.357 fired inside?

[egor20]

saxrulez

Thank you for your information on this forum and to the Service of this Country

BMCS (SW/DV) ret.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by saxrulez: With all of that said, given 2 options of:
a) shoot bad guy in house with .357
b) shoot bad guy in house with .38

I'll pick A every time.

Not I, not even if the sound pressure were the same. Not ever.

Why?

First of all, the advantage of the .357 over the .38 special is the additional penetration. IBecause of the additional penetration, it can do a lot better for hunting medium game, or for penetrating plate glass, or for shooting through an automobile body. Civilians do not have to do the second and third things. Not only that, the .38 Special penetrates perfectly adequately for shooting a human, even obliquely through an arm or shoulder.

And that is what it takes to stop an assailant. Many people have the idea that all the fuss and commotion when the gun goes off somehow translate into effectiveness in stopping a human assailant. Forget "energy transfer" and "shock"--they do not mean anything in terms of handgun wounding, according to the FBI. What matters is what the bullet hits in terms of bones, nerves, tendons, and so forth.

Also according to the FBI, the "one shot stop" is an anomaly. Unless you just happen to destroy the CNS, the attacker will not be damaged sufficiently to stop him. He may still get to you after a fatal shot to the heart.

So, for a reliable and sufficiently quick shot, you are going to have to shoot and hit more than once, very quickly. Think "tap-tap'". And you may have to shoot and hit again instantly, before you are shot, slashed, or stabbed. It is difficult to impossible to do that with a handgun that has very much recoil.

That alone would be enough to cause me to choose a .38 or a 9MM over a .357 Magnum for home defense.

The fact that all that wonderful penetration becomes a disadvantage in home defense would further tilt the scale.

And the sound pressure wave would veto the selection.

 

[OldMarksman]

[Posted by Webleymkv:] The problem is that almost all centerfire handguns can and will cause some degree of permanent hearing damage if fired without hearing protection. If you fire any handgun, regardless if it's a .38 Spl (156.3 dB) or a .357 Mag (164.3 dB), you will suffer permanent hearing damage as all of them are over the 85-90 dB threshold for permanent hearing damage as well as the 140 dB threshold for pain and impulse-noise damage.

Well, sure, all of them will cause damage, but they are not all the same. The .357 Magnum creates several times more dynamic pressure than the .38 Special.

[From the link below:] Krammer adds that sound pressure levels for the various pistols and ammunition tested yielded an average mean of 157.5 dB, which is greater than those previously shown for shotgun and rifle noise levels. There was also a greater range, from 152.4dB to 164.5dB, representing 12 dB difference, or more than 10 time as much acoustic energy for the top end of the pistol spectrum.

A general rule of thumb is that the noise level of one gunshot will cause roughly the same amount of hearing damage as working in a noisy factory for 40 hours.

That's for a a .357 Magnum.

[From the link below:] According to Dr. William Clark, Ph.D. senior research scientist in charge of the NOISE LABORATORY at the Central Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis, the damage caused by one shot from a .357 magnum pistol, which can expose a shooter to 165 dB for 2msec, is equivalent to over 40 hours in a noisy workplace.

Exacerbating the problem severely is the fact that when a gun is fired indoors, the sound pressure remains dangerously high for a longer interval, because the pressure wave is reflected again and again until the energy dissipates rather than propogating away from the shooter.

http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

 

[WANT A LCR 22LR]

On the subject of not " hearing ' gun shots in a high stress situation. Auditory exclusion in no way protects your hearing. The microphone ( your ears ) is ignored by your brain during a high stress situation. However , the microphone will still be damaged by loud sounds.

After the first shot, the microphone is temporarily out of order and unable to process the incoming sounds.

 

[JohnKSa]

First of all, the advantage of the .357 over the .38 special is the additional penetration.

That depends HEAVILY on the type of ammunition. The old standard, the 125gr JHP in .357Mag was known for surprisingly shallow penetration due to the tendency of the bullet to fragment. It's true that with a properly constructed bullet the .357Mag has the potential to penetrate more than the .38sp, but it's certainly not true across the board that the .357Mag will penetrate more than the .38sp.

or for penetrating plate glass, or for shooting through an automobile body. Civilians do not have to do the second and third things.

Civilians do not OFTEN need to do the second and third things but that's not the same thing as saying they never do.

Auditory exclusion in no way protects your hearing.

Correct.

 

[RWK]

Saxrulez . . .

First -- and most important -- I sincerely thank you for your service.

I hope you will at least consider a respectful opinion from a fellow combat veteran, concerning the moderate-to-severe hearing loss and enduring tinnitus that impedes my everyday life in my mid-sixties. After over two decades of frequent small arms (sometimes, not too "small") and jet engine noise exposure, my retirement physical (like MANY of my peers) noted serious hearing loss/disability (especially in the higher frequency ranges). It is obvious that in combat one does EVERYTHING required to protect his brothers-in-arms and himself . . . if, years later, you have some resulting, minor disabilities, well IT IS YEARS LATER.

With this said, I wish I had always exercised the care I currently do; for example, I often did not use acoustical protection when I was going to be on the flight-line for only a brief period, even though I had muffs and plugs readily available. Some of my hearing loss could not have been avoided -- it was simply part of the environment in which I worked -- but some of it probably could have been prevented with minimum inconvenience. I wish now that I had made the effort to do so.

 

[pax]

Auditory exclusion in no way protects your hearing.

Second of all, the OP's point was that you "could not hear" if you fired a .357 indoors. However, multiple accounts from multiple survivors shows that people can and do hear other sounds, both during and after the event -- but it's quirky and individual, a very specific-to-you sort of reaction. Dr. Artwohl's research shows that 8 out of 10 officers experienced auditory exclusion, reporting that the gunshots themselves were either not heard or sounded muffled. In the same survey, 16% of the respondents indicated that they experienced intensified hearing of other sounds (not gunshots) during the critical event. Some of the respondents experienced both reactions: didn't hear the gunshot, but did hear the tinkle of falling brass, for example.

Here's an event from Grossman's book that illustrates a "typical" case of auditory exclusion. Note the calibers in play:

My partner and I were pursuing a stolen vehicle. The suspect was driving erratically, stopping only when the vehicle spun out of control and crashed into a ditch. My partner had the shotgun and I had my semi-auto drawn as we cautiously approached. When a bullet exploded out one of the windows, I opened fire.

I faintly heard one round go off, then nothing. I could feel the recoil of my own gun so I knew I was firing but I didn't hear the shotgun and I was afraid my partner had been shot. When it was all over, it turns out I had fired nine rounds and my partner, who was five feet away, had fired four shotgun rounds. The suspect also got off two more rounds before we killed him. Neither of us was injured.

I had no idea how many rounds we had fired until I was told later. To this day, I still have no memory of hearing any gunfire except that first round.

Here's another one from a bit later in the same book. Grossman is quoting a retired US Army colonel.

I was wounded in Vietnam by an RPG. It hit no more than three to five yards from me. I saw the fireball but did not feel the concussion. Nor did I hear the sound. My ears had closed automatically. My ears became functional again immediately. I lay under the front of a jeep and I thought another RPG was coming. However, I was hearing the air coming out of all four tires! The concussion should have burst my eardrums but did not. We should thank God for building these automatica shut downs into our bodies.

So auditory exclusion appears to happen across caliber platforms, with everything from handguns to rifles and shotguns and even explosive ordnance. It isn't based on the caliber that you're shooting (some of these accounts come from people standing right next to full power 12 gauge shotguns, for crying out loud!), but it is based on a multitude of other factors, including how much stress there was in the moments leading up to the shooting.

But first -- and this is surprisingly critical -- there is some evidence now that the auditory shut down is a physical phenomena as well as a mental one. That is, there's evidence that the auditory exclusion has multiple causes, and that one of those causes is a physical shift in your ability to hear loud noises during high-stress events.

From Dave Grossman's book On Combat:

... there is definitely a mental, cognitive component to this. The brain is screening out awareness of what it deems insignificant to the goal, and the goal is survival. But if your ears don't ring after shots are fired, that would indicate that there might also be a physical shutdown of some kind in the inner ear. Reports from the audiology research community indicate that the ear can physically, mechanically shut out loud sounds, just as the eyelid can shut out bright lights. It would appear that this biomechanical shutdown in the ear can occur in response to sudden, loud noises.

Grossman goes on to detail three different types of auditory "blink" that one might experience under stress.

My own speculation would point out that in cases where the respondent reports hearing nothing of the gunfire, not even a muffled "pop," that would probably be a memory distortion or a mental filtering. But in cases where the respondent does hear the gunfire but experiences it as being muffled or faint, without ears ringing after the event is over, that type of response makes absolutely no sense as a mental filtering -- but makes plenty of sense as a physical phenomena. If your brain is filtering the unimportant input, or altering your memory of the event, it would make much more sense that noises would get screened it out entirely, not simply muffled. If you remember the shots at all, even muffled, that's taking up both concentration and memory stream, after all! But that's my own speculation and I don't know how an ethical researcher would induce the type of life-threatening stress that apparently elicits the physical reaction.

Bottom line for me? Choose the caliber you think best able to get the job done, and don't worry too much about a factor that's proven to be a non-factor for others over the years. There are soooo many other factors to take into consideration -- including the importance of immediate survival! -- that this one simply has to be placed at the very bottom of the pile.

pax

 

[spacecoast]

Choose the caliber you think best able to get the job done, and don't worry too much about a factor that's proven to be a non-factor for others over the years.

(emphasis added)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding... Nothing of the sort is proven, on the contrary, there is a large body of evidence both anecdotally on this thread and many others, as well as warnings from hearing experts, that certain gun/ammo choices are much worse than others and do result in hearing loss that is annoying at best and debilitating at worst. I'm happy for those whose ears have proven to be relatively resilient, through genetic, hormonal or other factors, but why put your ears to the test?

While any gunfire can be damaging, given the opportunity to prepare and not being forced to grab the closest compatible gun/ammo combination (when forethought after all is a large part of responsible gun ownership and CC), in my opinion opting for the most hearing-damage inducing combination is a poor choice when there are others that are equally effective. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just making sure that both sides are heard.

 

[shortwave]

+1 to RWK's post.

Thank You for your services saxrulez, but with respect you probably recv'd some hearing loss with those blasts. Continual blasts like that and your hearing down the road will be severely hampered.

As I get older, I find that if I would have had some sense I would have taken much better care of alot of things when I was younger. Today, getting out of bed sometimes can be a chore. IMO, your ears are no different. When your young and experience noise loud enough to make your ears ring or temporarily cause hearing loss, you've done damage.

I work in a high decibal noise enviroment and we have our hearing tested yearly. Along with a 'sermon' by a doctor instructing us on what damages hearing. This has been a company practice for at least the last ten years.

According to what I've learned from these 'sermons' and tests, most hearing loss is caused by repetitive noise above the decibal safe range of our ears. Unless a noise is so loud it causes total deafness at a young age, if we don't take care of our ears by wearing hearing protection around loud noise's, we will experience hearing loss when we get older. To what extent and how rapid the hearing lose will occur depends on how loud, sharp, how repetitive the noise and the condition of our ears at the time of noise.

One thing I learned a few years ago was that if you've got an ear ache and your ear is full of fluid there's existing pressure on the ear drum. Add the added pressure of an extremely loud,sharp noise and you have a better chance of rupturing the eardrum.

Like RWK, when I was young I never took care of my hearing and would sometimes shoot all day long without hearing protection. Also was not made to wear the same as a child traveling to shoots with my dad.

Ask my wife or family if my hearing has been affected. Also my yearly hearing tests don't look well either. The damage I've done to my ears to date is irrepairable so I do everything in my power today to stop further damage.

 

[saxrulez]

I'm 100% with you guys. I guess the point of my original post is I wouldn't base my caliber choice on a tiny bit of hearing loss from a VERY likely to never even happen scenario.

I've taken hearing tests before and after those deployments and I did have some degree of high frequency hearing loss, but not at all life altering.

All that said and done, I'm no longer in the infantry. I don't have to worry about the surprise hearing loss situations anymore. It was just never anything close to practical to wear hearing protection 24/7 while walking for miles in 120+ degrees.

I now live the cush life of an army aviator

 

[JohnKSa]

But first -- and this is surprisingly critical -- there is some evidence now that the auditory shut down is a physical phenomena as well as a mental one.

Auditory exclusion is a mental phenomenon. HOWEVER, there is evidence of a physical defense mechanism, distinct from auditory exclusion, that sometimes seems to protect the ears. It doesn't appear to be any use at all against a single gunshot if the person isn't expecting trouble and its effectiveness varies from person to person.

http://www.neurophys.wisc.edu/h&b/textbook/mid_ear.html

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.​

I suspect that in some persons these muscles contract not just in response to loud noises but also when loud noises are expected.

 

[The_Shootist]

Indooors

My one and only ND occurred indoors with my G19 ( 9mm passed thru my bed which was heavily layered up with comforter etc and buried itself 1/4 " into the concrete under my rug).

My ears rang for hours - sounded like quite the blast. Sure wouldn't want to experience a .357 without hearing protection indoors.

Did leave me with an abiding respect for the 9mm tho.

 

[jimbob86]

I had a ND back in 1980 sumthin'....

..... a .22lr from an Erma Excam in my basement......

..... the 2nd loudest sound in the world is a "boom!" when you expected a "click". Ears rang and I could not hear my mom yelling at me......

Yet last weekend I was shooting deer with an 18" barreled 8mm Mauser .... didn't seem to harm my hearing at all..... but I was expecting a "Boom!", and was not suprised at all.......

 

[zombieslayer]

A .357 indoors with no hearing protection is deafening. I had a friend ND his snub 3 feet away in a living room years ago, and I think it may have been the beginning of my hearing loss.

 

[markj]

Base it off of shootability, recoil, follow up shots, accuracy, stopping power, etc.

Yes, that is true, is why I like a 12 ga. for in house SD.

 

[shortwave]

+1 on the shotgun for HD.

 

[Bart Noir]

I now live the cush life of an army aviator

I'll set aside my envy and address the hearing issue

I'm guessing that you are talking about those turbine powered fling-wing contraptions that we call helicopters.

That turbine noise in itself can cause damage, right? Might take longer, but there is a lot of high-pitched whining going on. (Like my office coworkers....) So keep that headset on at all times and fly safe.

Bart Noir

 

[mashaffer]

This is a very interesting subject and very relevant to me given my passion for music. A quick look at that charts seems to indicate that the .45 long colt might be the stopping power/noise level bargin.

Seriously though I have noticed that Black Powder rounds going off don't seem to hurt (physical pain) as much as the high pitched crack of smokeless. Has anyone ever seen SPL and or spectrum analysis of similar loadings in BP and smokeless? Would be an interesting study for the scientifically inclined.

mike

 

[bedbugbilly]

You mean that you guys are actually allowed by your wives to shoot your firearms in the house? Man . . . you must be married to some awfully fine women!

I've never had the experience of shooting ANY gun in a house in regards to noise nor at night, in regards to "flash" - so have found the posts interesting. I've often wondered about the "flash" effect and at some point, will test it out with my 9mm and my 38 spl. utilizing different ammo.

Saxrulez - thanks for your terrific input and comments - and for your service. Your remarks reminded me of an old college friend. He was a small wiry fellow and had just come home from Nam and star college several weeks after. In between classes, we often visited over coffee and once in a while he would share some of his experiences with me. He rarely spoke of them to others. He related the story of how he was "appointed" his platoon's "tunnel rat" since he was a smaller guy. The first time they sent him down into a tunnel, he was armed with a 1911A1 .45 and a flashlight. He said that after crawling through a maze of tunnels, all of a sudden he came face to face with a VC. He said his first thought was to pull the trigger and take him out, which he did. Unfortunately, he said he gave no thought to the noise of the discharge nor the muzzle flash and he related how he spent quite a while laying in the same spot trying to get his hearing and vision back. After that, he said that he still carried the 45 but that it was tucked in his waist and that he probably could not have retrieved it if he had to while in the tunnels. He evidently just felt better having it if he came out in to a room. Instead, he said he carried the flashlight and a K-bar which he had to use several times. I had great admiration for this man as he was not a "braggart" - he'd done the job that was asked of him and all he wanted to do was get back to the "world" and move on and get a college degree so he could teach. Later on, I found out that he had a Purple Heart and two Bronze Stars. He realized his dream of becoming a teacher but unfortunately his career was cut short when a number of years later he passed away from cancer - attributed to Agent Orange. I think about him often as he was one of those guys that just left an impression on you and he had so much to offer others. Your comments triggered those memories for me - different war and a different generation - same story though in regards to the price that is paid. Again, thank you for yoru service.

 

[shortwave]

You mean you guys are allowed by your wives to shoot firearms inside your house...

I've shot several times from the kitchen,bedroom and livingroom windows. She doesn't get mad till one of the casing plugs the vacuum up. She does draw the line when it comes to shooting black powder inside the house though. Kinda hampers seeing for a sec. unless the exhaust fan is on.