View Full Version : Does hearing damage enter your home defense plan?
Hi,
I've got an middy AR and a G19 and I often wonder if someone were kicking in the front door, which would I grab. I would want to think the AR, but I wonder about the hearing damage from shooting it indoors vs shooting subsonic 147gr out of the G19. What do you guys think? Does hearing damage enter your decision making on this? I've shot a 9mm indoors once before and it was an ear ringing unpleasant situation, that is for sure.
Thanks,
Alan
Not a chance. For two reasons. The first being that if someone is coming and i'm in a position to take someone's life hearing is the LSAT thing on my mind. Two is a phenomenon called audible occlusion. Meaning that because of your action your brain has an ability to disregard the action your about to take. Denouncing the noise. Weather by adrenalin or whatever its often reported sometimes that people don't really hear much of their own gunshots but will hear a buddies much more pronounced.
threeheadeddog
03-03-12, 19:09
long life with great hearing>long life without great hearing>artificially shortened life.
I worked backwards when getting my protection in order. Meaning I first bought the tools to live then bought the tools to protect my hearing. I think that surviving is most important, but I have 3 children and I would hate knowing that my 1 year old has hearing problems because daddy didnt screw on the muffler.
That would be "auditory exclusion" and there's been a lot of debate on it here on M4C. I have no personal experience with that so I can't say either way, but I can see that occurring as the body does a lot of things under stress.
To the original question: put simply, no. I may or may not lose my hearing but I want the most effective tool at hand to stop an intruder. That would be the AR, not the subsonic 147gr from my M&P. Worry about your ears after the fact.
That would be "auditory exclusion" and there's been a lot of debate on it here on M4C. I have no personal experience with that so I can't say either way, but I can see that occurring as the body does a lot of things under stress.
To the original question: put simply, no. I may or may not lose my hearing but I want the most effective tool at hand to stop an intruder. That would be the AR, not the subsonic 147gr from my M&P. Worry about your ears after the fact.
Correct on the term. Cooking dinner and smart phones don't play well with this. Exclusion
Reagans Rascals
03-03-12, 19:25
why would it?
if I could safely use an AT-4 or an M79 indoors against an assailant I gladly would
If someone is coming through the door, my hearing is the last thing I'm worried about. If you're concerned about hearing damage BEFORE the fight is when you should plan for it. I don't want to discount auditory exclusion but I wouldn't count on it happening either. If you can afford it, figure a can into you equipment list.
Hi,
If you're concerned about hearing damage BEFORE the fight is when you should plan for it.
I agree - that is why I'm thinking about it. What about a shotgun (not that I have one)? Is the sound on it going to be less damaging. I don't have a can and don't know much about them.
Thanks,
Alan
I don't want to discount auditory exclusion but I wouldn't count on it happening either.
Unless things have changed, auditory exclusion is the phenomenon by which your brain does not process the sound input coming from your ears. Basically, the interrupt is between the ear and the brain, not the outside world and your ear. You're still hearing the gunshot (and its still affecting your ear), but your brain is too busy keeping your ass alive to pass the signal along.
Long story short, auditory exclusion does nothing to actually protect your hearing. If your brain were to somehow effectively and consistently close the ear canal in anticipation of a loud noise, you likely wouldn't see earpro becoming pretty much standard equipment for military and police tactical teams.
Is it something to be cognizant of? Sure. but like others have said, what's more important? If you have time, sure, put on some Peltors, but just fill your hands.
The answer to your specific question? Get a suppressor for the AR. If that's not an option, still stick with the best, most lethal solution, regardless of the noise concern...so the AR.
Now, for the auditory exclusion discussion...
Just because your brain is not registering the noise because of auditory exclusion does not mean that you are not receiving permanent damage.
In 2007, I was about 5 meters away from an IED detonation while dismounted (single 82MM mortar buried too deep...they screwed up so nobody got hurt). Anyway, I was focused on copying down garbled radio traffic at the time, so I never acknowledged the sound of the explosion. Never heard it. But a few days later, my right ear was ringing (my left ear was plugged with an ear piece). I now have substantial, permanent hearing loss in my right ear, even though I never acknowledged the sound of the IED.
So, in my experience the phenomenon of audible exclusion does not prevent damage, it just means for whatever reason your mind does not process the sound.
Still, though, your life or your hearing? Again, get a suppressor for the AR. If you can't, use it anyway.
I know its low on my list.
More important things to be concerned about is one thing. The fact that your probably not going to be that bad off anyway is another, like how often do you run into the guy who did something once (shot indoors, ran a jack hammer for 10 seconds, used a leaf blower for 5 min, etc) having hearing damage to an amount to risk life over? not normal, it is usually frequently going into hearing damage range that will do it, not the once or twice. Then you have the body responses that may save you completely anyway.
Hearing damage is cumulative. The amount of gunfire that is likely to take place in your lifetime due to shooting intruders in your home is a negligible portion of the whole. This is a way overblown thing to worry about. Focus instead on the radon coming from your sheetrock or your basement floor.
I keep Sordin Supreme Pros next to my BCM carbine. If I have time to put them on I will, if not so be it.
Nope.. Go for the best tool for the job.. I do keep plugs and muffs around, but getting to them might be difficult.
In fact you may mot hear the rounds going off, but your ears will be just as damaged. The damage shows up later in life... Ron
Having fired many things indoors, including the often recommended pump shotgun, YES. As I happen to own suppressors, my home defense weapons have them.
I only keep ear plugs in my range bag and in my "pouch of many things" on my vest.
If I had enough time to rummage through either of those to locate some plugs, I would use that time to get my gf on the phone with 911 instead.
Does hearing damage enter your home defense plan?
No. Not dying does!
I made the mistake of using those foam inserts at an indoor range, with no real sound damping. The sharp ringing noise, after the first shot, made me put my muffs back on. If you want to avoid that sharp ringing noise, don't get accosted in a parking garage. It is an unbelievable pitch.
I only have 1 ear working, lost my left ear as a kid from infection.
My main HD rifle and handgun both have suppressors...
I've got ringing in my ears from all the shooting as a kid (not understanding the concept of ear protection)...If someone busts through my door, my only thought is which gun can I get to the quickest if it's not on or around me...
I see people talking up Aimpoint RDS's because they can be left on all time, one less thing to diddle with during the frequent scenarios where we all have to grab our assault rifles to defend our homes. Eotechs are problematic because you have to turn them on. But now, I see some are advocating taking the time to stuff plugs in their ears, or putting a pair of electronic ear muffs on (and presumably turning them on). Apparently we have more time than I thought.
montanadave
03-04-12, 09:10
Auditory exclusion might protect your hearing, but it ain't gonna do shit for whoever might be in the room with you. Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman's excellent book On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace has an entire chapter devoted to the phenomenon.
http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330873743&sr=8-1
I see people talking up Aimpoint RDS's because they can be left on all time, one less thing to diddle with during the frequent scenarios where we all have to grab our assault rifles to defend our homes. Eotechs are problematic because you have to turn them on. But now, I see some are advocating taking the time to stuff plugs in their ears, or putting a pair of electronic ear muffs on (and presumably turning them on). Apparently we have more time than I thought.
Yeah. Guys, a few shots indoors is not going to make you deaf. If your home gets invaded once a week and you're shooting every time, then start thinking about your ears. Back here on earth when that's not happening, don't worry about it so much.
GeorgiaBoy
03-04-12, 22:36
My thought on auditory exclusion:
I rarely fire a firearm without hearing protection. When I don't, it's usually when hunting.
I know for a fact that auditory exclusion exists; whether or not it protects your ears or not I don't know, but I do know if I shoot at ducks flying over (with adrenalin rushing) I don't feel the recoil and I barely hear the shot. I can shoot 30 times and my shoulder and ear won't hurt at all. If I shoot in a non hunting situation with the same gun and shells, my shoulder feels terrible and my ears start ringing after only a couple of shots.
I had to catch up. Gentleman I didnt mean to turn this into an Auditory exclusion debate. I'm with a0cake on this one. I know that AE wont protect your hearing from damage as the sound a gunshot makes is pressure on your eardrum. Nothing to block that without earpro. I was speaking to the comfort of this. If you have time to get to your muffs in a HD situation then good job. I honestly dont think I have that time. As for hurting other peoples hearing? WHAT? I would spend that time to get them to the furthest room from the problem I could instead of going for the muffs. Also if I had the time to get muffs I would rather spend that time taking up somewhat of a defensive position in my home so I can have as much time to Identify the dirt bag coming inside. Positive ID if you will. I know that in my life time I will never fire enough rounds in self defence to notice any damage to my ears whatsoever. If I'm wrong I have my life. Your lawnmower will damage your ears more than all the rounds you will fire in HD. I do however support the Suppressor theory however. Always ready.
Failure2Stop
03-05-12, 09:23
Yeah. Guys, a few shots indoors is not going to make you deaf. If your home gets invaded once a week and you're shooting every time, then start thinking about your ears. Back here on earth when that's not happening, don't worry about it so much.
[/thread]
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
If your home gets invaded once a week and you're shooting every time, then start thinking about your ears.
And your life choices.
Battle*Hound
03-06-12, 19:28
Not to be offensive to OP but this topic seems silly and flatout unrealistic. In the event that you are fortunate enough to get a chance to jump out of bed and meet the p.o.s. at the end of the hall...I would think you are going to be amped and scared and in the game. If not, hearing isn't gonna matter. Also, by adding hearing protection, you are only screwing with your own senses. If you have a moment before the act...make sure your wifes head is on straight as well and go empty the mag IN your intruders.
Reload, clear and back to snoring.:D
Battle*Hound
03-06-12, 19:28
And your life choices.
LOL No Shit!!
Hi,
Not to be offensive to OP but this topic seems silly and flatout unrealistic.
I won't take offense, but my question was a serious one. I need my hearing for various things including making a living and I sure don't want to lose it over firing a bunch of 223 rounds indoors if it is going to do a much greater damage than shooting something that would still get the job done and be less damaging. I've never had anyone try to kick in my door but these days with home invasions I try to do the what ifs and have a plan. I've got more experience with the Glock, but it does lack in power compared to the AR... If a shotgun can bring the power of the AR at a much lower ear damage threshold, I'd be interested to know that.
Thanks,
Alan
Battle*Hound
03-06-12, 20:32
Hi,
I won't take offense, but my question was a serious one. I need my hearing for various things including making a living and I sure don't want to lose it over firing a bunch of 223 rounds indoors if it is going to do a much greater damage than shooting something that would still get the job done and be less damaging. I've never had anyone try to kick in my door but these days with home invasions I try to do the what ifs and have a plan. I've got more experience with the Glock, but it does lack in power compared to the AR... If a shotgun can bring the power of the AR at a much lower ear damage threshold, I'd be interested to know that.
Thanks,
Alan
Yeah....reading that sentence now really does make me sound like a dick doesn't it. That wasn't my intentions at all. My apologies.
Hi,
Yeah....reading that sentence now really does make me sound like a dick doesn't it. That wasn't my intentions at all. My apologies.
No sweat friend.
Thanks,
Alan
North Dakota Shooter
03-06-12, 23:06
NO, would rather have my life, the last thing I'm worrying about is my hearing when my life is on the line
A note on auditory exclusion.
While the merits of the phenomenon are debatable there is one aspect of your anatomy which may be partially responsible for the phenomenon.
The two muscles of your middle ear, the Tensor Tympani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_tympani_muscle) and the Stapedius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stapedius_muscle), insert on ear ossicles -the malleous and the stapes, respectively. The function of these two muscles is to put tension on these two ossicles thus reducing the vibrations they transmit to the oval window and on in to your innner ear. This protects the ossicles from damage as well as the hairs in your inner ear which serve as receptors for the nervous tissue within.
So your body does have some capacity to protect its hearing. However, having been forced to fire a weapon in a confined space with no hearing protection I can say I would not rely on this.
Bottom line is if you have to defend yourself of your family from that bump in the night with a firearm you will have hearing damage.
I have hearing loss due to gun fire and a claymore blast. this loss is accumulative. some of the gun fire was out side some was inside a building shooting out of windows. all was defenceive shooting. the claymore blast was outside and the blast was 6 feet from my hide hole. add in a mix of turbo prop aircraft nose and you get a constant ringing in the ears and hearing loss. this occured in the 1960s before hearing protecting was mandated. In a home defence situation one or two shots will not have much of a impact on yours and your famlies hearing. Hearing protection should not be a life or death decison.
Auditory exclusion might protect your hearing, but it ain't gonna do shit for whoever might be in the room with you. Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman's excellent book On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace has an entire chapter devoted to the phenomenon.
http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330873743&sr=8-1
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I don't think On Combat should be used as a reference for this. Those parts of the book read more like Story Time with Uncle Dave than a real scientific treatment of the topic. To say, 'Bill shot a gun in a room and his ears didn't ring, and that was because his body knew the gun would go off and protected itself' is a little bit of a stretch. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't, but I don't think it's citation worthy. Just my opinion.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I don't think On Combat should be used as a reference for this. Those parts of the book read more like Story Time with Uncle Dave than a real scientific treatment of the topic. To say, 'Bill shot a gun in a room and his ears didn't ring, and that was because his body knew the gun would go off and protected itself' is a little bit of a stretch. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't, but I don't think it's citation worthy. Just my opinion.
You dont think that one of the most revered books about the pshcological and physical effects of combat on true warriors is citation worthy? And what qualifications so you pocess that you make make that statement? Not trying to be a dick just curious.
When I was in this book could be found in every Infantry company. I also understand that it is well accepted by SF team members is why I bring it up. You must have one awesome "Uncle Dave"!
Auditory injuries suck...I have ruptured an eardrum before and while it sucked at the time, it healed completely and I recovered to 100% of my hearing still functional. Unless you're bunkered down firing dozens of rounds inside w/o protection, I'd be willing to bet that you have nothing to worry about. You'll have some Tinnitus (ringing) no doubt but you'll likely recover completely.
threeheadeddog
03-08-12, 17:14
Provided you are in a NFA friendly state suppressors are really not that big of deal. You simply fill out paperwork and then you wait.
I think that putting on earpro is not really what I want to do, but to make a straight B-line to earpro everytime someone mentions hearing protection, then say how stupid it is is completely missing other options. Suppressor, if attached prior to life threatening situation, take no time out of your response.
You dont think that one of the most revered books about the pshcological and physical effects of combat on true warriors is citation worthy? And what qualifications so you pocess that you make make that statement? Not trying to be a dick just curious.
When I was in this book could be found in every Infantry company. I also understand that it is well accepted by SF team members is why I bring it up. You must have one awesome "Uncle Dave"!
No problem questioning my statement. I say that because although the book does cite actual studies that support some of his other statements or assertions, I don't believe he makes a strong case, backed by anything tangible, for the difference between auditory exclusion, meaning not consciously hearing the sound or hearing a diminished sound, and some kind of protective physiological auditory exclusion.
I am not saying the book as a whole is baseless, but I feel that specific part of it is. I'm also not saying he's wrong, and I'm not contradicting his statement as some type of expert on human hearing, I'm just saying that he doesn't back up those statements with scientific evidence. For that reason, I don't think people should cite the book when it comes to this topic.
Feel free to disagree.
No problem questioning my statement. I say that because although the book does cite actual studies that support some of his other statements or assertions, I don't believe he makes a strong case, backed by anything tangible, for the difference between auditory exclusion, meaning not consciously hearing the sound or hearing a diminished sound, and some kind of protective physiological auditory exclusion.
I am not saying the book as a whole is baseless, but I feel that specific part of it is. I'm also not saying he's wrong, and I'm not contradicting his statement as some type of expert on human hearing, I'm just saying that he doesn't back up those statements with scientific evidence. For that reason, I don't think people should cite the book when it comes to this topic.
Feel free to disagree.
Ok I think we're on the somewhat same page here regarding auditory exclusion. I do agree with you, however in the fact that the citer is in the wrong instead of the book. By that I mean he spoke vaguely when he stated that it will protect your hearing but not those around you. I dont remember therer being a case in the book where it is stated it will "protect" you're hearing. I may be wrong as its been a half a decade since I've read it though. Reviewing what I believe he was trying to convey in the book it would be impossible to provide any tangible evidence, "for the difference between auditory exclusion, meaning not consciously hearing the sound or hearing a diminished sound, and some kind of protective physiological auditory exclusion" as there is none.
I think you and I are saying same things. Probably my fault as my post to yours wasn't written really well (one of my downfalls) however I think that you are really saying is that it will absolutely not protect you're hearing just because you cant hear it.
bsmith_shoot
03-16-12, 01:19
I have an estimated 70% hearing loss, and thats nowhere near enough to drown out the sound of my wifes b!tch!ng. I would almost welcome the chance to fire off 15 or 20 rounds in a small confined space. I can imagine the silence now.
Brandon
rockmyglock
03-19-12, 00:17
It DOES factor into my home defense theory, however it is not financially feasible at this point to make it actively part of my planning.
My preference would be to run a suppressor on my HD weapon. Not necessarily for my own hearings sake (that's pretty much shot already -- pun not intended), but for the potential hearing loss to my children.
Unfortunately, we live in a country where common safety devices are prohibitively expensive and/or a time consuming process.
Cue violin.
I do agree with suppressors at the very least they are fun. I would like to make a couple points. The first step in my home defense plan is to get my family to hiding a far away from the danger first. I'm also fortunate enough to have a for year old that understands earmuffs. In other words fingers or palms to eats. I don't want her to lose hearing but mostly don't want her to mentally watch her old man put two in someone's face. I don't want her near me at all. Or anyone friendly unless they are proficient enough to contribute to my situation.
Something for you guys to think about is to establish a safe room for your family to hide out in. also establish a spot that offers you the best ambush situation that's safe to you and your family. That's all depressant on how good your early warning system is.
rockmyglock
03-19-12, 11:25
I do agree with suppressors at the very least they are fun. I would like to make a couple points. The first step in my home defense plan is to get my family to hiding a far away from the danger first. I'm also fortunate enough to have a for year old that understands earmuffs. In other words fingers or palms to eats. I don't want her to lose hearing but mostly don't want her to mentally watch her old man put two in someone's face. I don't want her near me at all. Or anyone friendly unless they are proficient enough to contribute to my situation.
Something for you guys to think about is to establish a safe room for your family to hide out in. also establish a spot that offers you the best ambush situation that's safe to you and your family. That's all depressant on how good your early warning system is.
Does this mean that you take your family to a safe place, then leave them to go clear the house?
I know this is getting slightly OT. Let me clarify our family's own plan a little more.
First off, we have an established safe room. It also doubles as our bedroom (for myself, wife, and both children under the age of 14 mos.). This is convenient, especially if things go bump in the night... we don't have to wake up in a haze and leave our location to find safety. The room itself, has furniture (parts of that reinforced to provide cover) and arranged in a strategic manner as to provide adequate cover, concealement, or funnel the bad guys in a particular manner, should they breach the door. It has redundant communication, defenses, first aid and sustainment. In our case, the safe room is the ambush point. It is the major player in the home defense plan.
In this room, it would be prudent to have suppressors. Preferrably running subsonic pistol rounds/calibers or heavy carbine "transition" calibers. The oldest has been to the range (nearby not on the line) and has had the wax plugs used in his ears. If time permitted, we would put those over his ear canal. The wife and I have our own earplugs (Surefire EP) in the room and accessible, however it is not in our SOP to put them in place. We feel that having our ability to communicate effectively and tactically (read: in a whisper) is more important.
Aside from the "safe" room, what happens if someone were to kick in the door while we are eating dinner, watching TV?
No, sound does not factor into those areas. All that matters is getting the wife and kids back to the safest area of the house. Whether I am at home alone and need to shoot, then move with the kids or I'm covering the wife's movement... returning fire in an effective manner is the priority. I always carry while at home; however, even if I had a suppressor I doubt I would carry the canned sidearm in the house.
As always, YMMV.
Does this mean that you take your family to a safe place, then leave them to go clear the house?
I know this is getting slightly OT. Let me clarify our family's own plan a little more.
First off, we have an established safe room. It also doubles as our bedroom (for myself, wife, and both children under the age of 14 mos.). This is convenient, especially if things go bump in the night... we don't have to wake up in a haze and leave our location to find safety. The room itself, has furniture (parts of that reinforced to provide cover) and arranged in a strategic manner as to provide adequate cover, concealement, or funnel the bad guys in a particular manner, should they breach the door. It has redundant communication, defenses, first aid and sustainment. In our case, the safe room is the ambush point. It is the major player in the home defense plan.
In this room, it would be prudent to have suppressors. Preferrably running subsonic pistol rounds/calibers or heavy carbine "transition" calibers. The oldest has been to the range (nearby not on the line) and has had the wax plugs used in his ears. If time permitted, we would put those over his ear canal. The wife and I have our own earplugs (Surefire EP) in the room and accessible, however it is not in our SOP to put them in place. We feel that having our ability to communicate effectively and tactically (read: in a whisper) is more important.
Aside from the "safe" room, what happens if someone were to kick in the door while we are eating dinner, watching TV?
No, sound does not factor into those areas. All that matters is getting the wife and kids back to the safest area of the house. Whether I am at home alone and need to shoot, then move with the kids or I'm covering the wife's movement... returning fire in an effective manner is the priority. I always carry while at home; however, even if I had a suppressor I doubt I would carry the canned sidearm in the house.
As always, YMMV.
Your post is exactly in line with mine. I should have clarified safe room. I also agree with the whisper part and also will say that I imagine the majority of threes situations are fast ugly and violent. My first priority its going to be the danger at hand. You can be as prepared ass you want with earplugs and everything else that in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter if i'm breathing but you know that Mr Murphy and his laws.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.