This article is a reprint of a chapter from the upcoming book, “The Sound of Silence: The Law Enforcement Guide to Rifle Suppressor Technology.” To receive information on how to obtain a copy of this book, please contact the author at www.justice-advocates.org by filling out the contact form.
If you are a chief, sheriff, firearms instructor, range master, tactical team supervisor, or workplace safety administrator, this article should be especially enlightening.
I suggest that, for a majority of law enforcement agencies, their personnel are not adequately protected from harmful occupational noise levels from various sources. In many cases, it is entirely preventable. If you are reading this article, then thank you for taking a proactive approach to remedying noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) for your personnel.
The central claim of this article is simple: Equipping law-enforcement officers with properly selected, well-integrated suppressors on their rifles or short-barreled rifles (carbines) is not a luxury; it is an evidence-based way to reduce hearing damage, improve communication, and ultimately protect both officers and the public (Le Prell, 2017).
Suppressors, in conjunction with hearing safety training, a regulated hearing and respiration conservation plan, adequate hearing protection devices (HPD), and periodic audiometric testing, constitute the only effective system to lessen the effects of NIHL.
Modern patrol and short-barreled rifles (SBRs) are loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage with a single shot. That damage does not just affect an individual officer’s quality of life; it also impacts communication and tactical effectiveness, and it creates a predictable stream of workers’ compensation claims and disability retirements (Meinke et al., 2017; Morata et al., 2017).
How big is the problem? Noise-induced hearing loss in law enforcement
NIHL is one of the most common and preventable occupational injuries in public safety. Multiple studies of police populations across countries have found that roughly one-third of officers already exhibit signs of hearing loss and tinnitus. Among several cohort studies, police officers have significantly higher rates of hearing loss than other public employees and general workers of the same age (Nelson et al., 2005; Zhou et al., 2021; CDC & NIOSH, 2024).
Those numbers are not surprising considering the current state of policing. From the academy onward, officers are exposed to repeated gunfire in recruit training, in-service qualifications, tactical schools, and specialty courses. Patrol officers may attend several full-day firearms blocks each year. SWAT and other special operations units typically train with live fire monthly. Firearms instructors and range staff may be present for scores of range days each year, exposed to hundreds or thousands of rounds per day.
In addition to the obvious risks of gunfire in both training and Officer-Involved Shootings (OIS), officers spend years around sirens, burglar alarms, traffic noise, radios, motorcycles, and other loud equipment. All of this adds up. Even if each exposure is “within policy,” the cumulative effect over a 20- or 30-year career is often permanent hearing damage (TSI Incorporated, 2025; Hearing Loss in First Responders, 2023).
How noise-induced hearing loss happens
Before we talk about budgets, lawsuits, or policy, it helps to understand, in simple terms, what noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) actually is. It is not about ears that are “a little tired” after a loud day; by tomorrow, they will be better. NIHL is permanent damage to the delicate inner-ear structures that convert sound into signals the brain can interpret.
Inside the inner ear, in the cochlea, are tiny sensory cells often called hair cells. These cells move in response to sound waves and trigger electrical signals that travel along the auditory nerve to the brain. Intense sound, especially sudden impulse noise such as gunfire, creates tremendous mechanical and metabolic stress on those cells. At lower doses, the cells may recover. At higher levels or with repeated exposure, the cells and their supporting structures respond to sound waves, triggering electrical signals that travel along the auditory nerve to the brain.
Intense sound, especially sudden impulse noise such as gunfire, creates tremendous mechanical and metabolic stress on those cells. At lower doses, the cells may recover. At higher levels or with repeated exposure, the cells and their supporting structures are damaged beyond repair (Le Prell, 2017).
Two things matter most: how loud the sound is, and how long the ear is exposed. Continuous noise, such as engine or machinery noise, is usually assessed by averaging the level over a work shift. Short, very intense impulses like gunshots are different. They deliver a large amount of energy in a very brief time. Above a certain peak level, even a single unprotected shot can cause a permanent “notch” in the audiogram. Multiple exposures add up (Le Prell, 2017; Nelson et al., 2005).
Early on, NIHL usually impairs the hearing of high-frequency sounds. Many people do not notice this immediately. They may hear speech but miss consonants or struggle in noisy environments. Over time, as more cells are damaged, the hearing loss becomes more noticeable and begins to interfere with everyday conversation. Tinnitus is a condition marked by ringing, buzzing, or hissing in the ears and is an effect of NIHL.
The key point for law enforcement leaders is that NIHL is cumulative and irreversible. Once the hair cells are destroyed, no medication or surgery can restore them. Hearing aids and other devices can help people manage, but they cannot restore an officer’s natural hearing from the academy. The only real treatment is prevention (Nelson et al., 2005; Meinke et al., 2017).
Prevalence among officers versus the general population
Law enforcement does not operate in a vacuum. In the general workforce, hearing loss is already one of the most common occupational health problems. Estimates from extensive surveillance efforts suggest that about 10–12% of workers overall have hearing difficulty, with even higher rates in noisy sectors. First responders: police, fire, and EMS, are consistently flagged as higher-risk groups because of their combined exposure to sirens, engines, radios, and firearms (Nelson et al., 2005; Zhou et al., 2021).
A systematic review of the literature on NIHL in police officers reached a similar conclusion: across multiple countries and study designs, officers show a consistently elevated burden of hearing loss compared with the general population. Exposure to firearms, sirens, and traffic noise was repeatedly identified as a major contributor (Pollarolo et al., 2022; Nelson et al., 2005).
It is also important to remember who is being counted. Most research looks at active-duty officers who are still working and able to complete hearing tests. Officers who have already left the job, sometimes because of hearing problems, are not always included. At the same time, many officers with early or moderate hearing loss have never had a formal audiogram or do not yet meet the legal threshold for an occupational hearing-loss claim. The actual burden is almost certainly higher than the documented numbers suggest (Hearing Loss in First Responders, 2023; TSI Incorporated, 2025).
Workers’ compensation, lawsuits and long-term costs
From an agency’s perspective, hearing loss is not only a clinical issue but also a legal and financial one. Around the world, occupational noise-induced hearing loss is recognized as a compensable condition. In high-income countries, it has generated billions of dollars in wage-loss payments, medical costs, and pension expenses (Masterson et al., 2023; Nelson et al., 2005).
In the United States, analyses of workers’ compensation data show that occupational hearing-loss claims account for tens of millions of dollars in paid benefits every year. These figures cover all industries, but public safety personnel are well represented among claimants. In some states, police officers and other public safety workers benefit from presumptions in their favor for certain occupational diseases, making it easier to link their hearing loss to years of service (Masterson et al., 2023; CDC, PNI, OSH, 2024).
Individual cases help make the stakes concrete. It is befuddling that agencies are denying claims of hearing loss based on the sheer volume of scientific literature documenting the harmful effects of noise on law enforcement personnel, which has led to litigation.
The author of this book, as detailed in the introduction, is a victim of NIHL, with workers’ compensation awards from his law enforcement agency and from a firearms manufacturer he worked for over six years.
Henderson Police Department case
In the case of City of Henderson v. Spangler (2020), Officer Jared Spangler, formerly of the Henderson Police Department in Nevada, filed an appeal for the denial of his hearing loss workers’ compensation claim. He originally filed a separate workers’ compensation case while on active duty in 2006 due to hearing loss, to the extent that he was forced to work the front desk. Spangler had a slight genetic hearing loss before employment, but passed his employment medical and was hired despite his slight “pre-existing condition.” The initial claim was denied by the city’s third-party workers’ compensation administrator because it required an “accident,” and he could not establish either an “injury by accident” or an “occupational disease.”
After retirement, his hearing continued to degrade, and he sought consultation with another doctor. That doctor disagreed with the original dismissal, and he filed another claim in 2016. Again, the workers’ compensation administrator denied his claim, prompting Spangler to appeal the ruling. He appealed this initial denial, and another appeals officer affirmed the dismissal. Spangler petitioned the district court for review, and the district court granted his petition and reversed. The state appeals court concluded that his claim for workers’ compensation benefits deserved serious consideration, underscoring that police work can be a substantial contributing factor in hearing loss.
Despite a pre-existing hearing disorder before employment, his exposure during the course of his law enforcement duty, and the testimony of all the doctors, was that his condition was likely made worse by exposure to work-related noise, which warranted further judicial review. Ultimately, the Nevada Supreme Court ordered that this case be sent for legal settlement (Childers, 2020; FindLaw-City of Henderson v. Spangler, 2020).
Recommendations
This case highlights several key points. Each state’s workers’ compensation laws will differ, and injury definitions will play a key role. The agency did not have a hearing conservation program requiring regular audiometric testing, and therefore, there was no evidence of a steady decline in hearing acuity.
Each department should have a procedure to document significant noise-exposure events. This procedure may include a state-mandated workers’ compensation form or a risk management reporting form. If none exists, we recommend that the agency create one for a significant noise exposure event or in department documentation, such as SWAT After Action Reports or crime reports, if applicable.
Ambulance chasing
Legal websites and injury firms increasingly advertise services specifically for workers with noise-induced hearing loss, including police officers and other first responders. To them, these are not unusual or marginal claims; they are a steady line of cases. Every time an officer files such a claim, the agency must prove that it did everything reasonably possible to prevent the injury (Childers, 2020; Hearing Review Staff, 2019).
3M lawsuit
In one of the most extensive multidistrict litigation (MDL) in U.S. history, 3M Corporation agreed to settle with nearly 260,000 veterans and service members for hearing damage and tinnitus caused by defective Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2), manufactured by Aearo Technologies. After the award became public, between 2021 and 2022, the floodgates of litigation opened for other individual claimants. Between 2021 and 2022, a series of trials were held in federal court. Juries returned mixed verdicts, but many favored the plaintiffs, including several multi‑million‑dollar awards for veterans with significant hearing loss and tinnitus.
In August 2023, 3M announced a global settlement to resolve nearly all CAEv2 claims. Under the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), the company committed to pay approximately $6 billion between 2023 and 2029, about $5 billion in cash and $1.0 billion in stock, to resolve around 240,000–260,000 claims, without admitting liability.
The direct costs of these cases include hearings, expert witnesses, and, where claims are successful, payments for hearing aids, batteries, clinic visits, and sometimes wage-loss or disability benefits. The indirect costs include administrative time, possible impacts on insurance premiums, and the loss of experienced personnel from key assignments. When NIHL is common across a department, those costs are multiplied (Masterson et al., 2023).
It is difficult to put a precise price tag on hearing loss in any one agency without a detailed review of its claims history. However, when studies estimate national workers’ compensation costs for occupational hearing loss in the tens of millions of dollars per year, and the global economic burden in the billions, it is clear that this is not a minor problem. For law enforcement, where the risk is higher than average, the share of that burden is substantial.
New York Police Department
Between 2009 and 2015, the New York Police Department (NYPD) forced officers wearing hearing aids into involuntary retirement because policy required unaided hearing to meet department standards. Several officers filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), contending the policy violated federal and local disability rights laws.
During discovery, evidence revealed officers hid their hearing loss and deferred treatment, fearing involuntary retirement. As a result, personnel worked with compromised hearing, endangering themselves and the public.
In 2015, the NYPD settled the case, reinstated some officers, allowed others to take hearing tests, and, in 2019, state legislation secured their rights.
Today, this situation still exists. Officers fear disclosure will lead to the loss of specialty assignments, including tactical team positions and firearms instructor roles. Others fear being classified as “disabled,” discrimination, the inconvenience of wearing hearing aids, and simple vanity.
This case is relevant because, in many departments, these issues persist, and only through their acknowledgement can conditions improve.
Impact on operations, communication, and quality of life
Hearing loss and tinnitus are invisible injuries. They do not show up in uniform photos or fitness tests, but they shape the rest of an officer’s life. NIHL among police officers has been shown to increase with years of service and age, indicating that the damage accumulates among your most experienced personnel (TSI Incorporated, 2025; Hearing Loss in First Responders, 2023).
Hearing is central to almost every aspect of police work. Officers need to understand radio traffic, hear commands from supervisors, pick up on shouted warnings or pleas for help, and interpret subtle environmental sounds, from breaking glass to footsteps. Noise-induced hearing loss undermines all of these abilities (TSI Incorporated, 2025; Hearing Loss in First Responders, 2023).
Impact on daily operations
In day-to-day operations, an officer with NIHL may have trouble understanding radio messages in a moving vehicle with the siren off, let alone in more chaotic environments. Misheard or missed transmissions can contribute to delays, confusion, and, in the worst cases, dangerous misunderstandings about locations, suspect descriptions, or orders to disengage or cease fire (TSI Incorporated, 2025).
For agencies, all of this translates into increased risk. Miscommunications in high-stress incidents can contribute to use-of-force mistakes or near misses. Officers may leave SWAT, training, or other specialty assignments early because they “cannot hear well enough anymore.” Some will retire earlier than planned. The loss of an experienced officer or instructor represents a real operational cost, in addition to any medical or legal expenses.
Impact on tactical teams
On tactical teams, the stakes are even higher. SWAT operations depend on clear communication under extreme stress. If a team member cannot quite hear a whispered plan or misses a shouted warning because their high-frequency hearing is damaged, the risk to the whole team increases. Modern communication headsets can help, but they cannot fully overcome a damaged auditory system (Hearing Loss in First Responders, 2023).
Impact on situational awareness
There is also an impact on situational awareness. Many officers with NIHL report difficulty locating sounds in space. They may hear a noise but not be sure whether it came from ahead, behind, or to the side. In complex, fast-moving incidents, that uncertainty can slow decisions and increase perceived threat (Hearing Loss in First Responders, 2023; Lee et al., 2024).
Impact on quality of life
Quality of life away from the job is just as important. Officers with significant hearing loss and tinnitus often struggle to participate fully in family life and social activities. They may avoid restaurants, sporting events, or gatherings because the background noise makes conversation frustrating. Family members may feel they are not being listened to when, in reality, the officer cannot hear them well. Over time, this can strain relationships and contribute to isolation (Hearing Loss in First Responders, 2023; TSI Incorporated, 2025).
Officers with significant hearing loss or chronic tinnitus (ringing in the ears) often report difficulty sleeping, irritability, and trouble concentrating. These symptoms can overlap with or worsen stress, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress, adding another layer of strain to an already demanding profession.
Slow or reduce the hearing loss
Putting suppressed rifles into service will not erase these challenges overnight. Many officers already have some degree of NIHL. But reducing noise exposure from rifles, especially during training and in indoor environments, can slow the progression of damage and protect newer officers from following the same path. In that sense, suppressed rifles are an investment in operational effectiveness and in the long-term well-being of the people who carry them.
How chiefs, risk managers, unions and clinicians view NIHL
Different stakeholders within and around a law enforcement agency see noise-induced hearing loss through different lenses, but their concerns often overlap.
Chiefs and sheriffs
Chiefs and sheriffs are responsible for the overall safety and effectiveness of their departments. From their perspective, NIHL is both a wellness issue and a readiness issue. Hearing loss undermines communication, degrades performance, and can shorten careers. At the same time, chiefs must work within tight budgets. They are constantly weighing immediate costs against future risk. For them, precise data on how suppressed rifles can reduce exposure, combined with realistic cost estimates and case studies from other agencies, is essential.
Risk managers
Risk managers and city or county attorneys tend to focus on liability and long-term financial exposure. They follow trends in claims and lawsuits. When they see a steady stream of hearing-loss claims emerging from the police department, they recognize a pattern. Engineering controls, such as suppressors, appeal to them because they can demonstrate to courts, insurers, and auditors that the agency took proactive steps to reduce a known hazard.
Police unions
Unions and officer associations advocate for the health, pay, and working conditions of their members. They hear directly from officers who are struggling with tinnitus, hearing loss, or related stress. Many unions have fought hard for presumptions and benefits related to occupational diseases, including hearing loss. At the same time, they are often supportive of preventive measures that can keep members healthier and in the field longer. When unions are brought into the conversation early and treated as partners, they can be powerful allies in building support for suppressed rifles as safety equipment.
Clinicians and health professionals
Clinicians, such as occupational medicine physicians, audiologists, otolaryngologists, and mental health providers, see the human side of NIHL. They conduct hearing tests, fit hearing aids, counsel officers about their symptoms, and treat the sleep and mood problems that often accompany tinnitus. Many of these professionals are strong advocates for noise-control measures, including firearm suppressors, because they see day after day that once the damage is done, there is no way to undo it fully.
The common thread among these perspectives is that noise-induced hearing loss is a predictable, preventable harm. Chiefs, risk managers, unions, and clinicians may speak different professional languages, but they all benefit when fewer officers develop serious hearing problems. Suppressed rifles are not the only tool needed to reach that goal, but they are one of the most direct ways to reduce one of the loudest sources of noise officers face.
How loud are our rifles, really?
The physics of the problem are straightforward. Hearing-health organizations frequently highlight 140 dB peak sound pressure level as a rough line in the sand for impulse noise. Above that, even a single exposure can cause permanent damage. Rifle fire easily exceeds that threshold (Morata et al., 2017; Meinke et al., 2017; American Suppressor Association, 2018).
Standard patrol rifles based on AR-15–type platforms often produce peak levels in the 165–170 dB range at or near the shooter’s position. These levels are measured outdoors. In indoor environments such as hallways, bedrooms, stairwells, small commercial spaces, or inside vehicles, reflections from walls and hard surfaces can exacerbate exposure (Le Prell, 2017; Meinke et al., 2017; Wipfler, 2023).
One of the primary differences between a rifle shot and that of a pistol is that rifle projectiles are supersonic and break the sound barrier (Figure 5), and therefore, create an additional blast overpressure (BOP) component that is not present when a pistol is fired. Neither foam earplugs nor earmuffs can prevent BOP exposure since the concussive wave penetrates the skull and reaches the inner ear.
The Spokane Police Department conducted testing on their patrol rifle and elected to add suppressors. The agency achieved a significant reduction in sound levels, but the suppressor and rifle combination still could not achieve a level below 134 dB. That is still loud and does not eliminate the need for hearing protection during training. Still, it is an enormous reduction in peak energy and a significant step toward protecting hearing in real-world use (Police1 Staff, 2017; Wipfler, 2023).
The decibel scale is logarithmic. A 3 dB increase represents a doubling of sound energy. A 10 dB increase is equivalent to 10 times the energy. The jump from about 135 dB to 165 dB represents roughly a thousand-fold increase in sound energy. That is the difference between “dangerous but somewhat controlled” and “almost guaranteed to cause permanent damage at close range” (Nelson et al., 2005).
When an unsuppressed patrol rifle is fired in a hallway, bedroom, vehicle, or school corridor, the shooter, nearby officers, suspects, and innocent bystanders all experience that blast in a fraction of a second; there is no time to put on hearing protection. Bystanders and victims certainly are not wearing ear protection. The result is an avoidable injury built into the way we currently equip our officers (Morata et al., 2017; Meinke et al., 2017).
Why conventional hearing protection is not enough
Most agencies require hearing protection on the range. That is good practice and should continue. It is, however, insufficient to protect officers’ hearing over an entire career when rifles remain unsuppressed (Meinke et al., 2017; Nelson et al., 2005).
Traditional hearing protection suffers from several limitations:
- Fit and compliance problems. In the real world, earplugs and earmuffs rarely achieve the full Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) printed on the box. NRR was formulated to rate protection from “continuous noise,” and not impulse noise as from a rifle. Foam plugs are often inserted poorly or not deeply enough. Muffs may not seal well around eye protection arms, beards, or hats, or when disrupted by a poor cheek-stock weld. Instructors and students sometimes lift an earcup to talk and forget to reseat it properly.
- Bone conduction and multiple shooters. Extremely intense impulse noise can reach the inner ear not only through the ear canal but also through bone conduction. Even with correctly fitted plugs or muffs, very high peak levels can still transmit damaging energy. On a busy tactical range, an officer is also exposed to the combined noise of many shooters, not just their own weapon.
- Operational reality. In real-world incidents, officers do not have the time or the legal and tactical freedom to stop and insert earplugs before deploying a rifle. Dynamic entries, vehicle ambushes, and sudden active-shooter responses are measured in seconds. If the rifle is unsuppressed, those shots are taken with unprotected ears.
- Bystanders and civilians. Range rules do nothing for suspects, hostages, children, or other bystanders who are in the room or vehicle when a rifle is fired. A single close rifle blast can permanently damage a child’s hearing. There is no way to retrofit ear protection onto people who did not choose to be in the line of fire.
From an occupational-safety perspective, earplugs and earmuffs are classified as Personal Hearing Devices (HPD), which are the lowest level of control as recognized for occupational noise exposures. They depend on individual behavior, a perfect fit, and constant use. Suppressors, by contrast, function as engineering controls. They reduce noise at the source for everyone in the environment every time the rifle is fired (Meinke et al., 2017; CDC & NIOSH, 2024).
The financial and legal cost of doing nothing
From the standpoint of city and county governments, noise-induced hearing loss is a budget and liability issue as much as it is a wellness issue. Hearing-loss claims are among the more common types of occupational disease claims in many jurisdictions. They tend to generate ongoing costs for hearing aids, batteries, clinic visits, and, in some cases, wage-loss and disability benefits.
Law-enforcement officers have successfully pursued workers’ compensation and disability awards for hearing loss tied to firearms training, sirens, and range noise. When agencies cannot demonstrate that they provided adequate protection and used reasonable engineering controls, those claims become more complicated to contest.
The Spokane Police Department’s decision to equip patrol rifles with suppressors is a valuable case study. Spokane obtained approval for a contract to add suppressors to 181 patrol rifles. The chief and city officials justified the expense in plain language: they wanted to protect officers’ hearing and reduce both workers’ compensation costs and potential civilian lawsuits. At the time of that decision, several officers had already filed hearing-loss claims related to gunfire (Police1 Staff, 2017; Wipfler, 2023).
When you compare the numbers, the logic becomes clear. The cost of a quality suppressor and mounting hardware is typically measured in the hundreds of dollars per rifle. By contrast, a single moderate hearing-loss claim can easily reach tens of thousands of dollars once you account for medical care, hearing aids, wage replacement, and legal expenses, not to mention any impact on pension or disability status (Masterson et al., 2023; Childers, 2020).
Viewed over the lifespan of a rifle program, the question is not whether the agency can afford to buy suppressors. The real question is whether it can afford to keep paying for preventable hearing loss when a proven engineering control exists.
Suppressors as preventive medicine and engineering controls
Medical and hearing-conservation organizations have become increasingly vocal in their support for firearm suppressors as part of a prevention strategy. Position statements from otolaryngology and hearing-conservation groups describe suppressors as practical tools for reducing muzzle blast noise, especially when used in conjunction with hearing muff-style hearing protection on the range (American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, 2024; Le Prell, 2017; Meinke et al., 2017).
Technical reviews of suppressor performance consistently show meaningful reductions in peak sound pressure, typically 20–30 dB, depending on the firearm, ammunition, and measurement location. On high-output platforms such as short-barreled rifles, the combination of a suppressor and proper hearing protection can be the difference between exposures that almost guarantee permanent damage and exposures that are still loud but much less hazardous. (Le Prell, 2017; American Suppressor Association, 2018).
Importantly, health and safety experts treat suppressors as engineering controls. They act at the source of the hazard. They reduce noise for the shooter, for nearby officers, and for anyone else in the environment, including bystanders who did not choose to be there. No earplugs or earmuffs can do that (Meinke et al., 2017; Morata et al., 2017).
Emergency physicians and tactical medical providers who work closely with law enforcement have echoed this perspective. They argue that suppressors are safety devices: equipment that reduces injury, improves communication, and lowers liability. In that framing, putting suppressors on duty rifles looks less like a niche tactical upgrade and more like issuing seatbelts and body armor (Wipfler, 2023).
Pros, cons and common objections
Administrators, risk managers, and elected officials often raise similar questions when the topic of suppressed rifles comes up. This section summarizes the most common points for and against adoption in a way that can be used directly in meetings or briefings.
Key benefits include:
- Hearing conservation and officer wellness. Suppressors significantly reduce peak muzzle blast, lowering the risk of NIHL and tinnitus for patrol officers, SWAT members, and, especially, instructors and range staff, who experience the highest cumulative exposure.
- Reduced workers’ compensation and liability exposure. Agencies that can demonstrate they have adopted recognized engineering controls, in addition to conventional hearing protection and training, are in a stronger position to defend against hearing-loss claims and related litigation.
- Operational advantages. Less blast means better communication during gunfire, less flinching and disorientation for officers, and less muzzle flash to interfere with night-vision equipment. Reduced recoil and muzzle rise can also improve hit probability and speed of follow-up shots.
- Community and bystander protection. Suppressors lower the risk that children, hostages, or other bystanders will suffer permanent hearing damage from a single close rifle shot. They can also reduce noise complaints around training facilities and outdoor ranges.
Common concerns deserve honest and factual responses
“Suppressors are for assassins. The optics are bad.” In reality, medical and safety organizations now explicitly describe suppressors as hearing-protection tools. Agencies that communicate clearly with their communities can frame suppressors as what they are: the mufflers of the firearms world, intended to protect officers and civilians—not to make violence invisible. Many modern rifle designs feature extended handguards that allow the attachment of tactical accessories such as lights, and may cover and conceal much of the suppressor.
“We cannot afford this.” The upfront cost per rifle is real, but modest when compared to the long-term costs of even a few hearing-loss claims and early disability retirements. Over a 20 or 25-year career, the price of a suppressor is a tiny fraction of what an experienced officer will earn, and a much smaller fraction of what a serious hearing injury might cost the agency.
“They will make officers reckless or too quiet tactically.” Suppressors do not make rifles silent. They move the sound from “painfully explosive” to “still very loud but less damaging.” Shots are still clearly audible to officers, suspects, and bystanders. In practice, suppressed rifles tend to improve command and control because people can actually hear shouted commands during gunfire.
“What about extra length, weight, and gas blowback?” Modern suppressors are lighter and more compact than earlier designs. Many patrol rifles already use barrel lengths that can accommodate a suppressor without becoming unwieldy. Gas blowback and fouling are factors, but they can be managed through appropriate rifle configuration, maintenance schedules, and training. Later chapters will address these technical issues in more detail.
“The legal side is complicated.” In the United States, suppressors are regulated, and agencies must comply with all applicable federal and state laws. That said, many federal, state, and local agencies already field suppressed rifles. The path is well-established. Legal and procurement teams can work with reputable manufacturers and distributors to ensure compliance.
A rough cost–benefit picture
Every agency’s budget and claim history is different, but it is helpful to think about suppressed rifles in simple cost–benefit terms (Masterson et al., 2023; Nelson et al., 2005).
Cost
On the cost side, there are the purchase prices of the suppressors, mounting hardware, and any necessary accessories, along with an up-front investment in staff time for testing, policy development, and training. There may also be slightly increased maintenance workloads for armorers as they monitor wear and fouling over time.
Benefit
On the benefit side, there are both direct and indirect savings. Direct savings include fewer workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss and tinnitus, fewer disability retirements driven by hearing problems, and a reduced likelihood of civilian claims for hearing damage after loud rifle discharges in confined spaces. Indirect savings include retaining experienced officers who can continue to serve in tactical and training roles, fewer miscommunications and near misses in critical incidents, and a stronger, more defensible hearing-conservation program in the eyes of regulators, auditors, and the courts (Masterson et al., 2023; Childers, 2020; Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2020).
When you step back, it becomes clear that suppressors do not have to prevent many serious hearing injuries before they pay for themselves. Preventing even a handful of moderate hearing-loss claims over a decade can offset the cost of a department-wide suppressor initiative.
Where do you go from here?
This article was written to function as both an introduction and a stand-alone brief for decision-makers. It answers the fundamental question, “Why should we even consider suppressed rifles?” and frames the issue in terms of health, liability, and operational effectiveness.
Back to our original thesis: very few agencies have established hearing conservation programs to address the harmful effects of rifle fire. Most programs are based on OSHA compliance standards and are designed primarily for continuous noise rather than impulse noise.
Discussing the concepts presented here with an agency’s legal office, workers’ compensation unit, police association, risk management section, or health and safety compliance personnel will elicit a response. There is little doubt that some consternation will result when compliance issues are brought to the forefront.
Hopefully, armed with this article, an earnest discussion about suppressing agency rifles, improving hearing protection devices (HPDs), reconfiguring ranges, and updating training policies will result.
If you are an administrator or risk manager, take these recommendations. under consideration in light of your current hearing conservation program. If you are a firearms instructor or SWAT leader, you may want to forward this article to your chief or city attorney and then dive into their own research.
References
American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. (2024, November 18). Suppressors for hearing preservation.
American Suppressor Association. (2018, October 27). The scientific case for suppressors.
Le Prell, C. G. (2017). Sound level suppressors for firearm noise reduction: Implications for hearing conservation. Hearing Review.
Lee, W.-R., Han, K.-T., Yoo, K.-B., & Yoon, J.-H. (2024). Comparison of the risk of noise-induced hearing loss between male police officers and male non-police officers.
Meinke, D. K., Flamme, G. A., Murphy, W. J., Finan, D. S., Lankford, J. E., & Tasko, S. M. (2017). Recreational firearm noise. National Hearing Conservation Association Task Force on Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Firearm Noise.
Morata, T., Kardous, C. A., & Scott, R. L. (2017, March 3). Hit the mark: Firearms training without damaging your hearing.
Police1 Staff. (2017, October 13). Washington PD to add suppressors to all service rifles.
TSI Incorporated. (2025). Hearing loss and noise exposure in law enforcement and fire services: A guide to preventive measures.
Win, K. N., Balalla, N. B. P., Lwin, M. Z., & Lai, A. (2015). Noise-induced hearing loss in the police force.
Wipfler, E. J., III. (2023, July 25). Sound arguments for the purchase and use of firearm suppressors: A physician’s perspective and recommendations.
