.357 for Home Defense?

[OldMarksman]

A long arm is certainly more capable then a handgun but try searching and or clearing your house some night. You will probably have a flashlight or phone in one hand and a firearm in the other, or you will be opening doors and turning on lights with one hand.

There are other reasons to not "try clearing or searching you house some night". Search on it.

The disadvantage of a long arm, as I see it, is that it stays on one place, and depending upon where you are when the need to access the firearm materializes, you may not be able to get to it.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
A long arm is certainly more capable then a handgun but try searching and or clearing your house some night. You will probably have a flashlight or phone in one hand and a firearm in the other, or you will be opening doors and turning on lights with one hand.

There are other reasons to not "try clearing or searching you house some night". Search on it.

If you live alone or if the other occupants of the house are in the same room as you, then there is no reason to "clear or search the house." However, if other members of your family, particularly small children, are in other parts of the house when you detect a threat, then you may be forced to do a bit of "clearing" in order to secure your loved ones and get them back to the "safe room" or whatever else you prefer to call it.

[Doug S]

WebleyMKV,

Thanks. Your earlier comments about the use of the 357 Magnum are a voice of reason in an otherwise redundant argument about db ratings, so called "science", and a questionable history lesson on the 357mag round. I enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Webleymkv: ...if other members of your family, particularly small children, are in other parts of the house when you detect a threat, then you may be forced to do a bit of "clearing" in order to secure your loved ones and get them back to the "safe room" or whatever else you prefer to call it.

That's a very good point.

It's also prudent to have a plan known to everyone in the family.

[OldMarksman]

Let me try to do a better job of addressing the individual parts of OP's query, which was

In a S&W 686+ 6", is it too loud or too much recoil to use effectively in a self defense situation? Would the noise and blast make you hesitate more between shots?

I'll take the second question first: I do not think that the noise and blast would make me hesitate for between shots, and while I have no reason to believe that it would to so in others. But I cannot speak for others.

Let's break the first question into two parts:

1. ...is it too loud...to use effectively for self defense?
2. ...or too much recoil to use effectively for self defense?

The answer to the first part is "no", and the answer to the second part is probably no, depending upon loads used, as pointed out by Webleymkv, and considering that the OP is speaking specifically of a 6" L-Frame. But effectiveness is a matter of degree, and in a situation in which more than six rapid shots may be required, say in the case of more than one fast moving attacker, that revolver would be less effective than other choices.

The fact that a .357 Magnum with robust magnum loads is a very poor choice for self defense unless some very robust hearing protection is used is indisputable. And the .357 Magnum is by no means alone in that regard. The reason has to do with the sound pressure generated by firing such a weapon indoors, and the permanent physiological damage that that sound pressure can cause.

This post from some time back contains some very relevant objective data that compare the relative sound pressured of some different noise sources.

One will note that the .357 listed (doesn't specify which one or which load) generates more than four times the sound pressure of a .45 ACP and somewhere between three and four times that of a 9MM. A 12ga shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches is way up there too--about half the sound pressure of the .357, but two to three times that of a .45.

This, which discusses the effects of reflection in a closed structure, is worth reflecting upon.

I take this seriously. I suffer from severe permanent noise-induced hearing loss in one ear, caused primarily by firing high-pwered rifles without hearing protection about ten times (range sessions) a year for around five or six years. My hearing aids cost over $7000. As it happens, I studied the subject of noise induced hearing loss in an engineering course in college. The primary causes most often encountered in those days were industrial ( that included agricultural and aircraft operations causes) and firearms-related, but today, loud music is the biggest cause.

If I had a 6" 686, I would not hesitate to use it for home defense, with carefully selected (read: lower pressure) loads and with good electronic muffs.

I do not own one because my HD firearms also serve for concealed carry.

I would not select a small lightweight .357 Magnum for general CCW. Noise would be one reason, since I do carry my CCW firearm indoors, but the primary reason would be my inability to get as many hits as quickly on a target as I can with a lighter recoiling semi auto, and still have a couple of rounds left over.

For carrying on the trail, the .357 Magnum would be my first choice.

[SHR970]

Once again: a 357 is 4X louder than (insert choice here). That is only 6dB difference. If your choice is 150 dB then the 357 is only 156 dB. We are still talking permanent damage levels.

That is mathematically the same as the difference between a 40W stereo and a 160W stereo. It may not seem like much but with a decent set of speakers you can get 89dB from ONE watt of power one meter from the speaker (some speakers provide 95 dB from one watt or 4 times as loud).

Any gun fired indoors in your average home without hearing protection is already at the sound pressure levels necessary to cause immediate permanent hearing damage. The amount of damage is in matters of degree. This is where the variables of initial SPL from source, room size, construction, attenuation or amplification/ resonance, duration, number of exposures, etc. come into play.

Many here would be surprised how loud a primer discharge is in a 10 X 10 room. I'm talking a brass with a primer only, no powder or bullet from their handgun of choice.

[buckhorn]

I've learned a lot from a lot of folks on this topic, Mainly, always use ear protection, Plan for the possibility, and get a dog. Size of dog doesn't matter. the sound of a yapping Russell Terrier is a lot like a burgler alarm, and may even disuade an intruder. Thanks to all of you for thoughts that never entered my head until I read them here. AND stereo head phones don't qualify as ear protection.[ That's my own addition ]. Buy the best ear protection you can afford. Besides, the dog may even become a member of your family and your best friend.

[roaddog28]

No doubt in my mine the 357 will do the job for home defense. But over penetration in thin walls at home could cause a tragic situation. Of course, a lot of rounds could do the same thing. In a small apartment or living space any handgun round is loud and could cause hearing loss. But losing some hearing is better than losing your life.
Howard

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is clear medical evidence of the damage that firearms noise can do to hearing. Those who continue to deny that such can happen are not contributing to this discussion.

If you want to keep putting forward a position that there is no risk, cite the easily used medical databases to support your position. Bet you can't.

As I said before, we will not allow folks to post factually incorrect information that might convince the uneducated to hurt themselves. Cease and desist posting that there is no risk.

If you feel insulted that 'experts' disagree with your incorrect positions, that's just too bad.

[Webleymkv]

The fact that a .357 Magnum with robust magnum loads is a very poor choice for self defense unless some very robust hearing protection is used is indisputable. And the .357 Magnum is by no means alone in that regard. The reason has to do with the sound pressure generated by firing such a weapon indoors, and the permanent physiological damage that that sound pressure can cause.

It depends, I suppose, on how you define "very poor choice". If that is defined as a cartridge that is likely to cause permanent hearing damage if fired indoors without hearing protection, then just about every firearm with the possible exception of a .22 rimfire from a rifle length barrel is a poor choice. As the link posted shows, nearly every common handgun cartridge generates noise levels well over the 140dB threshold, so the only way you're going to truly "save your ears" is to either don hearing protection before shooting, or get a gun with a suppressor. Yes, a .357 Magnum will in all likelihood cause some degree of permanent hearing damage if fired without hearing protection but so too will .38 Special, 9mm, .45 ACP, 12 gauge, and most other cartridges. Unfortunately, likely hearing damage is simply part of using a firearm defensively unless you take the precautions I described earlier (not always practical or possible). However, given what's at stake if you have to defend yourself with a handgun, I feel that its worth it.

Now, if you judge how good or poor a choice a cartridge is for defense by how likely it is to stop a threat in as few shots as possible, then I think the .357 Magnum is an excellent choice for those who can handle it. Like I said before, there are no guarantees in a gunfight but due to the factors that I described in post #96 I do feel that, all else held equal, the .357 Magnum stands a better chance of stopping a threat with a small number of shots than the other commonly used self-defense cartridges like 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 Sig, and .45 ACP. That is not to say that the .357 Magnum is the most effective cartridge available as other magnum-class cartridges like 10mm Auto (full power loadings), .41 Magnum, and .44 Magnum can be made to behave in similar fashions, but those cartridges produce just as much or more recoil and are just as difficult to shoot well, if not more so, than the .357 Magnum is.

So, while I admit that the .357 Magnum will likely cause permanent hearing damage, possibly even more than the other service cartridges depending on the loading, the tradeoff I see is that it's less likely to need multiple shots than the others are. I don't see how a few exposures to a very loud cartridge is any worse than several exposures to a cartridge which, while not as loud, is still loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage.

[Eagleks]

Originally Posted by iamdb;

I don't think anyone implied it won't work. What some of us are saying is, we have first hand knowledge of the question asked. There are much better choices for inside work. And, yes excessive muzzle blast can and will affect follow up shots. Conjecture has no ground to stand on here. Hd is best suited for low pressure rounds.

Quote:
3. It wont' damage your ears ..... if you aren't doing it all of the time.

Thanks for the lesson doc, but there seems to be some dissent by your colleagues.

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, is more than sufficient to cause sudden hearing loss with complications.

If it's all you have, so be it. But it's possible the blast will affect your shooting negatively. There are much more appropriate choices out there.

I wouldn't make sarcastic comments, if you don't know someone's background nor their experience with it.

I can produce an "expert" for every one of them you can, that says it won't ... effect long term hearing. For the moment, it will, but it typically will NOT cause "severe long term damage" to your hearing.... and I have I have experienced it several times, as well as many others I know, and it never effected any of our hearing. Hearing tests are still 100%... over 48 yrs of shooting ... including in a house with a .357 and no hearing protection. I wouldn't do it in a metal building .... if I didn't have to. Check if officers have lost hearing due to shooting a shotgun inside of a building , house, etc. while you are at it as well.

Often , people cannot even remember hearing the "shots". That's not "conjecture", that is from experience and in questioning even witnesses who were in the same room when a shooting occurred.

Muzzle flash will effect follow up shots ?? HOW ?? Only if you in a real dark situation and are watching the flash and not your target.... I don't even see muzzle flash in a blackened range or shooting at night .... because I'm looking "past it" . ... it definitely has never effected any of my follow up shots.

Muzzle flash does have quite an effect on the person being shot at. Because they are looking into it.

Low pressure rounds are best suited for self-defense rounds ? Based upon what ? Where do you get this ? I don't buy that at all.

My point also is, if I'm having to shoot at someone who's a threat to my life and attempting to survive, I'll use what I think is the best at stopping that threat.... regardless of anything else or any other factors.

So... do you put a sign outside of your house.... "if you are planning a home invasion, a robbery, or to break into my house and shoot the occupants, please use low pressure ammo that is not too loud..... so it won't hurt my hearing" .

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Eagleks: I can produce an "expert" for every one of them you can, that says it won't ... effect long term hearing. For the moment, it will, but will it cause "severe long term damage" to your hearing.... I would be hard pressed to believe that, .....

The facts do not bear you out. As Glenn E. Meyer EM just said, "There is clear medical evidence of the damage that firearms noise can do to hearing. Those who continue to deny that such can happen are not contributing to this discussion."

Often , people cannot even remember hearing the "shots". That's not "conjecture", that is from experience and in questioning even witnesses who were in the same room when a shooting occurred.

That is irrelevant.

[Eagleks]

Nonsense and a misunderstanding of how to interpret medical findings deleted by me.

Read the warning below.

GEM

[Alaska444]

Sorry, but I disagree. Anything over 140 db can cause permanent hearing damage even with very short exposure. Most gunshots are in the range of 160-170 db which are magnified inside a building.


snip

Glenn is right, you shouldn't be posting anecdotal tales that go against very well accepted medical standards.

-- Response to nonsense above that I deleted but I will let the facts stand, but take out the reply to the nonsense that was personal (but understood).

GEM

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ok - folks - the next post denying ear damage will lead to a ban.

GEM

BTW - I have a PhD in cog. psych - specializing in perception and a two year post doc in sensory neurophysiology at the SUNYAB med school. So, I read the real stuff. Not to brag but just to say I know how to read the literature and sat through grad and med school classes on such.

[kinggabby]

What if I put my fingers in my ear while I shoot ? Would that work? I agree any caliber can cause hearing damage. It all boils down to what you are willing to put up with after a shooting.

[Pianoguy]

From experience I know what a 380 sounds like in a closed room. The word "concussion " takes on a whole new meaning after that. Maybe we forget what it's like when we wear ear protection all the time at the range. I would not like to be shooting 357's and 45's inside. Your ears won't care afterwards why you were doing it.

I did a google about hearing loss and the military. From the early years of the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts hearing loss was the number 1 reported disability with troops from combat zones in both the US and British military. A lot of it was from small arms fire not just road-side bombs and such. The stats ranged up to 60%. There were many reasons for this but the gist of it is that ours ears can't take that kind of noise.

[iamdb]

I wouldn't make sarcastic comments, if you don't know someone's background nor their experience with it.

Your post are very telling of your experience.

and I have I have experienced it several times,

including in a house with a .357 and no hearing protection.

I wouldn't do it in a metal building

So that's the imaginary line? a metal building? Your logic....... is solid

Muzzle flash will effect follow up shots ?? HOW ?? Only if you in a real dark situation and are watching the flash and not your target.... I don't even see muzzle flash in a blackened range or shooting at night .... because I'm looking "past it" . ... it definitely has never effected any of my follow up shots.

I don't even know where to start with this. You should read this to yourself and analyze it a bit. I will add, however, that stationary range time and benchrest shooting will add a false sense of competency to ones ability. But i'm sure that doesn't apply to you, You were probably special forces

Low pressure rounds are best suited for self-defense rounds ? Based upon what ? Where do you get this ? I don't buy that at all.

I'm not surprised seeing as how you don't buy into hearing damage if your young or whatever other bogus stipulation you think sounds good.

So... do you put a sign outside of your house.... "if you are planning a home invasion, a robbery, or to break into my house and shoot the occupants, please use low pressure ammo that is not too loud..... so it won't hurt my hearing" .

You are equal parts honest, right, and witty.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you are looking at your sights, which are on the target - a large flash will generate a significant and disruptive afterimage for several seconds right in front of you. Esp. if you are dark adapted.

BTW, such effects were noted as early as WWI with pilots looking at the forward mounted machines guns in the old biplanes when they flew at night.

It was also a criticism of the 20mm cannon in the F-18 series which had its gun in a similar position. Whether it has had operational significance in current conflicts, I don't know.

The physiology of afterimages is well known. There are also higher level effects known as visual masking due the M - or magnocelluar part of the visual system.

This is why flash suppressors are used.

Is this horse dead yet?

Me: pubs in Science, Nature, Perception and Psychophysics, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, Vision Research, Investigative Ophthalmology. Presentations at Association for Vision and Ophthalmology, European Conference on Visual Perception.

I think I know this area.

[melcob]

Dear: Folks
After reading all your posts, I think I'd better trade my taurus 651 for a Glock 19 . I do not think I will have time to grab my ear muffs in HD situation and I want to keep my ears safe.
In the meantime, I will consider my wife's Taurus 85 with golden saber 125gr loads.

[hardworker]

Or just load it with 38. Problem solved

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not to beat the dead horse, but homes should be 'fortified' enough to give you warning time to:

1. get the gun
2. call the law
3. put on muffs
4. hunker down - (yes, you might have to go save the kids).

If you wake up with Michael Myers looking down at you - 357 won't help. In fact, Mike took two rounds - one in each eyeball and kept coming.

[Salmoneye]

Not to beat the dead horse, but homes should be 'fortified' enough to give you warning time to:

1. get the gun
2. call the law
3. put on muffs
4. hunker down - (yes, you might have to go save the kids).

After all that, if you indeed have to shoot someone in self defence, won't all these 'premeditated' actions be used against you just the same as the oft repeated mantra of "Reloads Are Evil For SD/HD"?

I mean, if you can be accused by an enterprising DA of 'wanting' to kill someone because you hand-loaded your own 'Killer Ammunition' that LEO's do not use, then can't the same be said for having enough time to implement your list being the same as 'Laying In Wait'?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I doubt it for some of the factors.

1. Having a gun for SD. Since many households have one, it wouldn't be unusual as compared to indicating a mad killer households. If you have been blathering about how you have a gun to shoot someone, YMMV.

2. Call the law - how is that premeditation? YOU are supposedly to call the law.

3. Protecting your hearing - that means you are waiting to shoot someone? Might be stretch but I have them for competition - oh, I compete - that may may me premeditated in some cases. That has been claimed but not in a clear HD case.

4. Hunkering down is an indicating of trying to avoid the fight. Give warnings not to enter, etc. Thus, if they come to you - how is that premeditation? Much better than the folks who rush out of the house to find the BG and chase him down the street.

We do have reasonable simulation and case evidence for handloads and competition being raised in ambiguous shoot cases. A violent home invasion or even a benign drunk (you don't know that) that comes to your hunkered down position when you have called the law, not the same issue.

Lying in wait in the bedroom and they come through that door. Don't think so.
But better have a good lawyer in any case.

From the cases I've seen, the appearance factors, etc. are active in ambiguous shoots. Of course, YOURS will be a good shoot (as always claimed on the Internet). A break-in and they come to you as you are on the phone to the law, warned them to flee, etc. - not so ambiguous.

[Salmoneye]

Protecting your hearing - that means you are waiting to shoot someone?

My mouse-faht plinking loads mean I am wanting to kill someone?...Works both ways, I'd say...

A break-in and they come to you as you are on the phone to the law,

Bugger to talk on the phone with ear muffs on...Do you buy a pair for your Wife too?

Being Johnny contrarian here, as I don't see any difference between protecting your hearing or using reloads that may or may not be more powerful than 'Factory' ammo...

If one can theoretically be used against you, the other most certainly can by the 'right' DA...

As has been pointed out to me more than once when I said "I" do not believe that reloads are an issue, I will say the same to you...Because YOU believe that having the 'forethought' to protect your hearing in an SD/HD scenario has no ulterior motives behind it, does not mean that it won't be seen by others to be a sign of you 'planning' to shoot someone...