I am trying to factor in sound for choosing a home-defense weapon so I did some sound testing today.

I posted this over on www.silencertests.com

These numbers are at the ear. I placed the buttstock of the weapon against a wooden beam, and put the sound meter to the right of that beam (where the right ear would be). Note that since the buttstock was fixed, the muzzle position would vary depending on the barrel length. So these results are not just the sound output but rather how it would sound to the shooter.

Colt 11.5 inch M16 with M193 ammo: 159.5 dB
DS-ARMS 16 inch with M80 ball ammo: 5.5 dB louder
Winchester Trapper .44 Mag 200 grain GA Deerstopper: 6.9dB quieter
Benelli M1 with Federal Tactical 00 buckshot: 5.6dB quieter
HK P7 Win 127 +P+ at arms length: 4.6dB quieter
HK P7 Win 147 JHP at arms length: 6.8dB quieter
M16 20 inch with M193: 6.5dB quieter
Colt 11.5 with James DeGroat flash enhancer:: 8.9dB louder
Colt 11.5 with NFA XM177 moderator: 4.7 dB quieter
Colt 11.5 with fake XM177: 0.0 dB

Anything over 140 dB will damage hearing.

I am NOT an accoustical engineer though I did stay at a Holiday Inn, once.

The reason, I suspect that you have been underwhelemed with responses is that after action debriefings/post shooting reviews have found that the stresses involved in an actual SHTF situation whith shots fired, the body protects itself by shutting down hearing overpressures (in addition to other adjustments). This is something any one involved in an actual shooting will know and is not concerned with, especially since the solutions are problematic themselves, i.e. to wear special earplugs that may inadvertantly reduce important sounds in the same range, etc.

While your measurements are probably accurate and I am not even questioning that, the physical issues are negated by the human response system.

Good info, though.

Quoted: the body protects itself by shutting down hearing overpressures (in addition to other adjustments). This is something any one involved in an actual shooting will know and is not concerned with, especially since the solutions are problematic themselves, i.e. to wear special earplugs that may inadvertantly reduce important sounds in the same range, etc. ]

+1
Don't worry about the sound.

Just because it doesn't physically hurt your ears at the moment doesn't mean there aren't long term effects. It's a common myth that adrenaline will protect your ears from a gun shot. This is false, the increased blood flow just lessens the immeadiate effects.

Just like a fight when you catch a decent hit to the face. It doesn't hurt when it happens, but what about the next day.

If you have to shoot though, hearing is a lesser issue.

Thanks for the post rsilvers, very informative.

Quoted: Quoted: the body protects itself by shutting down hearing overpressures (in addition to other adjustments). This is something any one involved in an actual shooting will know and is not concerned with, especially since the solutions are problematic themselves, i.e. to wear special earplugs that may inadvertantly reduce important sounds in the same range, etc. ] +1 Don't worry about the sound.

Doesn't noise still damage ear drums during cases of auditory exclusion?

Quoted: Just because it doesn't physically hurt your ears at the moment doesn't mean there aren't long term effects. It's a common myth that adrenaline will protect your ears from a gun shot. This is false, the increased blood flow just lessens the immeadiate effects. Just like a fight when you catch a decent hit to the face. It doesn't hurt when it happens, but what about the next day. If you have to shoot though, hearing is a lesser issue. Thanks for the post rsilvers, very informative.

It may very well have some effect (temporary and/or lasting), but the point is that most test don't reveal any significant damage. The lesson to be learned is to just not get into a bunch of gunfights or it may damage your hearing!

My hearing is already damaged by gunshots and explosions, so I really don't worry about it.  

But I say, "What?" a lot.

Here is a thread where a bunch of guys that were in combat all the time said that they used hearing protection regularly. If someone broke in my house in the middle of the night and I grabbed my AR I would not stop to put in my plugs. I also dont believe I would want hearing protection if I were a cop kicking in a door.

This is exactly why I go to bed with earmuffs on.

WTMF? Auditory exclusion is a PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT. Christ, people. Nothing short of physical blocking can prevent the hairs in your ear canal from being damaged.

Your body does not shut ANYTHING down. You mentally process less, but I assure you that you'll be losing hearing on a PERMANENT basis.

Unfathomable.

Rsilvers, would it be possible for you to do any testing on more "conventional" home defense AR setups, like 16" M4 barrels? The Noveske Krink devices, perhaps? I know there's some interpolatioon to be done here, but I'd be very interested to see what kind of response can be expected, and not many people here have the means to do the research you're conducting.

Well I tested 11.5 and 20. 16 would be between them.

Quoted: WTMF? Auditory exclusion is a PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT. Christ, people. Nothing short of physical blocking can prevent the hairs in your ear canal from being damaged. Your body does not shut ANYTHING down. You mentally process less, but I assure you that you'll be losing hearing on a PERMANENT basis. Unfathomable. Rsilvers, would it be possible for you to do any testing on more "conventional" home defense AR setups, like 16" M4 barrels? The Noveske Krink devices, perhaps? I know there's some interpolatioon to be done here, but I'd be very interested to see what kind of response can be expected, and not many people here have the means to do the research you're conducting.

+1

Quoted: Well I tested 11.5 and 20. 16 would be between them.

Don't know if that's the most scientific answer I've ever heard...  

Just interpolate the numbers and you will be really close.

I really wanted to get some rouch numbers to see if a shotgun and a lever action were a lot quieter.

It was if you measure from the same distance from the muzzle, but if you measure from the ear they are all pretty similar.

You can see the Benelli shotgun was the same as the 9mm handgun and the 20 inch M16 was also the same. I find this really interesting as I expected the shotgun to be a lot quieter.

I am afraid there is no way to reasonable way to save your hearing without a sound suppressor. Subsonic ammo in the pistol did not help as much as I exptected.

I have hearing loss from my days in the navy aboard ship the hun of the 400htz converters and gas turbines.  I always wear hearing protection when shooting and when I go to sleep. And when I was single I always had protection in bed

Quoted: WTMF? Auditory exclusion is a PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT. Christ, people. Nothing short of physical blocking can prevent the hairs in your ear canal from being damaged. Your body does not shut ANYTHING down. You mentally process less, but I assure you that you'll be losing hearing on a PERMANENT basis. Unfathomable. Rsilvers, would it be possible for you to do any testing on more "conventional" home defense AR setups, like 16" M4 barrels? The Noveske Krink devices, perhaps? I know there's some interpolatioon to be done here, but I'd be very interested to see what kind of response can be expected, and not many people here have the means to do the research you're conducting.

+1

I would love to see any "test" that proves this is not the case.

Seydou

Hi rsilvers,
I've been looking for info like this for a while.  I'd really like to see a test between flash suppressor vs no flash suppressor and between different flash suppressors.

Great post!  This has been coming up in a lot of defense threads.  Basically, as I interpret your results there is a difference, but it isn't too significant.

Quoted: Hi rsilvers, I've been looking for info like this for a while.  I'd really like to see a test between flash suppressor vs no flash suppressor and between different flash suppressors.

The difference between flash suppressors is not significant. BUT, muzzle brakes are often much louder. The Armalite 'recoil check' is but one example of an intolerably loud muzzle device. I like calling them 'loudeners.'

Do Infantry or other combat troops wear any hearing protection?

There's a bunch of shit on there....Kick Ass!!!!

Quoted: Quoted: WTMF? Auditory exclusion is a PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT. Christ, people. Nothing short of physical blocking can prevent the hairs in your ear canal from being damaged. Your body does not shut ANYTHING down. You mentally process less, but I assure you that you'll be losing hearing on a PERMANENT basis. Unfathomable. Rsilvers, would it be possible for you to do any testing on more "conventional" home defense AR setups, like 16" M4 barrels? The Noveske Krink devices, perhaps? I know there's some interpolatioon to be done here, but I'd be very interested to see what kind of response can be expected, and not many people here have the means to do the research you're conducting. +1 I would love to see any "test" that proves this is not the case. Seydou

Irrelevent.

The issue here is:

1)  Will the noise of your weapon firing bother you in ahome defense situation? NO (audotry exclusion)

2)  Will the noise cause any long-term damage?  NO, we aren't talking regular days at the range, or a combat scenario with explosions and gunfire  everywhere.  We are talking one or two shots in most cases.  If one or two isolated 150 dB blasts was enough to damage your hearing substantially, we would live in a world of deaf people.

WTF? Auditory exclusion is a PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT. Christ, people. Nothing short of physical blocking can prevent the hairs in your ear canal from being damaged. Your body does not shut ANYTHING down. You mentally process less, but I assure you that you'll be losing hearing on a PERMANENT basis. Unfathomable.

It's like an urban legend that won't die.  even after miles of threads of testimonies of soldiers with hearing loss and MD's telling people the consequences.

Quoted: 2)  Will the noise cause any long-term damage?  NO, we aren't talking regular days at the range, or a combat scenario with explosions and gunfire  everywhere.  We are talking one or two shots in most cases.  If one or two isolated 150 dB blasts was enough to damage your hearing substantially, we would live in a world of deaf people.

(A) It's more like 160 dB (10x the power).  

(B) Yes, it does cause long-term damage:

Hearing loss from sustained exposure to intermittent or continuous noise should be differentiated from acoustic trauma. Acoustic trauma is due to one-time brief exposures followed by immediate permanent hearing loss. The sound stimuli generally exceed 140 dB and are often sustained for less than 0.2 seconds. Acoustic trauma appears to have its pathophysiologic basis in mechanical tearing of membranes and physical disruption of cell walls with mixing of perilymph and endolymph. Damage from impulse noise appears to be a direct mechanical disruption of inner ear tissues because their elastic limit was exceeded. At high energies, acoustic trauma can result in disruption of the tympanic membrane and ossicular injury

Quoted: WTMF? Auditory exclusion is a PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT. Christ, people. Nothing short of physical blocking can prevent the hairs in your ear canal from being damaged. Your body does not shut ANYTHING down. You mentally process less, but I assure you that you'll be losing hearing on a PERMANENT basis. Unfathomable. Rsilvers, would it be possible for you to do any testing on more "conventional" home defense AR setups, like 16" M4 barrels? The Noveske Krink devices, perhaps? I know there's some interpolatioon to be done here, but I'd be very interested to see what kind of response can be expected, and not many people here have the means to do the research you're conducting.

And while we are at it, you should also consider adding an  air scrubber to your home HVAC cuz we would'ne want to breathe in any of that lead.... in case of a shooting at home.

Choosing a weapon for defense based upon sound is simply dumb.

Quoted: Quoted: 2)  Will the noise cause any long-term damage?  NO, we aren't talking regular days at the range, or a combat scenario with explosions and gunfire  everywhere.  We are talking one or two shots in most cases.  If one or two isolated 150 dB blasts was enough to damage your hearing substantially, we would live in a world of deaf people. (A) It's more like 160 dB (10x the power).   (B) Yes, it does cause long-term damage: Hearing loss from sustained exposure to intermittent or continuous noise should be differentiated from acoustic trauma. Acoustic trauma is due to one-time brief exposures followed by immediate permanent hearing loss. The sound stimuli generally exceed 140 dB and are often sustained for less than 0.2 seconds. Acoustic trauma appears to have its pathophysiologic basis in mechanical tearing of membranes and physical disruption of cell walls with mixing of perilymph and endolymph. Damage from impulse noise appears to be a direct mechanical disruption of inner ear tissues because their elastic limit was exceeded. At high energies, acoustic trauma can result in disruption of the tympanic membrane and ossicular injury

Welcome to the board.

Quting things you do not fully understand proves nothing.

Now, if you can find ONE documented case of a peson with such permanent hearing loss from ONE situation involving only small arms (and the one THEY were using), I owe you a case of ammo.

Quoted: Now, if you can find ONE documented case of a peson with such permanent hearing loss from ONE situation involving only small arms (and the one THEY were using), I owe you a case of ammo.

 (not total permanent loss, but permanent damage and tinnitus)

Also realize that firing a weapon indoors is significantly louder than outdoors.  To the point where one shot can be so loud as to be distorienting (how do you think a flashbang works), in addition to the temporary loss of hearing and some degree (even if slight) of permanent damage.

Legal restrictions on sound suppressors for firearms consitutes a threat to individual and public health IMHO.

Quoted: Quoted: Now, if you can find ONE documented case of a peson with such permanent hearing loss from ONE situation involving only small arms (and the one THEY were using), I owe you a case of ammo. hatsignificantly louder than outdoors.  To the point where one shot can be so loud as to be distorienting (how do you think a flashbang works), in addition to the temporary loss of hearing and some degree (even if slight) of permanent damage. Legal restrictions on sound suppressors for firearms consitutes a threat to individual and public health IMHO.

Technically, they are not "louder" (i.e. the peak Sound Pressure Level is the same as firing outdoors), but the damage is certainly more because the reflected sound is still over 140 dB and spans a much longer time, i.e. the total energy deposited is higher.

Gamma762, would you like to split the case of ammo Adam_White is going to send me?

Quoted: Quoted: Now, if you can find ONE documented case of a peson with such permanent hearing loss from ONE situation involving only small arms (and the one THEY were using), I owe you a case of ammo.  (not total permanent loss, but permanent damage and tinnitus) Also realize that firing a weapon indoors is significantly louder than outdoors.  To the point where one shot can be so loud as to be distorienting (how do you think a flashbang works), in addition to the temporary loss of hearing and some degree (even if slight) of permanent damage. Legal restrictions on sound suppressors for firearms consitutes a threat to individual and public health IMHO.

I think the more interesting question is; will using a 9mm or Shotgun save your hearing while an M4 will leave you woosy and deaf?  From what I have seen when I looked into it the answer is no.

I had my ears off when a 9mm was discharged indoors in the next lane.  Not pleasant.  It hurt.  My ears rang which means they were likely damaged.

Although a shotgun is the same Db's as an AR,  the AR obviously has a very different report.  It seems to me that it would be more damaging.  Do we have  any audiologists that can comment on this?

Quoted: Choosing a weapon for defense based upon sound is simply dumb.

He did not say that.  Look at his original post.  He said he was going to factor in sound in his choice.  There is nothing wrong with that.  

Folks should read the entire article on acoustic trauma http://www.emedicine.com/ent/topic723.htm.

At the end, it infers those that spend too much time at the range can expect damage.   How so?  150dB - 30dB atten. = 120 dB.    It also says that acoustic trauma from loud impulse sound can cause permanent damage.  

When I get my light saber perfected, the M4 goes back in the closet.

Quoted: Quoted: Choosing a weapon for defense based upon sound is simply dumb. He did not say that.  Look at his original post.  He said he was going to factor in sound in his choice.  There is nothing wrong with that.   Folks should read the entire article on acoustic trama http://www.emedicine.com/ent/topic723.htm. At the end, it infers those that spend too much time at the range can expect damage.   How so?  150dB - 30dB atten. = 120 dB.    It also says that acoustic trama from loud impulse sound can cause permanent damage.   When I get my light saber perfected, the M4 goes back in the closet.

It also says that the acoustic trauma they refer to is most often the result of explosions.  Tell me, in a country such as ours where shooting ranges are so common, why do they not see more cases of such damage from them?  Surely, there are more Americans routinely exposed to gunfire indoors than explosions.

If it truly concerns you, though, you might want to try a sword or spear.

Quoted: Quoted: Choosing a weapon for defense based upon sound is simply dumb. He did not say that.  Look at his original post.

Yeah, sure....

I am trying to factor in sound for choosing a home-defense weapon so I did some sound testing today.

and

Some sound testing -- to help save your ears in defensive use of a gun:

Pardon the pun, but it sure sounds like sound was a big factor.

I'll make my choices based upon terminal ballistics, weapon size, handling and function, you use the air rifle. Thanks.

Impaired sensitivity is impaired sensitivity. No amount of "auditory exclusion" can give you back the hearing you lose from a blast going off. Did I read that someone was trying to seriously differentiate between gunblasts and explosions? What the hell do you principally think the discharge of a firearm is? Your ear does not care about the source of trauma inflicted upon it; energy is energy.

There are guys at my range with hearing loss from single incidents. ColonelKlink from our boards here has permanent hearing damage in one ear, from someone letting off a 1911 nearby. Single event. Hearing trauma is real, and anyone trying to object to its very occurrence is fighting physics.

People fight to protect themselves from bodily harm. Why would you needlessly and willingly inflict damage upon yourself in the process? The incontrovertible hearing attenuation you receive while firing guns will hurt your ability to effectively fight. Less-disruptive weapons will provide you with an edge in the fight. You'd be insane not to take the advantage.

Note that a 1db change is significant as a 1 db change indicates a big change in sound levels. Perhaps just as important is the SPL and PPL.
Reference link: www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm

Impulse noise (read gun fire) is more destructive to hearing. Basically the ear, exposed to a constant noise is capable of adapting to lessesn ill effects of the sound. However human psyiology comes into play and the ear is less adaptable to lessinging impulse sounds. Therefore, when exposed to sucessive/repeating shots the effect is very detrimental to your hearing. The CDC study actually recommends "doubling up" when successive impulses are expected.
Reference link (This site has tons of information on hearing and if you searh will have infoamtion on the ears ability to adapt to continuos noise, but less effect for impulse)
www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Damage-Risk_Criteria.html

CDC information
Another area of HPD research involves understanding the extent to which they protect against impulsive noise. Impulsive noise is known to be more damaging than continuous noise,[15] and the protection afforded by HPDs at high sound pressure levels is not well-known. The EPA’s regulation on labeling states that HPDs may not be effective for noise levels above peak sound pressures of 140 dB.1 OSHA regulations state that workers should not be exposed to peak levels above 140 dB.[16] However, law enforcement and military personnel and workers in the construction and mining sectors often experience impulsive noise exposures above this level. At high sound pressure levels, sound propagation becomes nonlinear not only in air, but also in the material properties of the HPDs themselves. The HLR program developed capabilities to better evaluate the performance of HPDs in the presence of impulse noise. HLR program scientists measured HPD attenuation for gunshot noise stimuli and demonstrated that some earplugs may be protective for only one impulse while others could be protective for 100 rounds fired. Although damage risk criteria are the topic of considerable debate, NIOSH recommends double protection for situations where a worker expects to be exposed to impulses above 140 dB.6 (see Research Goal 2.3)

Reference Link:
www.cdc.gov/niosh/nas/hlr/wdpd_stragGoal2.html

I think there is sufficient studies that exposure to gunfire has a negative effect on hearing. In fact there is an entire offering of products and training that recommend the use of hearing protection.

Too much subjective talk about hearing loss here. Some say loss almost referrring to being deaf from ONE firing incident, while others say some form of permananet damage (tone loss etc) Unless auditory test were done prior to and after any incident with an agreement on how hearing loss is defined and measured becomes a mute point. e.g. "signifcant loss" is too subjective - what is significant to one person may not be to another. Loss would need to be defined with specific and measureable (quantifiable) parameters.

Be safe and protect your hearing

Quoted: Now, if you can find ONE documented case of a peson with such permanent hearing loss from ONE situation involving only small arms (and the one THEY were using), I owe you a case of ammo.

Shall I submit my annual auditory test reports along with the report documenting the 22LR discharged about 1 ft from my left ear?  Clearly documented loss of hearing over several frequencies.  Also, recurrent tinnitus.

Then there was the ND with my 1911 where I was not wearing plugs or muffs.  To this date I can recall the very muffled voice of the RO behind me: "What The F*** Did You Just Do, S_I_R?  (He had to add that SIR bit ...)

The annual physical reports speak volumes ...

On that heart rate chart ... must be something wrong with me.  Resting BPM is 35-40 and I have operated at sustained (5 minutes +) in the 190-204 range ... no bleeding, lack of bowel control, etc, just profuse sweating.  But it does state it was for HORMONAL induced heart rate which this was not (no adrenalin dump involved)

But back to Mr Silvers post.  I would be interest to see the effect of a KFH.  And I too am surprised that the subsonic ammo did not make more of a difference, at the range it surely seems to...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now, if you can find ONE documented case of a peson with such permanent hearing loss from ONE situation involving only small arms (and the one THEY were using), I owe you a case of ammo.  (not total permanent loss, but permanent damage and tinnitus) Also realize that firing a weapon indoors is significantly louder than outdoors.  To the point where one shot can be so loud as to be distorienting (how do you think a flashbang works), in addition to the temporary loss of hearing and some degree (even if slight) of permanent damage. Legal restrictions on sound suppressors for firearms consitutes a threat to individual and public health IMHO. Technically, they are not "louder" (i.e. the peak Sound Pressure Level is the same as firing outdoors), but the damage is certainly more because the reflected sound is still over 140 dB and spans a much longer time, i.e. the total energy deposited is higher. Gamma762, would you like to split the case of ammo Adam_White is going to send me?

www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm[]www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm]www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm[

This article adresses the differences in use of a rifle with and without a BOSS syetem (essentially a muzzle break). The gentleman noticed that db did not pan out. He knoew his data required more calibration and testing, which he explains. Eventually he used PPL (peak pressure level) to measure this from a distance.  Also note that testing equipment has a reaction time of about 125 milliseconds, whereas the the sound impulse from gunfire takes about 30-50 milliseconds. The reason for pointing this out is that the equipment may be under reporting souds from gunfire due to a slower reaction time than the blast from gunfire.

Quoted: Although a shotgun is the same Db's as an AR,  the AR obviously has a very different report.  It seems to me that it would be more damaging.  Do we have  any audiologists that can comment on this?

Maybe this will help with your question:
www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm[]www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm]www.elcaudio.com/decibel.htm[

I think this is all for nothing, because who gives a crap about your hearing if your momentary purpose is protecting you and your family's lives?

I wouldn't stop pulling the trigger until it went click if someone was invading my house:  earmuffs or not.

[Lebowski] I'll take it away from you and stick it up your ass, and pull the fucking trigger til it goes 'click' [/Lebowski]

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/10-pin-bowlevard/The%20Big%20Lebowski/Quintana/Qintana7.jpg

Quoted: I think this is all for nothing, because who gives a crap about your hearing if your momentary purpose is protecting you and your family's lives? I wouldn't stop pulling the trigger until it went click if someone was invading my house:  earmuffs or not. [Lebowski] I'll take it away from you and stick it up your ass, and pull the fucking trigger til it goes 'click' [/Lebowski] perso.wanadoo.fr/10-pin-bowlevard/The%20Big%20Lebowski/Quintana/Qintana7.jpg

Actually, of far greater concern to me, is that when someone is in my house and needs to be thoroughly convinced that it is time to depart (this world), I would be more concerned about damage to the hearing of my kids and Mrs.  From that perspective, the least amount of noise at the shooter (as my loved ones will be behind me as I am providing cover) is of importance to me.  I still like the sig line I've seen around here that someone put as reason for owning a can was "So I won't wake the kids when I shoot an intruder.".

Quoted: Doesn't noise still damage ear drums during cases of auditory exclusion?

No, it is not the eardrum that is the concern here.  Hearing loss occurs due to damage to the specialized cells within the cochlea (the organ responsible for hearing) after loud noise exposure. This results in sensorineural hearing loss (ie the cochlea itself becomes damaged) and damage is cumulative over time.

You could theoretically rupture your eardrum if you had a CQB 10" M16 go off with the muzzle directly next to your ear.

I was involved in a shooting during a robbery indoors, I fired 4 shots out of a Glock 27 .40 caliber, and didn't hear a thing. My ears weren't ringing or anything. I wouldn't really worry about how loud it is when choosing a defensive weapon.

Quoted: WTMF? Auditory exclusion is a PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT. Christ, people. Nothing short of physical blocking can prevent the hairs in your ear canal from being damaged. Your body does not shut ANYTHING down. You mentally process less, but I assure you that you'll be losing hearing on a PERMANENT basis. Unfathomable.

There's no reason to be such a jerk.

There's alot of variables involved with noise. Wall configurations, coverings, position of the person in relation to wall angles, etc.

Speaking from experience, you will more than likely have a ruptured ear drum and blood seeping out--it wasn't noticed until afterwards though. Good thing though- wasn't permanent for me!
Mark

Quoted: Impaired sensitivity is impaired sensitivity. No amount of "auditory exclusion" can give you back the hearing you lose from a blast going off. Did I read that someone was trying to seriously differentiate between gunblasts and explosions? What the hell do you principally think the discharge of a firearm is? Your ear does not care about the source of trauma inflicted upon it; energy is energy.

To compare small arms fire to a high order detonation or even a much larger pressure-based explosion is ludicrous.  I have never felt a blast wave coming from a gun I have fired.

There are guys at my range with hearing loss from single incidents. ColonelKlink from our boards here has permanent hearing damage in one ear, from someone letting off a 1911 nearby. Single event. Hearing trauma is real, and anyone trying to object to its very occurrence is fighting physics.

Please not emy caveat - he did not fire the gun.  The pressure can indeed get excessive to others.  You only have to be up near a muzzle break to feel the difference.  Unless you are worrying about the hearing of the intruder, though, this is irrelevent to the discussion, as the original poster is referring to HIS choice of gun and HIS hearing.

People fight to protect themselves from bodily harm. Why would you needlessly and willingly inflict damage upon yourself in the process? The incontrovertible hearing attenuation you receive while firing guns will hurt your ability to effectively fight. Less-disruptive weapons will provide you with an edge in the fight. You'd be insane not to take the advantage.

But it won't - auditory exclusion is well documented.  You can fight very effectively.  Since the only reason you should be discharging a firearm is in defense of yours or anothers life, the volume should be the last thing you are worried about.  It's all about priorites.

I am not advocating routine range practice wothout protecting your hearing - I am talking about actual defensive use of your weapon.  If there is a real threat, hearing protection should be the last of your worries.  I wouldn't say remove it if you already have it in, but I would say get your wepon in to play and defuse the situation as rapidly as possible, worry about the chance of hearing loss later.  We are talking about LIVES here.

What good would choosing a 20" AR over an 11.5" AR do if you have a legit requirement for the shorter weapon?  Dead men don't hear shit.

Quoted: I was involved in a shooting during a robbery indoors, I fired 4 shots out of a Glock 27 .40 caliber, and didn't hear a thing. My ears weren't ringing or anything. I wouldn't really worry about how loud it is when choosing a defensive weapon.

Any permanent hearing loss attributed to the incident?  Enquiring minds want to know.

Thank you for your input.

Yes, as your pulse and adrenaline go up, you exclude those sounds. It does not protect you from damage though.

You also would not hear the recipient surrendering or instructions from an officer or partner. That is one reason (of many) why silencers are good.