Should personal protection ammo be subsonic?

ATW -

Understood, and a good point, but I have felt nothing like the same ear-splitting crack when shooting next to others shooting 45s and even .44 mags. Maybe the .357 in a snubnose is a particularly bad combination for ear damage.
 
Spacecoast, we are talking about the 'crack' that occurs due to passing the sound barrier, not the concussive effect of muzzle blast. Not the same critter.
Click to expand...

OK, I get that. Still, is it prudent to consider a heavier, lower velocity weapon/cartridge combination if you think you may need to use it indoors? Or is the muzzle blast what does the damage and not the supersonic crack? (See my previous post on .45 vs. .357).
 
Understood, and a good point, but I have felt nothing like the same ear-splitting crack when shooting next to others shooting 45s and even .44 mags. Maybe the .357 in a snubnose is a particularly bad combination for ear damage.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Though in all fairness, the blast is usually far worse for those standing next to the shooter than it is for the actual shooter behind the gun. Probably 90% of .357 loads I've shot have been quite enjoyable to shoot (The other 10% are a bit like having a grenade go off at arms length).
 
I guess if t is an issue to a person to the point where they may hesitate to shoot when needed, then they need something not quite as loud. They are all loud when indoors, but some are worse to be sure. As for myself, I use what I think will be the most effective in doing it's job without worrying about my hearing. I am more concerned with the life and limb of my family than that. For me it is not even a concern.
 
You're kidding right?

If the major concern is hearing loss while practicing; muffs and plugs.
If major concern is "when the day comes" a Suppressor on a 45acp

http://www.gem-tech.com/pistol.html I have several suppressed weapons. In the event that I have to use a firearm indoors I want the noise and flash. Hopefully, the BG will be more disoriented as me. Occasionally, I will practice indoors with no hearing protection (minimal rounds). I do this so I know what to expect.
 
You're kidding right? pt II

When my kids were young and living at home they did know what to expect as does my spouse. It is vital that a person know what to expect. Especially if you contemplate a shotgun or HP rifle. Don't wait until TSHTF. It's also important to practice in low light and confined areas. One of my co-workers (I'm not LEO) decided to carry a 2 1/2" 357mag. The week after he received it we went to our company's "fun house" for a night shoot. Spectacles, no muffs or plugs ( 24 rds total ). He fired his first 2 rounds and he was done!! My partner had 18yrs experience in this type of work. I quote "JC what was I thinking? You interested in buying this thing? I'm going back to my High Power".

I DO NOT ADVOCATE SHOOTING ON REGULAR BASIS WITHOUT HEARING PROTECTION!!!! I do advocate "Train Like You Fight, Fight Like You Train"

"I've never heard of a battle won by marching in formation" R. Prutsman
 
JohnKSa, you made a bold, broad statement there. Can you back it up with some brands and ballistics? I shoot Corbon DPX (sonic), and would like ballistic performance equal to that round.
Click to expand...
Most standard pressure .45ACP toward the heavy end of the bullet spectrum is definitely subsonic. Not many people argue that it's ineffective. I didn't say or even imply that you can get effective subsonic loadings in every caliber, only that "There are subsonic rounds out there that are accepted to be very effective."
I've heard of lot's of people being inside a car when shots were fired. Don't recall, off hand, anyone being deaf afterwards, though one could easily imagine permanent hearing damage with some loss.
Click to expand...
Interesting comments by Walt Rauch in his column "Defensive Tactics" in the Dec09/Jan10 issue of Handguns.

"I've fired from inside vehicles both with windows open and closed. Trust me on this; you do not want to shoot from inside a vehicle, particularly if the windows are closed. A .22 is noisy, but touching off a high-velocity handgun round can stun you into immobility."​

I don't have Mr. Rauch's credentials, but I can tell you from the experience of shooting a single handgun round indoors (not even inside a car) that a single round without hearing protection can definitely lead to hearing damage. It's only going to get worse in an enclosed area.

I'm not arguing that a person should select their ammunition based on it's sonic characteristics, but I am definitely stating based on personal experience that firing even just one round without hearing protection can result in noticeable and permanent hearing loss.
I DO NOT ADVOCATE SHOOTING ON REGULAR BASIS WITHOUT HEARING PROTECTION!!!! I do advocate "Train Like You Fight, Fight Like You Train"
Click to expand...
Shooting without hearing protection to be able to say you "fight like you train" (even occasionally--even ONCE) qualifies as carryng the principle past what is reasonable.

This SHOULD be one of those situations where a person can examine the scientific evidence, listen to the experiences of others and make informed decisions without harming themselves by intentionally shooting without hearing protection to see what it's like.

As one person put it, it's not necessary to actually eat an egg to be able to tell whether it's rotten or not. ;)
 
JohnKSa said:
I don't have Mr. Rauch's credentials, but I can tell you from the experience of shooting a single handgun round indoors (not even inside a car) that a single round without hearing protection can definitely lead to hearing damage. It's only going to get worse in an enclosed area.
Click to expand...

When I was about 18 I was in a truck when someone shot a 12ga out the window. The muzzle was not even inside the truck and it was the most God-awful, indescribable, painful noise I've ever experienced. It literally HURT. Bad, bad thing right there. Never again have I intentionally been around gun fire without protection. I'm only 34 and my hearing has paid the price already.
 
"The supersonic crack from something as small as a handgun projectile is not a significant thing. " If you are suggesting that the supersonic crack from a rifle round is insignificant, I say you have never pulled targets at a highpower match. When you are in the pits, the rounds are going over your head, maybe 6 feet away - and if you value your hearing you will protect your ears. You hear the CRACK as the bullet passes overhead; the thump as it impacts the earth berm, then the BOOM from the rifle itself (600 yards up-range).


I intentionally keep a 45 acp handy in the house, because I would rather hear that than a 357sig with no hearing protection.
 
Dave P said:
I intentionally keep a 45 acp handy in the house, because I would rather hear that than a 357sig with no hearing protection.
Click to expand...

That's a distinction without a difference in terms of hearing damage.

It's like saying that you only want to do quite a bit of damage instead of a lot of damage.

You yourself say that the crack of a rifle round passing overhead is loud enough to require protection but can still believe that there is a meaningful difference between the damage caused by a 45acp and a 357sig?
 
I could very well be wrong, but *any* loud sound in an enclosed space is going to be much more harmful than outdoors. That doesn't necessarily mean it's from a round breaking the sound barrier.

Dave P mentioned working high-powered rifle shoots 600-yards up-range and hearing a CRACK as the round passed overhead. I'm willing to take him at his word and accept that a rifle round in that scenario will create that effect.

It would then stand to reason that, since a rifle round is by virtually the same order of magnitude as a pistol round smaller than, say, a fighter jet (which we would all agree creates a very loud "sonic boom"), a similar effect would be created.

That's enough for me to accept the notion that sub-sonic rounds would be beneficial for potential use in enclosed spaces with the obvious trade-offs.

Thanks for the info people and to the OP for asking a very good question.
 
Last edited:
Thanks ... to the OP for asking a very good question.
Click to expand...

You're welcome :) While I understand that any gunfire sound is likely to damage or at least hurt without ear protection, especially indoors, it seems to me that omitting the possibility of a sonic boom from the indoor equation would be prudent as long as a suitable weapon and ammo are available, i.e. a 158 gr. .38 +P LSWCHP at 900 fps or a 230 gr. .45 auto JHP at 850 fps.

Thanks to all for an interesting and balanced discussion.
 
Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but I did find this excellent post about noise levels -

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200072

.380 157.7 dB.
9mm 159.8 dB.
.38 Spl 156.3 dB.
.357 Magnum 164.3 dB.
.45 ACP 157.0 dB.

Note that .45 ACP is among the ear-friendliest of the bunch, with little more than 50% as much sound pressure as (presumably supersonic) 9mm and less than 25% of the sound pressure of (definitely supersonic) .357 magnum.
 
Unless you're using a suppressor, it doesn't really make much difference. Even a .22 Long Rifle is loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage, as certainly are all handgun calibers that are acceptable for self-defense. Pick whatever the most effective loading for your chosen caliber is, be it supersonic or subsonic, and accept the fact that if you fire it without hearing protection you'll likely suffer some hearing damage.
 
Lets get some real data and not conjecture.

bulnoise.GIF


So technically the subsonic is better if you don't have to contend with muzzle blast..

However when you have muzzle blast as well, the sonic crack becomes insignificant. A Snub .357 meters at about 165 dB. That means the muzzle blast is over 200 TIMES LOUDER than the bullet flight noise. Using subsonic ammo to reduce hearing damage in an unsuppressed weapon is like trying to argue if it is better to get hit by a car going 200 mph or 199 mph. It really makes no difference and arguing otherwise is nothing but mental masturbation.
 
A Snub .357 meters at about 165 dB.
Click to expand...

Crosshair -

Thanks for the interesting chart. Given that a .38 or a .45 is 7-8 dB quieter than a .357 snub, you would then advocate the use of either of those rather than the worst-case .357, correct?

Also, do you think the muzzle blast is equally severe at all points of the compass relative to the weapon, or would it be reduced behind the weapon? What about the sonic boom?
 
Something I'm curious about: does anyone know of studies comparing the noise levels between comparable revolvers and pistols? I'm wondering if the gap between the cylinder and forcing cone in a revolver makes a difference in the noise level reaching the shooter. For example, is a 4" .45ACP revolver louder than a commander-length 1911?
 
45 ACP louder than 45 Colt according to this.

Gunfire Noise Level Reference Chart

Below we have listed critical data describing peak sound pressure levels produced by firearms used in shooting and hunting sports. A serious byproduct of this exposure is sensory-neural hearing loss, which cannot be restored to normal. With the introduction of MUZZLE BRAKES and PORTING, the risks of hearing loss dramatically increase. Use this chart as a reference guide for promoting the need of using adequate hearing protection.

Notations
Keep in mind that conversational speech is approximately 60-65 dB, and the threshold of pain is considered to be 140 dB. 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. Dr. Krammer, Ph.D., Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana has documented the following pressure levels.

Table 1. SHOTGUN NOISE DATA (DECIBEL AVERAGES)

.410 Bore 28" barrel 150dB
26" barrel 150.25dB
18" barrel 156.30dB
20 Gauge 28" barrel 152.50dB
22" barrel 154.75dB
12 Gauge 28" barrel 151.50dB
26" barrel 156.10dB
18" barrel 161.50dB

Dr. Krammer continues to say that shotgun noise averaged slightly more that 150dB. This is approximately 14dB beyond the threshold of pain, and more than sufficient to cause sudden hearing loss with complications.

Table 2. CENTERFIRE RIFLE DATA

.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18" barrel 155.5dB
.243 in 22" barrel 155.9dB
.30-30 in 20" barrel 156.0dB
7mm Magnum in 20" barrel 157.5dB
.308 in 24" barrel 156.2dB
.30-06 in 24" barrel 158.5dB
.30-06 in 18 _" barrel 163.2dB
.375 18" barrel with muzzle brake 170 dB

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. It should be noticed that this figure of 164.5 dB approaches the practical limit of impulse noise measurement capability inherent in most modern sound level meters.

Table 3. CENTERFIRE PISTOL DATA

.25 ACP 155.0 dB
.32 LONG 152.4 dB
.32 ACP 153.5 dB
.380 157.7 dB
9mm 159.8 dB
.38 S&W 153.5 dB
.38 Spl 156.3 dB
.357 Magnum 164.3 dB
.41 Magnum 163.2 dB
.44 Spl 155.9 dB
.45 ACP 157.0 dB
.45 COLT 154.7 dB

The above averages are for all types of ammunition used in these firearms, and should be considered fairly representative. No wonder we hear numerous reports about hearing loss as a result of firearms including acoustic traumas that take hearing completely as a result of one shot. Imagine what the noise levels must be when we incorporate muzzle brakes or porting into firearms, or have a gun explode near the ear due to malfunction.

OUR WARNING IS SIMPLE AND IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF EACH SHOOTER. AS THE SOUND PRESSURES INCREASE, SO DOES THE RISK OF PERMANENT HEARING LOSS. IF YOU INCORPORATE A PROCEDURE INTO YOUR SHOOTING THAT INCREASES THE SOUND LEVEL, YOU ALSO INCREASE THE RISK OF HEARING LOSS TO YOURSELF AND POSSIBLY THOSE WHO STAND NEAR YOU. BE SURE TO USE ADEQUATE EAR PROTECTION WHEN USING A FIREARM AND BE CAREFUL OF THOSE NEARBY. LAWSUITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR GUNFIRE NOISE THAT HAS RESULTED IN HEARING LOSS. ALWAYS CONSULT A PROFESSIONAL AUDIOLOGIST, OTOLOGIST, OR OTOLARYNGOLOGIST WITH YOUR HEARING PROBLEMS. Hearing loss is not fun and can be prevented.

Compliments of http://www.earinc.com/

Based on my personal experience there is a huge difference between outdoors and indoors, size of the room, where you/others are at in relation to the muzzle, etc.

Not noticing/being aware of the noise does not prevent the damage either. Stress/auditory exclusion can't be counted on to protect your hearing. One shot could damage your hearing for life, or not. One person might be able to get away w emptying a mag indoors w no/little damage, and another may be going "eh" the rest of their life after one shot.

Damage can be cumulative too. Not using enough hearing protection for a long time can damage your hearing as much as none one time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top