.22 mag vs. .32 Long, all else equal....

FrankenMauser said:
I'd be fine with either.
But, my preference over the last few years is to preserve my hearing as much as possible. As such, the .32 S&W Long has an edge over the possibly more damaging .22 WMR - particularly in a confined space.
Click to expand...
Having shot both .22 Mag and .32 Long in the cramped indoor shooting range, this is a big factor to consider. There is a lot of blast with .22 Mag and pretty frequently when I shoot it, I get a lot of gas and particles hitting me in the face and it's very unpleasant. I've not had that issue with .32 Long.

I only have three .22 Mag revolvers that also have a .22 LR cylinder and two are dedicated outdoors guns and the other is an NAA mini that I got specifically because I felt that swapping the .22 Mag cylinder for a loaded .22 LR cylinder is a faster, less gimmicky reload than the Sidewinder and Ranger. Shooting that .22 Mag tho indoors can't be fun and I've been thinking about just getting a .22 LR only model with the 1 inch barrel. Would probably end up being an inch shorter in length and fit a lot easier in the pocket.
 
Bill DeShivs said:
"Auditory exclusion" doesn't prevent hearing damage.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ with you. In post # 11 I cited an article whereas several police officers and military personnel mentioned case after case where they had experienced auditory exclusion. There is no scientific data to back it up as personnel that measure it would have to do so at the moment of occurrence. That I'm afraid is highly unlikely to happen.

I was in a very stressful situation once where I experienced it along with tunnel vision.
 
how many home self defense incidents do you project you having to participate in? I'm just trying to figure out how many rounds you project having to fire in your home without ear protection and no adrenalin dump that creates auditory exclusion.
Click to expand...
How many times are you willing to suffer permanent hearing damage before wondering if you could have done something different? (Even though it is now far too late.)

Or, from a smarter perspective:
If you are preparing yourself for the possibility of being in a situation that may cause permanent hearing damage, why not also prepare in a manner that may reduce the damage? (There WILL be damage. There is no avoiding that. But the level of damage can be affected by cartridge and firearm choice.)


There also seems to be a group here that doesn't understand how hearing damage occurs. I believe you should spend some time reading up on the subject. There's a big difference between mechanical/physical damage to auditory receptors, and the perception (or exclusion) of sound on neurological and psychological levels.
 
"Auditory exclusion" means you didn't hear the shot, not that it didn't damage your hearing.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the conundrum. Is there any such evidence of hearing damage after a stress related exposure to a loud noise such as a gunshot? I've searched and cannot find any...nor did I find any follow up hearing tests on LEO's or military personnel after such incidents. The only evidence that I can garner is the testimony of the individuals stating that they cannot recall hearing a gunshot even though they did report a muzzle flash. It appears that it is an argument that cannot be settled decisively by either side.
 
Meet in the middle, at .27?

Therein lies the conundrum. Is there any such evidence of hearing damage after a stress related exposure to a loud noise such as a gunshot? I've searched and cannot find any...nor did I find any follow up hearing tests on LEO's or military personnel after such incidents. The only evidence that I can garner is the testimony of the individuals stating that they cannot recall hearing a gunshot even though they did report a muzzle flash. It appears that it is an argument that cannot be settled decisively by either side.
Click to expand...
It's not a conundrum. The mechanics of hearing loss don't change, just because your brain is distracted by other senses.

Read up on hearing damage.
Understand the mechanics.
Ignore the retards on the internet that think auditory exclusion actually protects a person from hearing damage.
(I was going to suggest doing some searches, but there are just as many FALSE articles out there, written by uneducated idiots, as there are factual articles or papers. ...Pretty troubled water for someone that doesn't understand hearing loss, to begin with.)
 
32 not even close BUT in a modern gun designed from the ground up for it and not just adding a sixth shot to a J frame. Like the old break tops that make a J frame look fat. I don’t care for the “but you NEED” six shots over five argument. If it was about quantity alone there are autos that win that point.
 
Auditory exclusion has to do with your brain triaging information you are aware of. The mechanics of sound on your ear drums do not cease to exist just because you are not consciously aware of the sound. Our brains are remarkably good at not causing us sensory overload. Want proof? Your nose is in your peripheral vision and you are seldom consciously aware of it
 
I don’t care for the “but you NEED” six shots over five argument. If it was about quantity alone there are autos that win that point.
Click to expand...

And if quantity doesn't matter that much in a gunfight, why do you need five rounds? Using that logic, wouldn't four do as well? Or save some weight and space by toting a two-shot derringer?

Of course quantity matters in a gunfight and, in some cases, the number of bullets you have at your disposal might well determine whether or not you survive a shoot-out but no one is arguing that it's about "quantity alone." Everyone has to decide how much it matters for their own selves in practical terms; given their own set of circumstances and their own individually perceived needs.
 
And if quantity doesn't matter that much in a gunfight, why do you need five rounds? Using that logic, wouldn't four do as well? Or save some weight and space by toting a two-shot derringer?
Click to expand...

I guess I am more curious to the argument that says five is not enough, you NEED 6, but taking steps to get 7 (or 10) is not worth it.
 
In a rimfire the extra shots could be a benefit in case of misfire. My S&W 351C holds 7 rounds. I think that I will look up some gel test results on the 32 Long and the 22 mag and compare penetration. I would go for penetration in the smaller calibers at least to the FBI standards.
 
I have not had a lot of misfires with high quality rimfire ammunition that I can recall recently. Sure some of the bricks of cheap ammo but its cheapest bidder. I know the technical reason that rimfire is less reliable but is this really a major concern with modern manufacturing methods?

I mean if my ammo is so unreliable I need extra shots its time to think that through. I don't think it is though.
 
.22 WMR is extremely reliable, as long as you're not buying bargain basement ammo (or Winchester Dynapoints).

If your life is worth so little that you're okay defending it with unreliable bargain ammo, then, by all means, complain about reliability.
Otherwise, buy quality ammo and don't worry about it.


Even then...
I have some 20 year-old Filipino .22 WMR here that I trust more than the common brands of new production USA-made 9mm, or nearly any box of Federal or Remington rifle ammo. I'd trust my life to this "old" imported rimfire before some of the bargain boxes of .32 S&W Long.

It's your life. Defend it accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top