Is a 44 mag truly deafening...

[Mainer2009]

I would think repeated firing would definately give you some permanent hearing damage, I shot a deer a few years ago with with 44 magnum revolver, 4 shots, and my ears were ringing bad for a few days. I don't shoot any of my guns other than my 22 revolver without ear protection anymore, my hearing isn't as good as it used to be from shooting to much without it.

 

[Kind of Blued]

This is, sadly, the "Ayoob" school of defensive thinking. His writing, based on his conjecture as a shooter instead of as a criminal investigator, has perpetuated the myth of "graduated" lethality. I have yet to find a jurisdiction that defines firing a .38 special as a "leath lethal" decision in a self defense situation. Maybe Mr. Ayoob has? Indeed, I've yet to see a person prosecuted for a lesser offense because they used a .22 rimfire instead of a centerfire round.

I am not picking on you, KoB, just trying to poke holes in the common wisdom that pervades the gun community as to what is "legal" "rational" or "safe." When deploying deadly force, there is little wiggle room for "less lethal."

I also agree whole-heartedly with your last sentence - there is so much bad wisdom in the "conventional" wisdom it's hard to figure out how to challenge it.

FYI, I also agree the .44 spcl it the near ideal defensive round, and indoors or in dense urban areas is what I carry. We are clearly on the same page.

The only way to end the confusion would be for someone to develop a rangefinder on a gun which communicates to the gun how fat the dude is that you're about to shoot and adjusts velocity appropriately. I didn't mention the phrase "less lethal" at all; perhaps Ayoob has, but that wasn't really what I was getting at. My point was just that overpenetration can be a liability regardless of legality. You have less control of where your bullets end up if they consistently pass entirely through a human attacker, and having diminished control is generally an undesirable thing.

It's really could be lose/lose in a Murphy-esque way... If you carry a lower-end caliber which will go through ~12" of soft tissue before losing all energy, you'll probably hit the sternum and get squat, if you carry something that could punch through that and all the way through a fat guy with little energy after exiting, you'll probably miss all bones, shoot through the guy's arm, and hit a puppy, a kitten, and the vase holding your grandfather's ashes behind him.

Chances are the nit-picking wouldn't be an issue in a self-defense situation. In reality, the only rule we need concern ourselves with in such a time of crisis is the first one:

Have a gun.

 

[hardluk1]

Well ain't you smart tell'n use to protect our hearing now .Where were you when i was 16 running airboats, shooting guns and working on drag car engines. and ride'n harleys with no ear protection till about to late. What,,,, i did not hear you. zzzuuuuuzzzzzz

 

[kanook]

what? speak up I can't hear you. oh sorry that's the phone ringing.

 

[Noboundaries]

Hearing loss is cumulative. Every time you are exposed to unprotected sound levels above 85 decibels you will probably damage your ears if the exposure is long enough. A gas powered lawnmower puts out 95 decibels. A gunshot typically 145-165 decibels.

You may not notice it when younger, but you definitely will as you age. Tinnitus (constant ringing in the ears) is the common indicator. After a decade as a Navy jet pilot and decades of ear-protected shooting, the ringing in my ears is a constant reminder of quieter times to come.

Here's an informational website:

http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm

 

[Rollis R. Karvellis]

Huuuh whaaat, I assume the 20 mike mike falls in to the DUKE NUKEM catagory.

 

[oldFred]

No. Only short barreled guns are, ANY caliber.

 

[dmazur]

Here's a link -

Sound Pressure Levels of various firearms

It looks like there is very little difference, like maybe 5 dB, between rifles and pistols. While the .44 Mag isn't listed, the .41 Mag is, and it is the same SPL as a .30-06 with an 18" barrel.

Based on measured energy, all guns are pretty much equally bad, though you can find some extremes (like African calibers and .500 S&W) which are worse.

The .22 LR is conspicuously absent, and I imagine it isn't as loud. However, as hearing loss is cumulative, I'll bet that shooting a brick of .22 LR without protection could be very similar in effect to shooting 50 rds of .45 ACP...but that's an unsupported guess.

 

[Leadhead]

I wear ear protection all the time shooting and I double up with foamies in the ear and muffs over top for loud guns or loud gun neighbors at the range.....the idea of going to the range and being disturbed by my neighbors loud gun is funny! Sure if buddy is shooting an elephant gun with a brake the sound wave can be harsh but usually those guys don't put to many down range.
A 44 mag at the range is hardly obnoctious..

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Yes, it will *probably* cause permanent hearing loss, and yes, a revolver is louder to the user than a semi, but both can and will damage your hearing if shot indoors without protection.