357 mag Ear Killer
- Thread starter Doc Holliday 1950
- Start date
There are at least 2 local cops who were forced into early medical retirement due to hearing loss from firing 357 mag revolvers in the line of duty. They were no longer able to hear well enough on the radio to continue to do their jobs.
No situation is exactly alike, in both of these cases the officers were in a struggle with a suspect and the gun had to be fired from an unorthodox position closer to their heads than normal. One was fired inside a vehicle.
Would another caliber have mattered? Who knows. But there is no doubt that a 357 mag is louder than most other common handguns.
Hearing loss is funny and the effects hit people differently. Some "appear" to not be affected from the noise, at least for a while. Others can be exposed to a single shot and have measurable hearing loss.
No situation is exactly alike, in both of these cases the officers were in a struggle with a suspect and the gun had to be fired from an unorthodox position closer to their heads than normal. One was fired inside a vehicle.
Would another caliber have mattered? Who knows. But there is no doubt that a 357 mag is louder than most other common handguns.
Hearing loss is funny and the effects hit people differently. Some "appear" to not be affected from the noise, at least for a while. Others can be exposed to a single shot and have measurable hearing loss.
Deaf Smith
New member
Medic... it all started with Prohibition in the 1930s. When the mob moved in to supply the booze for America (the booze most people wanted but do-gooders said they could not have) lawlessness reigned. Well the mob favored tommy guns, silencers, switch blades, and such. Lots of shootouts.
So the 'progressives' decided they were bad bad bad... And thus the National Firearms Act (NFA) enacted on June 26, 1934, came in to being.
It is still the law of the land. Stupid, but it's the law of the land.
Deaf
For years I believed that the .357 Magnum round was the end-all-be-all of handgun rounds, and 50 years later I still believe that. With two exceptions all of my revolvers are chambered in the .357 Magnum caliber. That being said all of my ready revolvers are loaded with Hot 38 special +P ammo. I'm not overly worried about recoil affecting any follow up shots, but I am worried about having an errant round penetrate one of the common walls. No need to take out a neighbor unless there is good reason
With the improvements in bullet design and powder/primer combos a quality 38 special round is all that is needed in most cases. Unless you are shooting through barricades into or at a fleeing auto, or trying to stop a charging wild animal most of us don't need the power of a real .357 Magnum round.
For what it's worth, on two different occasions I was forced to fire my .357 Magnum, revolver, L.o.D. both times I fired two rounds, for a total of four rounds fired, by myself.
Even though this was years ago, I still have a very clear memory of the events. And one thing I clearly remember was, I did not feel any recoil or hear the shots fired. The only way I knew I had fired rounds was the sheet of flame coming from the barrel, and that sucker must have been two feet long.
Last but not least, at 67 years old shooting .357 Magnum ammo out of my K frames, much less my J frame is no longer fun. I see no reason to abuse myself or my revolvers. Now shooting flamethrower ammo out of my N frames, from time to time, is still a hoot.
With the improvements in bullet design and powder/primer combos a quality 38 special round is all that is needed in most cases. Unless you are shooting through barricades into or at a fleeing auto, or trying to stop a charging wild animal most of us don't need the power of a real .357 Magnum round.
For what it's worth, on two different occasions I was forced to fire my .357 Magnum, revolver, L.o.D. both times I fired two rounds, for a total of four rounds fired, by myself.
Even though this was years ago, I still have a very clear memory of the events. And one thing I clearly remember was, I did not feel any recoil or hear the shots fired. The only way I knew I had fired rounds was the sheet of flame coming from the barrel, and that sucker must have been two feet long.
Last but not least, at 67 years old shooting .357 Magnum ammo out of my K frames, much less my J frame is no longer fun. I see no reason to abuse myself or my revolvers. Now shooting flamethrower ammo out of my N frames, from time to time, is still a hoot.
It deafened me.
A few seconds after the shot, someone tried to talk to me and I couldn't hear them well enough to understand them. It was as if they were talking to me from a long distance and speaking underwater.
I have had a significant amount of noticeable hearing loss since that time.
Some people appear to be more resistant to the effects of loud noises, but apparently I'm not one of them.
22-rimfire
New member
What exactly does your WHAT mean?
Thanks Deaf Smith for the relevant history lesson as to why such strict laws apply to suppressors. [emoji106] I must also agree with old bear that in the heat of the moment and adrenaline pumping, you won't even notice the recoil or loudness of the bang. Plus what affects you will affect the perpetrator as well
38+P isn't nearly as loud as 357 Mag.
I once accidentally discharged a 357 Mag round through my 6" Colt Python at the range without hearing protection. It was a worse case scenario: Remington 125g JHP (hot round) and the stall had wooden walls on each side of me - sending the shock wave straight back into my ears.
That was 1984. My hears have been ringing ever since.
I was also stupid enough to fire a few dozen rounds outdoors (not a closed-in range environment - but still) through that same 357 Mag, and a 44 Mag. I can tell you that a 357 Magnum - for whatever reason - is louder than a 44 Mag. The 357 Mag seems to cover all the sound frequencies and is quite literally, deafening.
For home defense, I would like to have a 357 Mag - it's the gun(s) I have the most confidence in shooting; and the most confidence in terminal effectiveness.
But . . .
the extremely loud report from a 357 Mag is a show stopper for me for home defense. Because of the loudness of the magnum, I choose the gun I am second-most comfortable shooting: My 1911 45 ACP. Although still loud, the 45 ACP has a much lower pitch and isn't nearly as devastating on the ears. For me, that's a fair trade-off. So yes, sound report is definitely a factor for me in choosing home protection.
I once accidentally discharged a 357 Mag round through my 6" Colt Python at the range without hearing protection. It was a worse case scenario: Remington 125g JHP (hot round) and the stall had wooden walls on each side of me - sending the shock wave straight back into my ears.
That was 1984. My hears have been ringing ever since.
I was also stupid enough to fire a few dozen rounds outdoors (not a closed-in range environment - but still) through that same 357 Mag, and a 44 Mag. I can tell you that a 357 Magnum - for whatever reason - is louder than a 44 Mag. The 357 Mag seems to cover all the sound frequencies and is quite literally, deafening.
For home defense, I would like to have a 357 Mag - it's the gun(s) I have the most confidence in shooting; and the most confidence in terminal effectiveness.
But . . .
the extremely loud report from a 357 Mag is a show stopper for me for home defense. Because of the loudness of the magnum, I choose the gun I am second-most comfortable shooting: My 1911 45 ACP. Although still loud, the 45 ACP has a much lower pitch and isn't nearly as devastating on the ears. For me, that's a fair trade-off. So yes, sound report is definitely a factor for me in choosing home protection.
leadcounsel
Moderator
GIs are issued hearing protection, and still end up with hearing problems from firing weapons (and being around a lot of noise, often).
Firing weapons without earpro is stupid. Sure, you may need to in an emergency. But try to mitigate that with a pair of earpro next to your handgun on the nightstand. Takes a moment to put on. Can save you decades of hearing problems.
Firing weapons without earpro is stupid. Sure, you may need to in an emergency. But try to mitigate that with a pair of earpro next to your handgun on the nightstand. Takes a moment to put on. Can save you decades of hearing problems.
2damnold4this
New member
Yep. I'm one of the stupid ones that is paying the price for that stupidity. I went to the stand with a .44 magnum and realized that I left my earpro in the truck. I thought to myself that I probably wouldn't see anything so it wouldn't be worth the walk back to the truck. When the dark racked eight pointer came sneaking through the pines, I shot it. When it tried to get back up, I shot it five more times. My ears still ring from a poor decision. I can understand why a person might shoot a loud firearm in defense of life or property but hunting is rarely an emergency. Use earpro.
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
Leadcouncil,
I'm I correct that using what you suggested using EarPro actually works?
Doc
I'm I correct that using what you suggested using EarPro actually works?
Doc
leadcounsel
Moderator
???
No idea what you're trying to ask. If you're asking whether ear pro works, I'd suggest that I'm no doctor but I have tinnitus from lots of military time around guns, planes, helicopters (extremely loud), grenades, you name it. I wore ear pro when possible, which was most of the time. But these things are loud. Small cumulative damage is done, even wearing double ear pro at times.
In life/death situations, clearly your hearing is secondary. But in my home, I tend to keep ear pro handy and like with my plate carrier, if I have time I'll don it. If not, it's secondary.
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
I was asking, Do EarPro
Plugs protect your hearing when firing
as good as the standard
Ear Muffs that I use at
the Range does?
Doc
Plugs protect your hearing when firing
as good as the standard
Ear Muffs that I use at
the Range does?
Doc
Last edited:
2damnold4this
New member
Hearing protection certainly works. There are various electronic muffs that will do a good job protecting your hearing and allow you to hear what is going on in the woods, the range, or in a home defense situation. You may not have time to put them on in a defensive situation but I recommend them at the range, in the woods and if you can get them on in a defensive situation, so much the better.
In an indoor range, doubling up on hearing protection by using plugs and muffs when shooting something loud like a .357 can be a good idea.
In an indoor range, doubling up on hearing protection by using plugs and muffs when shooting something loud like a .357 can be a good idea.
Model12Win
Moderator
One of the reasons why I stopped using a .357 magnum for home defense, and switched to some good .38 special +Ps. I might well soon replace that with a .45 ACP as well.
Cosmodragoon
New member
This is true for a lot of things when it comes to health, especially cumulative things. How many of us know that one skinny person who eats like a pig or that tough old guy who smokes like a chimney? All of us have different bodies and different circumstances. There are also a bunch of acoustic variables that come into play if we need to fire without hearing protection. The point is that you won't know until you do, cumulative contributions can be hard to gauge, and you probably won't get back all of what you lose.
So risk mitigation isn't a bad idea. Hearing protection is easy at the range. Complications aside, suppression is good at home or on the range. In a situation where you need to use your CCW, you're not likely to have either. So quieter rounds are a stand-out choice. I think noise should be as much of a factor as size, weight, capacity, and power as we select a carry gun for our individual circumstances and expected needs. Personally, I like .38 special around town and .357 in the woods.