Suppressed SBR for home/property defense??

[mildot]

One of the things that is sometimes overlooked is that, with the suppressor attached you know if the bad guy is shooting at you. I know it sounds simple but for entry teams this can be a benefit. It may not quite fit for the "home defense" mode, but nonetheless a worthwhile advantage. Just my $0.02.

[Robb Jensen]

Audio exclusion is a physiological phenomenon. Odds are, in a high-stress situation (such as confronting and shooting a potentially lethal threat in your home) it will occur and no permanent hearing damage will result. Anything can happen, of course.

IIRC the sound is still reaching your ears and still doing the damage to your eardrums. The brain is ignoring the input from the ears during the adrenaline dump (fight or flight).

[Jay Cunningham]

IIRC the sound is still reaching your ears and still doing the damage to your eardrums. The brain is ignoring the input from the ears during the adrenaline dump (fight or flight).

The latest, most complete research on this subject indicates that your statement is not accurate. The body literally protects its ears in this situation. Amazing, but it seems to be true. Check Grossman's On Combat - section two, chapter one.

[the1911fan]

The latest, most complete research on this subject indicates that your statement is not accurate. The body literally protects its ears in this situation. Amazing, but it seems to be true. Check Grossman's On Combat - section two, chapter one.

Did Grossman cite the testing sample? and where was it done? and which medical journal cited? Are they testing people prior to a gunfight and then after?

Link to a study on recreational gunfire/ hearing loss using proper scientific methodology: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

Is this type of study following proper scientific methodology available for combat gunfire and hearing loss?

Some info on people that have very recently been exposed to stressful loud gunfire:

• Perhaps a fourth – and probably more – of troops who have served in Iraq since March 2003 have returned with hearing loss from gunfire, bomb blasts or other noise.

• Exact figures on how many troops have suffered hearing damage in Iraq or Afghanistan don't exist, in part because the Army failed until recently to give most troops hearing tests at both the beginning and end of their service, a 2005 study by the independent Institute of Medicine found. And as the American Journal of Audiology recently noted, Army Reserve and Guard members may be "underrepresented" in Army medical evaluations because "they are more likely to seek care through civilian providers."

• Despite the evidence of rapidly rising hearing damage, the Army plans to cut the number of uniformed audiologists in its ranks from 36 to a projected 19. The Army had 70 uniformed audiologists in 1991, before a post-Cold War reduction in the Army's overall size.

• The bill to taxpayers for disability payments for hearing damage to all veterans – already roughly $1 billion annually – is likely to soar in future years as increasing numbers of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan realize the extent of their hearing loss.

"As they're coming back, they're just starting to come into our system," said Lucille Beck, director of audiology and speech pathology for the Veterans Affairs Department.

Hearing loss, she said, is often "a gradual decline. You're the last one to know, because you don't know what you're missing. You think that everyone else is mumbling."

[d90king]

Because of my kids I have not figured out a way to secure an AR in a way that allows quick access to the weapon. I think it would be a great home defense weapon, I just cant get around my safety concerns with my children.

A suppressed shorty seems ideal in my eyes...

[C4IGrant]

Audio exclusion is a physiological phenomenon. Odds are, in a high-stress situation (such as confronting and shooting a potentially lethal threat in your home) it will occur and no permanent hearing damage will result. Anything can happen, of course.

I could say yes to this IF it was a 16" AR, but not a 10.5 SBR. I think you will lose your hearing.

I am most familiar with my Glock 19's because I carry them every single day. I shoot my Glock 19's the most - unsure if I can compare my pistol shooting to my carbine shooting (i.e. "shoot the best") but I am confident with my pistol skills. So using your criteria, my Glock 19's are my primary defensive tool.

Good choice. Always go with what you have the most experience with.

C4

[C4IGrant]

Because of my kids I have not figured out a way to secure an AR in a way that allows quick access to the weapon. I think it would be a great home defense weapon, I just cant get around my safety concerns with my children.

A suppressed shorty seems ideal in my eyes...

There is an easy way to handle this problem (which I hear a lot). You keep the loaded mag in a Gun Vault (or something that has a speed opening system). The AR is a rock without ammo in it and as long as all your other .223 ammo is secured, there are no issues.



C4

[Robb Jensen]

The latest, most complete research on this subject indicates that your statement is not accurate. The body literally protects its ears in this situation. Amazing, but it seems to be true. Check Grossman's On Combat - section two, chapter one.

Point taken for the home defender using the gun.

How about the hearing of the others (loved ones) in the house? They probably aren't going to be experiencing the same exact stress level. Just sayin'.

[Rated21R]

If I had that rifle I would use it for everything, it's SO nice.

[Jay Cunningham]

Point taken for the home defender using the gun.

How about the hearing of the others (loved ones) in the house? They probably aren't going to be experiencing the same exact stress level. Just sayin'.

That is a good point Rob - I am unsure how that one works. No doubt a suppressed gun is a *much better* choice indoors.