I keep reading on these forums that many people do not choose to load 357 for home defense due to the loud report of the cartridge.

My question is, is this really the gosh-honest-truth? I know that the decibels would cause hearing loss over enough time, but is 6 shots indoors enough for noticeable hearing loss? (i.e. Would one go from good hearing to tinnitus from one cylinder of 357 indoors?)

That seems a bit extreme to me, but what do I know. Anyone know for sure?

__________________
NRA Life Member

It could. Everyone's ears are different and the .357 runs at very high pressures. That's one of the big advantages of the .44 spl. and .45 ACP I rarely hear mentioned. They offer serious butt-whippage at low pressure.

I won't post details here, but my father lost his hearing in his left ear from one round of .357 magnum.

__________________
Formerly know as Lucky Derby

...depends who is pulling the trigger. I wish I had kept the article, and it was not in a gun rag, but several years ago it was discovered that under stress when the body knows it is about to be subjected to a loud noise the hearing shuts down to protect itself from damage.

This is why many officers and civilians who are in self-defense shootings report only hearing "pop,pop" instead of "BANG" when they had been firing their guns.

Hunters experience the same thing... Go to the range some time and shoot a centerfire rifle with no hearing protection...one round can get you permanent tinnitus...ringing of the ears. But yet jump a deer out in the woods and do a snap shot without hearing protection and all hunters remember hearing was a "pop"...and no ringing afterwards.

Could firing one round of .357 during a confrontation get you permanent hearing loss...maybe...but I would rather take that chance than shooting someone with a .22 or .38 and not have it end the confrontation there and then...

Bob

I don't think the hearing "shuts down" as such.

Stress, and adrenaline may cause less PERCEPTION, of anything other than the threat right in front of you; "tunnel vision" is another example.

As to the shooting range/home, vs. shooting in the field; the field, or tree you are sitting in, doesn't have walls, ceilings, and structures, to reflect, and maximize the blast damage. There is a REAL, not imagined, intensification of the blast indoors.

Ask me how I know.

I have a one hundred decibel hearing loss above 1,000 cycles. Quite profound.

__________________
NRA Instructor

Yes. It is the sound pressure level that causes the damage even though there is auditory exclusion. It may be slight but there will be hair cell damage.

WHAT??

Sound travels like ripples in a pond when you drop a rock in the water. A larger rock results in larger waves. Louder sound (357 @ 140db+) creates more sound pressure. With auditory exclusion the brain does not interpret the result of the pressure wave striking the hair cells violently as sound. But the damage is still occurring. A good example is when hunting, you never notice the shot, but shoot the same gun from the bench and you will.

Nice to hear about someone's direct experience. Makes me consider using 38 but perhaps my short barrel 357 isn't so bad as full house. Which reminds me... Was at indoor range next to guy shooting some insanely loud rifle wrapped in camo. I had new over ear protection and earplugs on at the same time. After 30 minutes I left but my left ear ached for 2 days later! Now that is a loud gun, and next time I am next to one I am immediately moving. Made my 357 sound like a cap gun. Dont know what it was but 'flames' shot out the barrel and it sounded like a cannon going off in my mind. didn't know small arms could be that loud!!

__________________
NRA Life Member

Ever hear the expression"...the hair on the back of my neck stood up."? Under stress, as the body prepares to defend it's self, several things happen. One is the "tightening" of the scalp. A consequence of this is the outer ears are moved partially out of allignment with the internal hearing apparatus providing some limited reduction in the possible damage. This, however, assumes your body has time to tense up. The chances of damage to your hearing is greater if you have an ND while dry fring than in a defensive encounter.

I once was in a unit when a round (9mm) was fired from inside the vehicle. My hearing was no worse afterward than it was before but my ears have rung continuously since I was a kid - way too much target practice without hearing protectors.

__________________
Big bang, much smash'em.

Oh, there are some out there that will knock paint off the walls, just from their sound. Try standing next to some one touching off a .338 Lapua, or even a .300 Winchester, not to mention a .50 BMG or .416 Barret. Even with hearing protection, the concusion can give you, well, a concusion. I have had head aches after being around some one shooting one of them cannons.
Forgive the digression please.

I hate to break it to you, but short barrels intensify the muzzle blast over long barrels. The 2 1/2 inch model 19 was referred to as "the wax gun" during development. It was guaranteed to blow the wax out of your ears.

If your comment refers to loads for short barrel vs standard type loads, don't bet your hearing on it. Find yourself some of those electronic muffs and keep them on the nightstand. That way you can both hear the bad dudes and protect your hearing.

If you ask in the lounge, Bob the Palindrome might chime in. If I recall correctly, he's a medical professional and offered some good insights into the subject last time it was discussed.

Anyway, the gist of the discussion last time someone asked was that while one doesn't perceive the shots, that the damage is still being done.

Fortunately, there's a potential fix. Peltor makes a set of hearing protectors (as do many other companies) that will filter out the sound of gunfire while still allowing one to hear normal conversation and other sounds. I haven't tried them, but Surefire makes "in the ear" models that are small and relatively inexpensive.

I've long regarded this an interesting subject and consider the following articles to be particularly insightful:

http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downl...oundAdvice.doc
http://www.policemag.com/Articles/20...-Decibels.aspx
http://www.mh3tacticalheadset.com/pages/tpoae.html

As flop-shank suggests, the acoustic pressures associated with the .44 Special (15,500psi SAAMI) and the .357 Magnum (35,000psi SAAMI) are 156db and 164db respectively. It might not look like much of a difference but the latter is nearly twice the intensity of the former. More to the point, however, is that even the former is nearly three times the intensity of the generally accepted threshold of hearing damage (140db). One really ought not want to discharge any weapon without ear protection.

On the other hand, who hasn't been caught on the range with their 'ears' off? Certainly the .357 Magnum was the standard service cartridge of most U.S. police departments from the 1960s through the 1980s. That translates to a lot of cops, firing a lot of rounds, indoors, without ear protection. They didn't all suffer permanent hearing effects. There are, it would seem, many pertinent variables. Perhaps too many to fret about considering the alternative (dialing 911).

The nice thing about the .357 Magnum, BugBeard, is that only one shot is generally required.

Excellent idea.

Only one way to know for sure...

__________________
Doug "N Frame Addict"
CO

As WR Moore suggested, SB .357s may be less likely to damage your hearing, but don't bet your hearing on it unless your life is on the line. While SB .357s probably don't run at much lower pressures, if at all, the use of smaller charges of faster powder will probably result in lower pressure when the bullet leaves the bore, thus a quieter (but by no means quiet) report. A 4" barrel would of course yield lower pressure than a shorter one.

One time I touched off a Remington 125 gr. SJHP .357 from my Taurus 605 2 1/4" and I would describe the feeling as being stabbed in each ear at once.

Yeah, I meant a short barrel load, should have been clearer. Will have to consider the electronic muff thing, that is a good idea. Probably simpler just to use 38, but I hesitate to bank on 5 shots of it in my 649. I would feel confident with the FBI load in my 8 shot 327 snub though. Time to swap out the loading...

Edit: Load in my handguns is now:

Speer Gold Dot 135gr short barrel tactical 357 in my 649 carry gun.

Buffalo Bore 158gr lead hollow point (LSWCHPs) 38 +P in my 'house gun' 327 snub. (Yes, I shouldn't have gotten a snub for a house gun, but at least I can carry it fairly easily for an N-frame and it will stash well for various things. (backpacking, etc.))

__________________
NRA Life Member

Possible.

However, you'd have to survive the encounter to worry about hearing loss.

Anyone who chooses a HD weapon based on this criteria has their priorities misplaced.

MOONDAWG
The damage begins in the high frequencies and is progressive. It may or may not reach the speech frequencies for some time but damage is occurring. There are lots of examples including President Reagan and most of the older gun writers and veterans.

But keep shooting w/o protection if you want, IT IS JOB SECURITY FOR SOME OF US.

Since the .357 Magnum wasn't developed until the mid 1930's there's a problem with your comment.

Before the widespread use of hearing protection, ALL firearms users experienced hearing loss. There just wasn't any significant standardized hearing testing going on. Also, since they generally fired a whole lot less rounds, it didn't set in until much later in life-generally after they retired. The hearing loss would then be blamed on old age.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that the tactical benefit of electronic noise cancelling hearing protection muffs outweigh any perceived disadvantages.

You can hear BETTER before you shoot AND PROTECT your hearing from gunfire when you do shoot.

Win-win if you ask me. I'm getting a pair ASAP.

Sir, in a word, no. But it's still not a good idea.

20-ish years ago, I had an ND with a 4-inch .357 and full-power factory loads (Remington 158-grain JHPS, IIRC) about a foot away from my unprotected right ear. I was indoors at the time. I was not deafened, not even temporarily, but my ears rang for a couple days afterward. The ringing in my right ear took longer to go away than my left.

I'm sure that stupid event contributed considerably to the hearing loss I have now.

Anyway, all that being so, I prefer quieter rounds for indoor use, such as .45 ACP.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

That depends as long as that choice doesn't make the homeowner choose an inferior cartridge. Lower pressure could be a tie breaker that might make someone choose .45 ACP over .40 S&W or 9MM, or .44 spl. over .357magnum. I can't fault that reasoning, although that's not what I based my decision on. The .45 and .44 spl. are both very capable cartridges.

It would be a lot less noise than an ar-15 in 223 going off inside

When I was a stupid teenager, I deliberately fired a few rounds of full charge 158 grain .357 Mag indoors without ear protection out of a 4" Security Six. I wanted to know "how loud it would sound."

As I recall, there was some ringing in my ears, but it went away in a few minutes. I was certainly not made immediately deaf, nor was I rendered dazed and disoriented. And yes, it was LOUD.

It is true that nowadays I have some high frequency hearing loss, and that stupid stunt could have contributed to it. But it's also true that I shot lots of .22LR without hearing protectors, listened to loud music, rode loud motorcycles, and generally did bad things to my ears for decades, until I wised up.

In my humble opinion, this is just not something to worry about in a self-defense situation.

If you are really justified in shooting, that's because you are in reasonable fear for your life, not just fear for your hearing. I'm not going to be upset about the outcome if I survive the gunfight but have a bit more hearing loss afterwards.

I certainly would not want to be confronting a 350 pound, drunken bad guy and remembering that I selected my ammunition not for its effectiveness or its controllability, but because I wanted to make sure that my hearing would not be harmed in my last few minutes on earth.

On the other hand, I believe good .38 special +P is plenty effective, so you aren't losing much if you chose that over the louder magnum stuff. But if you belive that the Magnum stuff is much more effective, and the Specials are wimpy, then I don't see why you would reject the Magnums on the basis trying to protect your hearing.

Having said all that, for any kind of shooting that is not an absolute life-or-death emergency, I wear both ear plug and ear muffs--religiously. And if I had to go outside to shoot a feral dog or coyote, I probably would pause to put on hearing protectors or swap the Magnums for some hot Specials.

Many years ago I went from normal hearing to severe tinnitus. All it took was one round from a 357 fired 12" from my unprotected ears. I was at the firing line plinking with my 22 rifle, thus no ear protection. Thinking it would be funny, this joker popped off the 357 next to my left ear. It was probably made worse due to my being forward of the muzzle. In any case after a couple of weeks and the ringing never stopped the joke was on me. My hearing has continued to deteriorate over the years and now without my hearing aides I am nearly stone deaf.

The ultimate irony is knowing that for years my mother lied to me. She always told me I'd go blind. (o;

I load my snubnose and 4 inch 686 both with 110gr jhp Federal .38 rounds,far less recoil and noise.At 5 to 7 feet they are as effective as anything else i have.

First priority in the scenario given is to survive, thus protecting one's hearing is a little further down the list.

Second point: the best .357 magnum performance from a 2.5" barrel is closely comparable (velocity and energy) to performance of the same bullet weights in a 6-inch .38 Special. No getting around it, you just aren't going to achieve maximum performance of any cartridge out of a snubby tube.

Next point to consider is the use of .357 magnum ammunition in a residential area. I was involved in an on-duty shooting situation years ago. Armed robbery suspect was shot with .357 mag. 125-gr. JHP Remington from a 4-inch Model 19 at about 12 yards distance. Bullet passed through the bad guy's shoulder, breaking two bones, exited at a downward angle, ricocheted off a concrete curb, went through a 2X4 porch railing, penetrated the exterior wall of a frame house, went through an interior wall of the house, lodged in a third wall. Total bullet travel was about 35 yards.

The third wall was in a bedroom, about 3 feet from an infant sleeping in a crib. I was so scared that I actually puked, then fell over in it.

I stopped using magnum ammunition anywhere near any human development. My duty loads from that point onward were .38 Special +P 158 gr. SWC-HP (the so-called FBI load), for as long as I was required to carry a revolver.

Even the best, most highly developed defensive ammunition cannot be relied upon to perform perfectly 100% of the time.

My primary home defense weapon? Remington 870 12-gauge pump shotgun, I/C choke, loaded with 2-3/4", 1-1/4 oz. BB shot. I don't believe that the target would be able to tell the difference between that and buckshot at the ranges involved, and I am certain that one interior wall would reduce pellet velocity and energy to very low levels. And the sound of racking the slide might just be enough to avoid a confrontation.

My primary defensive handgun? .45 ACP, 230-grain Black Talons (purchased before I retired, not available to the general public).

My back-up? S&W M-37 Airweight Chief Special, 148-grain hollow-base wadcutter (loaded backward, hollow-base forward) over 3 grains of Bullseye (for about 700 FPS). Hits like a sledgehammer, try one on a gallon milk jug filled with water; you can't make it penetrate all the way through, but the slug will be at least double caliber-diameter when recovered.

The first point made in law enforcement firearms training is that the shooter is completely responsible for the bullet from the time it leaves the muzzle until it comes to rest. Everything that happens in between is on your shoulders forever.

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

My ears have been ringing constantly for over 20 years. I care about what's left of my hearing. To that end, both my wife and I keep amplified/noise cancelling ear protection at our bedside. The advantages have already been identified, namely: one's hearing is enhanced and protected. The question is whether we would have time or feel we have time to reach for hearing protection first and firearm second if we heard the bump in the night. That said, I'm beginning to think the 148gr. 38 wadcutter idea makes a great deal of sense both from the noise reduction and defensive effectiveness standpoint.

I'm rather amazed at the number of folks who've said that shooting indoors without hearing protection won't damage your hearing and then go on to list the hearing damage they've experienced.

Guys, hearing damage is cummulative, progressive and permanent. The only good thing about my current ability to hear is that I have a doctors certification to prove to my wife that I'm NOT ignoring her, I didn't hear her.

I'm not saying not to defend yourself, just plan ahead. I don't go looking for bumps in the night without amplified ears, haven't for decades.

Truer words have never been spoken. May I borrow that phrase to post on the bulliten board for my officers?

__________________
Formerly know as Lucky Derby

Sir, perhaps I misread the original post, but the OP seems to be asking whether firing one cylinder-full of .357s indoors without ear protection will deafen you or take you straight from good hearing to tinnitus in one fell swoop.

Based on my limited experience, the answer to both those questions is "no."

Will it damage your hearing? Yes indeedy, as noted previously.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

I have never tested them, but my understanding is that that Black Talon load is a very deep penetrator and likely to overpenetrate. You may want to research that if you haven't already.

If that is Remington's .357 125 gr. SJHP (R357M1) to which you are referring, it is no more likely to overpenetrate than any other defensive round. The .357 is no more prone to overpenetration than any other cartridge with well designed ammo. When did this happen?

I have fired a 9mm indoors couldn't hear much
of any thing for 30 mins or so and have sustained permanent damage to my hearing in my left ear

Since I have to remember to put on my glasses (which are on top of my night table every night) to function if the SHTF, I can also remember to put on a set of ear muffs just as fast, then grab the pistol.

When I first bought a .357 back in 1983 -- and had only fired a .38 previously -- I took it to an old stone quarry to test it out.

I was completely ignorant about the differences in a .357 and .38 -- and didn't realize the quarry's stone walls would amplify the sound many times over.

I got educated really, really, really quickly -- and part of me still can't believe I was so naive at that point.

I took precaustions against ricochets, but couldn't have ever conceived of how loud the sound would be.

I fired 6 times as rapidly as possible -- and was immediately struck almost stone deaf.

In fact, I was deaf for nearly three weeks -- and terrified that my hearing would never recover.

Finally, after about a month and a half, it inched up bit by bit -- until two really large globs of wax worked out of both ears.

My hearing now is actually a little bit better than average for my age -- with only a tiny bit of high end loss.

However, my ear doctor said I was extremely lucky -- and apparently only the fact that I had a lot of compacted ear wax I didn't know about saved me.

Still, both of my ear drums are perforated -- and it's probably only a matter of time before they tear further.

I understand that ear doctors now have a bonding agent -- almost like super glue -- they can put on the perforation. That's one of my objectives soon -- to find out more about this repair.

I also understand the opening your mouth slightly when you shoot without hearing protection equalizes the pressure somewhat -- and may lessen the damage. Army range instructors used to teach this -- and it might just be an Old Sergeant's Tale.

Also, pretty strong research indicates having adequate magnesium levels in your body -- of all things -- seems to have some protective benefit to hearing against gunfire and other loud, sudden noises. Some 60 percent of us don't have even close to the right amount of magnesium.

I take Shaklee products -- and believe me, I make certain I get plenty of magnesium (which also seems to help prevent heart attacks.)

Nevertheless, even when hunting -- if I possibly can -- I have some form of hearing protection.

I'd never fire a .357 indoors -- ever -- after what I went through -- or a 10mm either.

Ironically, up to the point of my "enlightenment," I'd been highly protective of my hearing -- because my father lost most of his as an anti-aircraft gunner.

"Sir, perhaps I misread the original post, but the OP seems to be asking whether firing one cylinder-full of .357s indoors without ear protection will deafen you or take you straight from good hearing to tinnitus in one fell swoop.

Based on my limited experience, the answer to both those questions is "no.""

Ron, I guess you didn't read my previous post. The answer is a resounding YES! (sorry to yell but I am seriously deaf). It happened to me outside, inside would only be worse. The loss of ones hearing is a handicap I would not wish on my worst enemy. Until you lose it you have no idea how precious normal hearing is. Helen Keller said that the loss of hearing was far worse than the loss of sight. Something to think about. In an emergency, certainly the preservation of life is paramount but preservation of your hearing is a close second.

The many responses and viewpoints, as usual on this forum, are great!

It sounds like the prudent thing to cover all the angles would be to get the amplified protection, assuming one wants to incur the various dimensions of cost inherent in such a scheme.

I may very well do that as I just might be anal retentive enough to actually stash them in various caches about my dwelling. (Or just put a pair by the bedside .)

I've already incurred minor hearing loss and mild tinnitus (it has to be fairly quiet) from listening to music at work for countless hours straight without a break so I am actively being careful about this now.

Thanks again for the input, it is very enlightening.

I will still fire 357 from my 5 shot carry revolver though. I think I will swap out the short barrel ammo and go for a full house 125gr load though. Having only 5 shots makes one really want to make sure that each hit achieves devastating impact.

__________________
NRA Life Member

Sir, I read your post, and my experience (see my original post on page 2 of this thread) differs from yours.

[shrug]

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

You are very welcome, sir.

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

This experience was in 1977, long before I became a great-grandpa!

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

One disadvantage to the electronic is that things sound MUCH closer than they really are. Second (maybe I'm the only goof ball that experiences this) but I have a heck of a time discerning which direction the sound is coming from when I wear the electronic. The peltor ones work well for me, though conversational noise is not amplified I can tell which direction it's coming from.

BTW, If I am able to survive a deadly use of force encounter, I'll deal with the inevitable hearing loss. You WILL loose some of your hearing.

I have been present for 2 indoor AD/ND. Both involed rookie P.O.'s. The first was a female rookie in her laundry room. I was showing her how to decock her 9mm Taurus 92 (no decocker model). She let the hammer slip and off went a 9mm into the window sill. Then she dropped the loaded/cocked gun on the floor and ran out of the room. The second involved a rookie and the locker room clearing barrel. Rack slide, remove mag, spin around and point at clear barrel from 5 feet away, pull trigger and BANG goes a .40 S&W. Did I mention I was walking towards the clearing barrel (smartly placed right next to the door???) and only he missed putting it through my thigh by about my being 1 step away from the door. Anyways, back to the point, in both cases my ears had a ringing for about a week afterwards, but it went away. I would think from personal experience a .357 magnum is MUCH louder.

Unfortunately, hearing injury is probably unavoidable collateral damage to a self defense situation indoors.

It just is -- and it's a "cost of doing business".

Electronics are only as reliable as the circuits and power source.

It's dangerous to worry more about your hearing than your life. Your don't want to reach for your Walker Game Ears before you grab your firearm when the plate glass window shatters in the middle of the night...

(Of course, if you don't take care of your hearing beforehand in the first place, you might not hear the plate glass window shatter in the middle of the night...)

I guess I do favor a .45 indoors -- and opening the mouth slightly does seem to equalize the eardrum pressure -- so that it apparently lessens the impact of the sound wave on the ear drum.

If I knew I were walking into an indoor situation with a clear sight picture, I'd probably go with ear plugs.

Truly -- and think about this -- how reliable is your hearing anyway with multiple gunshots indoors? You might be functionally deaf after the first shot anyway. It's a tricky call, but I'd at least consider ear plugs.

And by that I mean you're looking at this paradox: You might be able to hear such loud sounds as shouting, etc. WITH ear plugs better than you would if your eardrums had just been traumatized by multiple, high-pitched, close-in gun shots.

Ironically and counter-intuitively, I find that I can hear really loud sounds like shouting even with ear plugs in.

However, I appear to be getting significant hearing protection.

Of course, ear plugs no doubt contribute to compacted ear wax.

Given the delicate state of my ear drums, if I had the time -- and had a good line of sight -- I might try ear plugs.

You could be deaf after the first shot indoors otherwise anyway. But, you might need that edge in hearing to prevent being shot by the first shot indoors.

So, it's a tough call.

It probably boils down to doing what the situation calls for.

In an extreme emergency, you probably shouldn't even be worrying about your hearing -- and under such pressure, it might not even cross your mind until the after-action analysis.

Ron H: No offense intended and certainly none taken. I am glad your experience wasn't as severe as mine. Getting back to the original question: It is clear that firing even one round "can", (as in my case), destroy or at least seriously and permanently impair your hearing. It is also clear from your experience that it doesn't necessarily happen to everyone. There are lots of variables at work here. I wish someone ha` alerted me to the possibility, hopefully I would have been smart enough to take the appropriate precautions but who knows.

I love my 357's but fire mostly 38's through them. It is cheaper, more fun and easier on my hands and ears. The right load will get whatever job that is at hand, done. Ironically, if I dial down the input of my hearing aids they act as very effective ear plugs. This can be very convenient as they are in place so long as I am awake.

I fired my 4" Security Six with a hot .357 load outdoors without hearing protection. My right ear hurt and rang for two hours. I can imagine an indoor shot would be worse.
I have fired my Beretta 92 indoors and it wasn't pleasent, but not deafening like the .357.
I would also imagine that in a defensive situation, firing a handgun indoors my not seem as bad when the adrenaline is pumping.

__________________
Memory of Randy Freas-Rimfired

"Was at indoor range next to guy shooting some insanely loud rifle wrapped in camo. I had new over ear protection and earplugs on at the same time. After 30 minutes I left but my left ear ached for 2 days later! Now that is a loud gun, and next time I am next to one I am immediately moving."

I totally understand Bug. Took my wife for her first firearm experience only to have someone show with a Desert Eagle .50 There are only two good things about that weapon indoors. There are only 7 rounds and those seven aren't cheap.

I hope none of us ever have to find out.

fired(lets leave it at that) a 308 in a 12x12 closed room once.....I can still hear.....but my shorts were dirty