When you say "reports", are you talking about actual studies, or anecdotes? Whichever, you'll have to supply those reports for review here. I've not seen anything like that, and it doesn't make sense physiologically.
Printable View
I agree. And if you are that bad ass that you do wake up, take your time to put ear pro on, all while the wife and kids are in a panic and your adrenaline is pumping then maybe you should start teaching home defense classes.
I think I will rely on my suppressed SBR and the fact that I know those few shots are like a small turd in the Pacific- much ado about nothing.
Dupe
.
Yeah the last thing I am going to do if I investigate a bump in the night is to waste the time to put on something that is going to severly handicap one of my most critical senses (hearing) that will limit my abilities to locate and close with said bump.
As others have suggested if its a concern get a can, that way if you have a better half and kiddos they won't have to worry about ear either.
.....
Just a followup. In Grossman's book, during the discussion of perceptual distortions associated with shooting-related stress, he references "the Klinger study" which consisted of interviews with 113 officers from 19 different law enforcement agencies, all of whom had survived a line-of-duty gunfight. Klinger, an ex-cop turned sociologist, conducted the research project under the auspices of the National Institute of Justice. He published a book about his research titled "Into the Kill Zone: A Cop's Eye View of Deadly Force." (http://www.amazon.com/Into-Kill-Zone...8989962&sr=8-1)
Klinger also has a website (http://www.killzonevoices.com/biography.aspx) which provides some biographical information and links to the actual reports and data which were expanded upon for his book. Here's a link to one of the reports with tables and graphs: http://www.killzonevoices.com/finalrpt3.pdf
The data do not provide the narrative accounts I referenced in my earlier comment (it's buried in the text), but it makes for some interesting reading nonetheless. What is clear is that more research is needed to fully unravel the physiological basis for the variety of perceptual distortions reported.
Never mind...
I agree with that, but my point is that the damage from noise exposure isn't really really manifested short term. The physiologic damage done is a cumulative thing. Short term exposure such as gunfire in a closed space may result in short term tinnitus or hearing loss which may very well reverse itself in the short run but contribute to a more pronounced hearing loss later in life as presbycusis asserts itself. I've not been able to find any evidence that "auditory exclusion" is anything more than a "perceptual" exclusion and unrelated to the actual physiological effects of noise damage to the hearing components. I do agree that the intrinsic ear muscles of the middle ear, tensor tympani and stapedius, may offer some protection against extreme eardrum excursion, and to that extent might be protective, but it's not clear that that is related to the sympathetic nervous system phenomenon of auditory exclusion or "tunnel hearing".
Wondering how/why this thread is this long considering the original post's question. We're into physics and hearing damage and all sorts of stuff when it could have very simply been summed up by
"Hell no you've got better things to worry about than ear pro"