defending yourself indoors without hearing loss

[Zanad]

forgive me if this thread seems like i'm overthinking this.

I've been thinking latley about what caliber would be a good defense caliber, and it occured to me; the larger the caliber, the louder the bang and the greater chance of me damaging my hearing. Hearing protection seems impractical for a number of reasons in a defensive situation.

setting: most likely in the home

So my question is, do I have to sacrifice my safety(caliber wise) for my hearing should the need arise to defend myself? I dont want to loose my hearing and more importantly, my life.






other smaller questions that stemmed from this one.

is a pistol caliber carbine quieter than the pistol chambering the same cartridge? (lets say I use a marlin 1894C in .357/.38 for defensive purposes)


can I load/buy bullets that are easier on the hearing.

(subsonic .22s are moot due to reliabily issues unless you can convice me otherwise)


move thread accordingly

 

[Highcaliber]

I'd say a pistol caliber carbine is easier on the ears.

Don't forget barrel length also enters into the equation. Shorter barrel equals louder report regardless of caliber.

A better option would be to go the suppressed 9mm subsonic route. A suppressor is ideal for home defense or inside a vehicle near a family members ears.

Of course if you're that worried about hearing loss you will want to avoid the .357, or .44 mag calibers, etc.

 

[sonier]

it depends on what your willing to sacrifice, hearing or power. Personally id much rather loose hearing and put a bad guy down with one shot than to shoot multiple times and hope hes not firing at me.

 

[LeonCarr]

If you ever find yourself in a home defense situation against an adversary, the last thing on your mind should be hearing loss.

If you are going to defend yourself, your friends, or your family, shoot the most powerful rifle/handgun/shotgun you can shoot proficiently, practice with it alot, and use ammunition that will minimize overpenetration without sacrificing stopping power. A search on THR will help answer the stopping power question.

I have shot 45 deer, several hundred hogs, and numerous other four legged varmints in my life and cannot think of one instance when I heard the report or felt the recoil when shooting at an animal. Your mileage may vary, but when you get in the zone/tunnel vision/fight or flight syndrome/adrenaline dump or whatever it is called, it is doubtful it will be apparent. Yes when you are at the range and the guy next to you touches off a .300 Weatherby before you put your ears on, yes you will hear it and over and over again you will have hearing loss.

A buddy of mine was watching TV one night when he heard a window break. The closest weapon to him was a Remington 700 .270, brand new in the box with only open sights. He loaded it with 130 grain Winchester Power Points, walked around the corner, and was confronted by a large white male armed with a tire tool. He ordered the male to get out of his f------ house or he would get shot. The male lunged at him and got shot in the chest with a .270. My buddy was not wearing hearing protection, and claims to this day he never heard the report or felt the recoil. He also said that everything was in slow motion.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[JohnKSa]

I once discharged a .357Magnum revolver indoors without hearing protection.

I didn't hear the report and I don't remember any recoil. I also didn't hear anything else AT ALL for about 5 minutes and was severely hearing impaired for another half hour or so. That's been years ago and I still have substantial hearing loss in my left ear.

Would I do it again in a genuine self-defense scenario? Without a second thought.

On the other hand, if I could come up with a way to limit or prevent hearing damage without significantly handicapping my ability to respond, I'd be interested. I'm not interested in becoming any deafer than I already am unless the only other alternative is dying.

 

[JoeSlomo]

So my question is, do I have to sacrifice my safety(caliber wise) for my hearing should the need arise to defend myself?

No.

Absolutely not.

You should NEVER worry about potential noise when your life is at stake.

There is ear protection on the market today that amplifies sound, while protecting against gun shots. Purchase a set and use them at the range, and keep them handy in the home for those things that may go bump in the night.


Check out the peltor line of ear pro.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

The “best answer” over at Yahoo Answers seems to cover the matter of tachypsychia pretty well over here

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091202001832AAfL1Zj

My experience with defense in the home was pretty much as described in the link, except I experienced a slowing of time and auditory exclusion. For instance, the bad guy seemed to move slowly enough I had all the time in the world to act, and the screaming of the female bystander went completely unheard. I ended up with a nicely bruised ankle, but have no memory whatsoever of anything banging into it, and I certainly didn't feel anything strike it.

Had I been shooting under those circumstances, I can't imagine I'd have heard it. I also think that if it were important enough to shoot indoors to save life, potential hearing loss would be the last thing I'd worry about.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree. There are worse things than some hearing loss. You would have an interesting story to explain when you have to tell people to speak up.

Like they said, heavy calibers, particularly REVOLVERS are going to be the loudest.

I'll add this to the list of reasons an M-1 carbine is a good choice. But it's the backup. I'm prepared to live with the results of firing a shotgun indoors.

I also have fired a .357 indoors. My pain wasn't as dramatic, it's one of many foolish things I have done to my hearing over the years, I'm very lucky to still have better than average hearing.

 

[Al Thompson]

Hate to admit it, but being stupid at the time, I fired a .45 (1911) and a .38 Special (snubby) indoors.

Deliberately fired a .357 in a car from the driver's seat out the passenger window. Still remember the load - Remington 158 grain JHP full house .357s. No ear pro. Ears rang for awhile....

My hearing is superb (by test) some 25 years later.

YMMV and please remember the four rules...

 

[Old Shooter]

How about trying to get a surpressed weapon?

I think most people would rather have to say "What?" than be dead.

Concern about the hearing is a valid point but unless you plan on shooting the BG 100 times with your Red Ryder you need to admit there is going to be a loud bang during the situation you are considering.

Is it possible for you to get a surpresed weapon and put this concern on the back burner? Otherwise, guns do tend to make loud noises.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Apparently, opening your mouth wide, or in such a way so as to open the eustacheon tubes to the ears will help prevent eardrum perforation by somewhat balancing the pressure created against the eardrum, so that pressure is approaching the eardrum from both sides - as opposed to just from the "outside."

This is apparently good when a large piece of artillary is being fired or when a bomb may go off. As for small weapons, it may help prevent a perforated eardrum, but I doubt it will eliminate any and all hearing damage.

I shot a 12 Guage 2 3/4" Magnum 4Buck in a narrow dormer window - shooting through the open window at a predator at 2 am. Yes, I killed the predator, and yes, my hearing was really ringing for several days. I did not even think to open my mouth, as if it might have helped. And, yes, the gun was so loud that it actually HURT my ears for about an hour, then my ears were ringing for a week or so. I have high frequency hearing loss and pretty extreme tinnitus to the extent that I should have two hearing aids, however, I do not have the approximate $6,000 for two computer-adjustible hearing aids!

I do have a pair of $245. ProEars which are extremely well-made, allow for hearing (in fact amplifying, if you want) EVERYTHING, at the same time - protecting my hearing as they cut out for any extremely loud noises, including .22 pistol. This is a good thread, it reminded me that I should have those ProEars ready with my home defense weapon, and I should practice putting them on!

 

[mbt2001]

There are various kinds of electronic ear muffs out there. They actually enhance hearing, when noise is over 85db, they cut off. If you have an alarm system and someone kicks in the back door, and you have time, they might be an option. Obviously if it is between being dead and having some hearing issues, the later is preferable, but they at least give you a chance to mitigate your concern.

http://www.google.com/products?q=electronic ear muffs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wf

 

[josephbw]

Apparently, opening your mouth wide, or in such a way so as to open the eustacheon tubes to the ears will help prevent eardrum perforation by somewhat balancing the pressure created against the eardrum, so that pressure is approaching the eardrum from both sides - as opposed to just from the "outside."

This is the kind of info I hoped to gain from this thread. I shot a rabid raccoon in my backyard last year without any hearing protection. It was not a high stress situation, so auditory exclusion did not factor into the equation. I was using my XD40 and the resulting noise from the gunshots severely affected my hearing for 2 days, and I had diminished hearing for almost a week. I still have minor hearing loss in my right ear from the encounter.

Hearing loss is nothing to take lightly (my mother, step father, and brother all have profound hearing loss), and I take every precaution to protect it. But that one time of not being prepared taught me a valuable lesson. If there are any other tricks to mitigating the noise, I would love to hear them.

And before I get flamed, yes deafness is preferred to death, but if it is possible to avoid both in a crisis situation, I want to know about it.

 

[highorder]

I once discharged a .357Magnum revolver indoors without hearing protection.

I didn't hear the report and I don't remember any recoil. I also didn't hear anything else AT ALL for about 5 minutes and was severely hearing impaired for another half hour or so. That's been years ago and I still have substantial hearing loss in my left ear.

EXACTLY my experience too.

I had been test firing repaired guns, and came and went from the bench to the test fire room several times. I walked in with a 6" 686 and forgot to put my muffs in. All I remember was a steel-on-steel sound like hitting an anvil with a big sledge. High frequency hearing is notably diminished in my left ear.

 

[strambo]

Not much to add here. Yes, due to the common "auditory exclusion" you probably won't notice much of a report in a defensive shooting and interestingly studies have been referenced in my readings on this subject that seem to indicate there isn't any physical hearing damage when this occurs unlike shooting in a relaxed state.

I have a pair of electronic muffs as well. Provided you have a chance to put them on, they will both amplify sound and protect hearing. Make sure if you get some, they have 2 microphones and aren't "stereo". You want independent sounds coming in each ear so you can tell the direction.

Self-defense aside, they are well worth it for normal use and especially for shooting courses where you need to hear the instructors.

 

[coondogger]

If you are in a situation where you have a little time -- you hear someone downstairs breaking into your home, for instance -- you can do what I do. Have a pair of earplugs right next to your firearm. Wherever I keep my gun, I keep a pair of earplugs next to it. If there's time, use em. If there's no time, your ears are the least of your problem.

 

[Crusader103]

A couple of people have already pointed this out but I would like to expand on the phenomena of auditory exclusion. I have had the unfortunate displeasure of being involved in a handful of gunfights, twice with an AR platform which you well know is quite loud. While they were not fun for other reasons it was not because of the report. The first was in a wooded environment in which I fired several rounds. The second was in a rather enclosed area, with the building on one side (behind the perp) about 10 yards away, a large rock retaining wall a few yards behind me, and cars on both sides. I fired two rounds on that occasion. Another officer arriving on scene as I fired said it was the loudest thing he ever heard

I have also had the opportunity to speak with and interview several other gunfight survivors.

One common thread in each instance was that the report of the rounds was not heard. Other varying commonalities often found in these situations, such as the perception of time speeding up/time slowing down, etc were reported by some but not all, but when it came to the actual shots nobody including myself heard more than a small pop.

My ears were not ringing later, I suffered no apparent loss, and it simply was not an issue. As an aside, a friend of mine fired an AR about 5 feet from me two weekends ago right before I put my ear protection on. It was not fun at all so I know the difference.

As others have stated. I don't think you should give it a second thought. Not because hearing should be the least of your concern, but because the odds of you hearing anything more than a small pop is remote at best.

Still hope you never have to find out though.

 

[Mr.Davis]

I'd like to point out that auditory exclusion is simply the phenomenon of your brain ignoring the sound, and does nothing to prevent that actual physical trauma of a 160+dB gunshot wreaks on your cilia and eardrum.

The physical damage to your cilia and eardrum happens whether you're experiencing an adrenaline dump or not. Maybe it won't hurt, and maybe you'll get lucky and avoid permanent damage, but not remembering hearing a sound is NOT the same as not experiencing the sound.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'd like to point out that auditory exclusion is simply the phenomenon of your brain ignoring the sound, and does nothing to prevent that actual physical trauma of a 160+dB gunshot wreaks on your cilia and eardrum.

Correct. Hearing damage is a physical effect, auditory exclusion is a mental effect. The brain has no capability to shield the eardrum and other physical structures of the ear from the physical effects of the sound wave.

It is true that different people have different tolerances for noise, but an unsuppressed centerfire gunshot indoors is going to exceed the threshold level required to do hearing damage for any human.

 

[docsleepy]

cheap set of the electronic ear muffs right where you keep your home firearm(s). Put on, turn em up, and you can hear ANY little noise. Protects you if you have to fire. I think I got some for $29 on sale at cabelas or some other online store a while back.

 

[Mr.Davis]

If you have decided (and it sounds like you have) that avoiding hearing loss is a critically important component of your home defense strategy, then that's fine. There are good reasons for that.

As you know, there are two ways to protect yourself from the 160+dB report of a supersonic projectile from a firearm.

1) Traditional over-ear or in-ear protection
Advantages: cheap.
Disadvantages: doesn't protect the ears of other nearby innocents, eliminates the ability to use your ears to sense where the bad guy is and what he's doing. There are some exceptions, such as powered over-the-ear models that amplify quiet sounds and turn off for gunshots, but I can't speak from personal experience on whether they would offer sufficient fidelity to avoid handicapping your hearing before the shot.

2) A Sound Suppressor
Advantages: equal or better sound suppression than traditional over-ear or in-ear protection. Protects the ears of other nearby innocents.
Disadvantages: expensive ($200 tax stamp plus hundreds more for the suppressor), time (long background check timeframe), potential perception issues if your local DA or jury looks down on the use of NFA items for self-defense.

In a perfect world, if you have the money, the time, and the legal ability, I'd recommend doing option 2. Purchase a suppressor for a 9mm pistol or carbine (such as the Beretta CX4) and use 147 grain subsonic loads. You'll have a very quiet, very effective weapon that won't kill your ears.

 

[JohnKSa]

...I can't speak from personal experience on whether they would offer sufficient fidelity to avoid handicapping your hearing before the shot.

Quite the reverse, actually. A good set can be turned up to provide BETTER hearing than is humanly possible. And the good ones are also designed so that they don't prevent you from locating sounds using your hearing.

And instead of being deaf after the first round, you'll still be able to hear better than humanly possible while your opponent is impaired.

Of course, all this is predicated on a situation where it's possible to don hearing protection. Obviously that's not going to be possible in many self-defense situations.

On the other hand, for a typical "bump in the night" investigation it makes a lot of sense to have some good quality electronic muffs on hand. They will actually aid you in your investigation and if things turn bad they can protect your hearing while letting you hear between the shots.

I have a pair by my nightstand.

If you ever find yourself in a home defense situation against an adversary, the last thing on your mind should be hearing loss.

Frankly I believe all the concern about people getting killed trying to put on hearing protection is massively overblown. In my opinion it's a problem that solves itself.

In spite of my concern about hearing damage, on the few occasions that I was genuinely concerned that there might be an intruder in the house I COMPLETELY forgot that the hearing protectors existed and never wasted so much as a picosecond thinking about whether to put them on or not. I think most people would react similarly.

2) A Sound Suppressor

Not a bad option as long as it doesn't affect the reliability of the firearm it's being used on. And, of course, the other guy probably won't be using one which means you've only suppressed half the guns at the gunfight.

 

[Mr.Davis]

Not a bad option as long as it doesn't affect the reliability of the firearm it's being used on. And, of course, the other guy probably won't be using one which means you've only suppressed half the guns at the gunfight.

That's a good point. One should always assume his adversary is similarly equipped, even if it's very possible they came armed only with a knife or tire iron.

 

[Cosmoline]

My one ND with a .357 was remarkable for how little I noticed the noise at the time. But for days after there was certainly ringing, and I'm sure I did a little damage. Hearing loss is a real sneaky critter, and a lot of folks who are sure they've suffered none are totally wrong.

But given the critical importance to hearing during the process of determining whether there is a threat, I can't see any standard hearing protection being used. Perhaps some of the high tech models.

 

[Matt 357]

I have a 6" GP-100 357 Magnum. Given the choice between a full 357 mag load with hearing loss or a 38+P, I am leaning toward the 38+P. At short range (<20 feet) the 38+P should do the job. Any word on how loud a 38+P from a 6" is indoors?