seeker_two
New member
.22 Magnum.....unless your .32 revolver is reliable with .32ACP.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
of course not, just like tunnel vision doesn't mean things aren't in front of you either. and I take it that means you choose the .32 Long. thanks."Auditory exclusion" doesn't prevent hearing damage.
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'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.
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."Auditory exclusion" doesn't prevent hearing damage.
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.)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.
"Auditory exclusion" means you didn't hear the shot, not that it didn't damage your hearing.
It's not a conundrum. The mechanics of hearing loss don't change, just because your brain is distracted by other senses.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.
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.
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?