or they're trying to B.S. their customers. There's no way these rounds only produce 68 decibels! I will admit that the initial "crack" is a bit less than average, but not by much. The Cee Bee 22's are much quieter. I also have a few bricks of shorts to use up for pest control but I've been considering the purchase of a quieter, more powerful airgun instead, I sure don't want to waste good rimfire ammo on any darned squirrels anyhow. No matter what they say, you don't want to be shooting these rounds without ear protection. If my telephone was louder than these rounds, I'd be seen running it over multiple times with my pick-up! (lol)

 

I bought a brick of this ammo about a year ago and have fired it on a few occasions in my backyard. Sitting on my deck (open air, but with the brick wall to my back) I shot about 20 rounds one day using my 1022 carbine without hearing protection. Another time with my 7722, but never with a pistol. I will have to disagree with the OP as I find the ammo much more quite than their standard velocity and very tolerable without hearing protection. I say that because of the environment I was shooting in. I will also say that I have an annual hearing test (required at work) and everything is normal.

 

Well I don't have any agendas. I've always liked CCI ammo, and enjoy shooting their .22WMR as well as their various varieties of .22LR. Even tried their .22LR Tactical which is a great round. I shoot .22's probably twice a month.

Growing up with my father being completely deaf in one ear and partially in the other (due to him shooting rifles without protection in his youth), I was always grilled by my dad in the importance of protecting your hearing. I'm now in my 30s and I think I've got excellent hearing. I never shoot without ear muffs or plugs.

My concern is that I don't think this ammo is safe to be shooting long term without some kind of protection. I bought 300 rounds worth. They say normal decibal rating for standard .22LR is between 80-110 dB.

I want to share this video on youtube which shows a gentleman testing decibal rating on some CCI ammo. In the beginning he is just talking and the device reads at 64.9 dB (this is @2:14). Standard velocity CCI was around 84.4 dB (this is in an indoor range.) CCI Mini mag at 74.6 dB, and CCI Stinger at 89.0 dB. He does state at the end that the results weren't accurate as he should have had the mic pointing in the direction of the shooter but it does still give somewhat of an idea of what .22LR can range with sound.

CCI .22lr Decibel Test. - YouTube

Then there's this guy who shoots it in a windy field. Says he doesn't even hear it and so this makes me wonder if I need to shoot it out in some windy open field too.

CCI ''Quiet'' Ammunition First Impressions by SkilledAmateur - YouTube

And then this other shooter tests it against High Velocity CCI which rates at 117dB. When he shoots the Quiet .22 ammo, it rates at 105.6 dB! And the funny thing is he's wearing hearing protection on both rounds, LOL. CCI may need to retest. This could become a lawsuit if they are advertising it as "no hearing protection required" and somebody documents hearing damage. I'm going to be contacting them.

CCI Ammo = Quiet 22 - YouTube

 

And then this other shooter tests it against High Velocity CCI which rates at 117dB. When he shoots the Quiet .22 ammo, it rates at 105.6 dB! And the funny thing is he's wearing hearing protection on both rounds, LOL. CCI may need to retest. This could become a lawsuit if they are advertising it as "no hearing protection required" and somebody documents hearing damage. I'm going to be contacting them.

CCI Ammo = Quiet 22 - YouTube

I've never seen noise tested at the chronograph position - 10' down range of the muzzle. Duh...Of course that's going to be really loud.

What matters is the noise at the shooter's position - behind the rifle.

However the first video in your post was interesting, if for no other reason than the quiet ammo compared well with the tester's voice in the indoor range. Even with the potential microphone positioning errors, the difference between spoken voice and quiet rounds was only a few decibels at most, with some shots not increasing the voice maximum.

That's still impressive.

------

As for shooting .22LR with hearing protection I will normally use it, even with a rifle outdoors in a wide open area. I may not need it, but it doesn't hurt to use it.

With a pistol it's not even an option to consider not using hearing protection as pistols are loud even in .22LR.

Now I used to shoot .22LR in rifles all the time as a kid and young adult and never noted any hearing loss specifically due to .22LR use without hearing protection. However, I also flew some very loud aircraft, worked with power tools, etc and over time I certainly lost a fair amount of hearing. I suspect the exposure to .22LR didn't help.

 

I don't have any experience with the ammo in question, but I do have quite a bit when it comes to sales and marketing. The advertised rating was produced under the best conditions possible. Compared to standard 22lr it's probably quieter overall but to reproduce the claimed 68dB level they advertised, you will have to use exactly the same firearm in exactly the same environment.

 

From my experience shooting Quiet-22 through my 10/22, it was much quieter than the standard velocity. That being said, I don't think the standard velocity is loud. I usually shoot in a pretty open field, so I'm sure that has something to do with it, but I generally shoot the 22 without hearing protection.

The problem with the Quiet-22 is that you have to manually cycle the bolt because it doesn't have enough power to do it.

 

I shot a lot of handguns, shotguns and rifles in my younger years and never used hearing protection. Been to a lot of R&R concerts as well. Maybe that explains my selective hearing loss... I can hear the TV fine, just not the wife asking me to take out the trash...

 

I cannot imagine a single situation where shooting a 22 LR would cause me to use ear protection. I applaud you for being protective of your hearing, but as another poster said above in this thread, I shot thousands of 22 rounds as a teenager and can't remember having ringing in my ears or thinking that it was in any way loud. Maybe my 1970's era Glenfield (marlin) model 60 is just inherently quieter than a 10/22.

 

I shot some of this from my 10/22 and it was about as loud as a pellet gun. From my S&W 22A 5.5" it's fairly loud, though.

 

So I took the 10/22 and Single-Six out this morning to the woods to test it out. Set up a few targets at about 40 yds. Fired the first few rounds without hearing protection and they were sharply piercing. I fired about 10 more rounds. My ears were ringing and I thought to myself, "there's no way anyone could get through a box without hearing damage."

Any firearm with a cylinder gap (revolver) is going to be loud no matter what you shoot through it.
I shoot CCI CB caps through a rifle to kill pests in my yard all the time, its much quieter than my Gamo air rifle. CB caps through a Bearcat? Not so much.

I'm a little concerned about their claiming that "no hearing protection is required" and thinking I should write a letter.

Ever wonder why Ruger stamps a 'safety manual' on the barrel of their firearms?

 

CCI Standard Velocity is sub-sonic for most part.....sub-sonic is usually 1050 fps or less at sea level.....super-sonic over 1050 is where the crack comes from.....shoot a CCI Stinger and then a Standard Velocity and the difference is evident....The CCI Standard Velocity are very good suppressed also....try some CCI sub-sonic or Gemtech sub-sonic and you can shoot without ear plugs....

 

I remember seeing this in the American Hunter magazine. For what it's worth... American Hunter - CCI Quiet-22

 

Try CCI CB long- this stuff is QUIET! CCI Ammunition - Product Detail
Fun as heck to shoot- no hearing protection needed- sounds like a pellet gun.

 

Almost everything they won't cycle a semi-auto is quiet. I still wear earplugs though.

 

They are super quiet out of my 541's 24" barrel.

 

I would think a 24" barrel would be pushing it for safely being able to shoot these rounds.

 

I hadn't even considered it...

Makes me wonder what else I don't know...

 

There are quite a few subjects that I know just enough about to know that I don't know a lot.

 

I bought three 50 round boxes this morning and will try them next to the Aguila ammo. I'll make a report when I do.

 

I was at the range a couple days ago and did a sound test of different ammo in my Henry Mare's Leg with a 12" barrel. I didn't have a sound meter so this is just my best judgment.

The Aguila Super .22 Super Colibri was by far the quietest but also it didn't have much poop to it. I shot at a piece of wood (at a slight angle) and it bounced off it. Next in sound level was the CCI Quiet ammo and it was much louder but would penetrate the wood slightly. The CCI CB shorts were a close match in sound level to the Quiet ammo but was only 29 grains compared to the 40 grains of the Quiet ammo.

So my conclusion was the 40 grain Quiet ammo was the best of both worlds. I suspect if you shot 500 rounds you might have a problem with ringing in your ears but not for shooting three rounds at a crow in your backyard.

 

I scored a few boxes of CCI's new .22LR Quiet Ammunition.

According to their website they claim it has a 75% reduction in perceived noise from standard velocity .22 LR, and they also state that NO hearing protection is required! Well this had me really curious.

You can read their claims here:
CCI Ammunition - Product Detail

So I took the 10/22 and Single-Six out this morning to the woods to test it out. Set up a few targets at about 40 yds. Fired the first few rounds without hearing protection and they were sharply piercing. I fired about 10 more rounds. My ears were ringing and I thought to myself, "there's no way anyone could get through a box without hearing damage."

The noise is definitely there. These have got to be way above the 68 decibal they are rated. It's a lot louder than a firecracker but obviously not as loud as shooting a higher caliber. I'm a little concerned about their claiming that "no hearing protection is required" and thinking I should write a letter. Anyone have similar experiences?

I scored a few boxes of CCI's new .22LR Quiet Ammunition.

According to their website they claim it has a 75% reduction in perceived noise from standard velocity .22 LR, and they also state that NO hearing protection is required! Well this had me really curious.

You can read their claims here:
CCI Ammunition - Product Detail

So I took the 10/22 and Single-Six out this morning to the woods to test it out. Set up a few targets at about 40 yds. Fired the first few rounds without hearing protection and they were sharply piercing. I fired about 10 more rounds. My ears were ringing and I thought to myself, "there's no way anyone could get through a box without hearing damage."

The noise is definitely there. These have got to be way above the 68 decibal they are rated. It's a lot louder than a firecracker but obviously not as loud as shooting a higher caliber. I'm a little concerned about their claiming that "no hearing protection is required" and thinking I should write a letter. Anyone have similar experiences?

I've shot regular Remington bulk ammo without any hearing protection and my hearing was and is fine. Yes, it was only one mag from a 10/22 but still. I think your hearing might be a tad sensitive.