Ear damage from shooting indoors.

Status
Not open for further replies.
You'll find a couple of previous discussions here in S and T dealing with the use of hearing protection in a SD or HD situation. You'll also find numerous extensive discussions in General.

The short answer is that you and your wife may suffer permanent hearing damage from a shooting in the home (this applies to your pets as well). What studies have whown is that you will experience a temporary threshold shift (hearing loss) and some of that will recover. You'll know within a week and the hearing that does not recover is a permanet threshold shift (permanent hearing loss).

The military is trying to reduce permanent hearing loss through various means. Use of new filtering earplugs that seal a valve when gunfire occurs and leaves the valve open the rest of the time is hoped to reduce hearing loss. Allowing the hearing to recover instead of hammering day in and day out is showing promis.

I shoot with electronic muffs and ear plugs. While I would never take the time to put in ear plugs if I suspected an intruder was in the house if I had time after grabbing the AR I'd put on the electronic muffs and crank the volume up to hear better.
 
Yet another reason why silencers SHOULD be legal everywhere.

Considering one for my PT92 despite the cost...for all the reasons listed here.

Has anyone seen one that works, even a "single use" sort, that's not upwards of $600?

Also...have any studies been done as to which is likely to do more or less damage, the higher-pitched sound of a high-caliber pistol, or the lower-pitched but still extremely loud blast of a shotgun, indoors?
 
Considering one for my PT92 despite the cost...for all the reasons listed here.

Has anyone seen one that works, even a "single use" sort, that's not upwards of $600?

You could make your own for the $200 tax plus whatever materials. I'm not sure about the exact definition of a silencer (that is, what part of it is the actual silencer), but it may be legally possible to make a very cheap "single-use" silencer, then repair it after each use, without needing to re-register it.
 
Manedwolf...
My experience was my 870 with standard 00 buck loads was much easier on the ears than my revolvers and my Bushmaster. My G23 and G19 were also comfortable in comparison to the revolvers.

Biker
 
Manedwolf...
My experience was my 870 with standard 00 buck loads was much easier on the ears than my revolvers and my Bushmaster. My G23 and G19 were also comfortable in comparison to the revolvers.

Well, good, then. Because my first choice in HD is the 870 behind the headboard, which is loaded (apartment) #4, #4, #00, #00, slug. (Figured if I get past two, they need the heavier stuff, and if I get to five, I'd be outside already :D

Thanks!
 
I do want to make sure that everyone notes I put "CAN" in italics. I do think that some people's ears seem to be more tolerant of this kind of abuse, and, as I pointed out, there is anecdotal evidence to indicate that being prepared for the shot (shots) may help.

The possibility of permanent damage is certainly there, I would even go so far as to say that some level of damage is likely. However, I don't think that noticeable permanent damage is a sure thing from one encounter.

I do have a set of electronic muffs handy, but I would NEVER think of going for them in a real emergency. They're there--if I think about them, I might grab them. But if things are really hairy, I seriously doubt that I'd be thinking of muffs or hearing damage.

I have read some information that suggests that if you visit a doctor immediately (within 24 hours--but shorter is better) of unprotected exposure to very loud noise, there are treatments available which may reduce the amount of permanent damage by encouraging rapid healing.
 
Being prepared for the shot does nothing for protecting hearing from damage. The well documented and studied auditory exclusion effect that people are referring to is psychological and can't prevent the damaging sound pressure from reaching the components of the ear and therefore can't protect those components. No valve or flap closes blocking the ear canal so no protection is provided. Much like the tunnel vision where we intensly focus on the central field of vision when we're in fight or flight mode the brain ignores the sound so we can focus on the task at hand. Ignoring the sound, even if done without our effort, no more prevents damage than ignoring the train as we walk down the tracks.
 
Last edited:
I sleep with earplugs in a lot cuz I live nera an airport and they annoy me in the morning. So no problem, I'm ready for a gunfight in my living room! :) Unless I don't hear the intruder at all. :(
 
The well documented and studied auditory exclusion effect that people are referring to is psychological and can't prevent the damaging sound pressure from reaching the components of the ear and therefore can't protect those components.
I agree. However, there is some evidence to suggest that there is a second less well understood, physical mechanism separate from auditory exclusion that MAY offer some level of protection.

One anecdote in Dave Grossman's book "On Combat" describes a negligent discharge in a room with several people. No one was hurt but everyone EXCEPT the shooter complained that their ears rang badly. The shooter was lowering a hammer and lost control of it. He theorizes that he realized what was going to happen a fraction of a second before the shot and somehow that realization protected his ears. The lack of ringing is very interesting and would seem to indicate that at the very least he did not sustain the same level of hearing damage as the others in the room.

Another anecdote recounts an officer commenting that he did not hear his shots during a lethal force confrontation but was able to clearly hear the sounds of his semi-auto cycling. For comparison, my incident (which was completely and totally unexpected) left me virtually totally deaf for about half an hour. I couldn't hear my wife screaming from the next room (asking if I was all right)--hearing the clack of a slide cycling would have been completely out of the question.

BUT, the brain can play interesting tricks, and people's bodies vary widely in their tolerance for various kinds of abuse, so I'm not saying that this is hard and fast proof by any means. Just that there does seem to be some evidence to support the possibility of a physical protection mechanism for the ear.
 
I'm amazed, I had an stupidity discharge with a 1911 indoors. It was a couple of months ago and my hearing seems to be fine now, even though they were ringing for a good 15 mins. No idea how loud it was, but man did I feel dumb for letting that happen.
 
For you younger guys, there is a pill, yes a medical perscription, that if taken after loud noises, will drastically decrease the effects of noise exposure. Look up 'Navy Hearing Pill." readily available.

As i have reported before, the effects of three .357 rounds inside a van have left me with drastic ringing in my ears, and being in a hallway when the guy behind me let loose with a half mag out a old xm177 commando left me serious restricted in my left ear.
 
I've got a touch of tinnitus at the grand age of 26. It is almost certainly a result of a wide combination of noise exposures; concerts, indoor shooting, marching band, motorcycles, and probably other things I have forgotten. You cannot always expect to protect your hearing, but trust me, its worth doing everything you can, when you can.

I'm not about to sit there fumbling with hearing protection if I am tasked with having to use a weapon in an impromtue situation.
 
A few points to add to this fascinating thread.

1. Definitely keep active hearing protection "ready to go" in the master bedroom. I always keep a pair of Wolf Ears (Gentex 1030A) along with body armor near the bed. If there's time, get them on. If there isn't, you're no worse off and you have to keep your hearing protection somewhere. I also travel with active muffs and keep a pair in the patrol car. The Gentex unit will amplify sound even for us old farts with bad ears, to where you can hear things the average person with perfect hearing could not hear with the naked ear, like a man breathing in the next room. Worth their weight in gold if you ever have to do a building search. You want BINAURAL muffs, which are directional and allow you to tell where a sound came from, not STEREO muffs, which make every sound seem centered in your head and give you no sense of whence the sound emanated.

(I suspect that when you take a burglary suspect at gunpoint while wearing muffs, he'll also KNOW that you're serious about shooting if you have to.:cool: )

2. There is no magic internal sound blocker. The auditory exclusion or "tunnel hearing" described by 2/3rds to 3/4ths of shootout survivors seems to be an effect of cortical perception. In a fight or flight state, the cortex of the brain screens out any input that is not immediately imperative to short term survival. Some people don't recall their ears ringing afterward because they have a hell of a lot more on their minds than listening for ringing. There have been cases of people who didn't realize they had been shot or stabbed until afterwards; listening for a faint ringing is extraordinarily low on the brain's list of priorities after you've been in a near-death experience sufficiently intense to involve gunfire.

3. Let's have some perspective here. My dad lost the hearing in his left ear in a gunfight that occurred in his early 20s. One of his assailants put a revolver to his temple and fired; he turned away in time to evade the bullet, but the near-contact blast ruptured his eardrum. It was the last thing he ever heard with his left ear. (It was also the next to the last thing the man who tried to kill him ever heard at all, but that's another story.) My father lived to the ripe age of 88, hampered by his hearing disability but never really slowed down by it.

Don't let worries about gunshot trauma to unprotected ears keep you from firing in a moment when reason, prudence, and survival all indicate that you have to shoot.

How much are you going to hear in the grave?
 
I worried about using muffs incase the Prosecution and Jury in a resultant case decided that I was negligent as I couldn't hear the assailant surrendering or something like that.
But after reading the last post (thanks) I think I will invest in some quality bedside ear protection.

If nothing else it will make my cleaning lady think I'm really odd, she already found the velvet ropes.
 
I hear ya, Real Name, my cleaning lady found the handcuffs before she spotted the badge or the uniforms in the closet...
 
Mass,

Who says business and pleasure don't go together?;)





No offense to anyone, but there is no pill that you should bet your hearing on. If there was, the military would be using it. They're not. The products available are dietary suplements that are being tested to determine if they have any real benefit. Remember you can get pills off the internet that are "guaranteed" to grow hair, cure bad breath and make you more "sexually potent" (all at once).

If there ever is a reliable product that you don't stick in or over your ear to protect from hearing damage I'll be more than happy to shout it from the hilltops, but it ain't here yet.
 
Last edited:
This issue is exactly why I just shelled out $900 (taxes included) for a silencer.

Anything I grab a oh-dark-thirty due to the front door being bashed in, or comparable event, had better be ready to go instantly save chambering a round. No fumbling with earmuffs; if putting a can on an SBR will save my hearing and facilitate defense, there's no reason to not get one.
 
This issue is exactly why I just shelled out $900 (taxes included) for a silencer

That's a solution to only part of the problem since the BG ain't going to have one. Of course if they never get a shot off you won't have to worry.
 
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/sound/protect.html

Interesting website...

Apparently the ear does have some built in protection mechanisms against loud sounds. The website does state clearly that the protection mechanism is not effective against abrupt sounds, but I wonder how well that statement applies if the person is expecting an abrupt sound.

In response to sustained loud sounds, muscle tension tightens the tympanic membrane and, acting through the tendon connecting the hammer and anvil, repositions the ossicles to pull the stirrup back, lessening the transfer of force to the oval window of the inner ear. This contributes to the ear's wide dynamic range.

In response to loud sounds, the tensor tympani muscle tightens the eardrum and through the tendon between the hammer and anvil and shifts the stirrup backward from the oval window of the inner ear. This shifting of the ossicles reduces the transmitted force to the inner ear, protecting it. However, it is a relatively slow action and cannot protect the ear from sudden loud sounds like a gunshot. The process is less effective in older ears.

A young person's ear can provide a limited amount of protection from sustained loud sounds by shifting the stirrup backward so that it doesn't exert as much force on the oval window. In the very young, the stirrup is thought to be capable of actually breaking contact with the oval window, breaking the direct link to the inner ear. In an older ear, the structures become stiffer and cannot adjust backward as much. Older persons are generally less tolerant of loud sounds.​
Another website with similar comments.
http://www.neurophys.wisc.edu/h&b/textbook/mid_ear.html

Again they say that this is only to protect against sustained loud sound, but they do not address the possibility that foreknowledge of the shot (particularly in a very high stress situation) might have a similar effect.
The tensor tympani and stapedius tensor muscles in the middle ear contract reflexly in response to loud sounds. Both muscles increase the stiffness of the ossicular chain when they contract and thus reduce sound transmission by up to 15 dB, depending on frequency. In humans the stapedius tensor is much more effective than the tensor tympani. The reflexes are generally thought to be primarily a protective mechanism to shield the inner ear from damage due to intense sound but, because the latency of contraction is at least 10 milliseconds, they cannot protect against impulsive sounds such as a pistol shot. Since the reflexes primarily reduce the transmission of low frequencies, they also act to improve the discrimination of speech sounds in the presence of loud, low frequency background noise.​
Ah HAH!

This article mentions the possibility that these protective mechanisms can be activated by stress!

They're talking about a specific kind of tinnitus resulting from rhythmic contractions of the muscles that provide the protective mechanism, but it's an interesting connection between the actions of these muscles and stress/anxiety.
http://www.umm.edu/otolaryngology/tinnitus2.html
There are two muscles within the middle ear attached to the middle ear bones. These are the stapedius, attached to the stapes, and the tensor tympani, attached to the malleus. Normally, these muscles function as a protective mechanism against loud sound. When the muscle begins to spontaneously contract, it usually does so in a rhythmic pattern and gives the impression of a repetitive clicking or fluttering sound. Although it is annoying, this type of tinnitus is not dangerous, is often brief, and usually resolves without treatment.

The palate muscles and muscles of the eustachian tube (the cartilaginous and bony organ between the middle ear and back of the throat) are additional sources of myoclonic and spastic activity which can be heard in the ear. A patient may observe myclonus in the palate by opening the mouth and watching the palate vibrate.

What causes myoclonus is unclear. The muscles of the ear, eustachian tube, and palate are subject to the same forces that cause muscle spasm in any other muscle of the body including stress and anxiety. Often there is not apparent reason.​

Found this article regarding the "Hearing Pill" mentioned earlier while I was poking around on the web.
http://www.asha.org/about/publications/leader-online/archives/2005/050614/050614e.htm
A recently concluded double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial reviewed use of a commonly available nutritional supplement, N-acetylcysteine or NAC. The study by the Naval Medical Center San Diego at the Marine Corp Recruit Depot in Camp Pendleton, CA, used a special formulation of NAC to determine its prophylactic qualities to prevent hearing loss.

The clinical trial found that when compared to the placebo, NAC reduced permanent hearing loss in the ear closest to the source of acoustic trauma. NAC also shows potential in healing symptoms of acoustic trauma, such as tinnitus and balance disorders. Another study will tackle those issues.​
This isn't really what I was referring to in my earlier post. I had heard that steroid treatments administered soon after an exposure to damaging noise could ameliorate the damage.
 
The problem with NAC is that very limited testing has been performed on human subjects and that the percentage differences are never discussed in what gets put on the web. What I've seen is minor differences that are subject to interpretation depending upon how large the error bar is and how the data is parsed. I'm an industrial hyginest and there's no excitement over this stuff in my profession yet.

The steroid studies were promising, but ended up being inconclusive overall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top