.22 mag vs. .32 Long, all else equal....

[Bill DeShivs]

"Auditory exclusion" means you didn't hear the shot, not that it didn't damage your hearing.

[FrankenMauser]

how many home self defense incidents do you project you having to participate in? I'm just trying to figure out how many rounds you project having to fire in your home without ear protection and no adrenalin dump that creates auditory exclusion.

How many times are you willing to suffer permanent hearing damage before wondering if you could have done something different? (Even though it is now far too late.)

Or, from a smarter perspective:
If you are preparing yourself for the possibility of being in a situation that may cause permanent hearing damage, why not also prepare in a manner that may reduce the damage? (There WILL be damage. There is no avoiding that. But the level of damage can be affected by cartridge and firearm choice.)


There also seems to be a group here that doesn't understand how hearing damage occurs. I believe you should spend some time reading up on the subject. There's a big difference between mechanical/physical damage to auditory receptors, and the perception (or exclusion) of sound on neurological and psychological levels.

[stinkeypete]

Start with the bigger hole, it's a bigger hole.

[WheelGunMan]

"Auditory exclusion" means you didn't hear the shot, not that it didn't damage your hearing.

Therein lies the conundrum. Is there any such evidence of hearing damage after a stress related exposure to a loud noise such as a gunshot? I've searched and cannot find any...nor did I find any follow up hearing tests on LEO's or military personnel after such incidents. The only evidence that I can garner is the testimony of the individuals stating that they cannot recall hearing a gunshot even though they did report a muzzle flash. It appears that it is an argument that cannot be settled decisively by either side.

[JERRYS.]

can we get back to the .22 mag or .32 Long choice?

[Bill DeShivs]

My choice would be the .32. Bigger, heavier bullet. Very nice to shoot.

[FrankenMauser]

Meet in the middle, at .27?

Therein lies the conundrum. Is there any such evidence of hearing damage after a stress related exposure to a loud noise such as a gunshot? I've searched and cannot find any...nor did I find any follow up hearing tests on LEO's or military personnel after such incidents. The only evidence that I can garner is the testimony of the individuals stating that they cannot recall hearing a gunshot even though they did report a muzzle flash. It appears that it is an argument that cannot be settled decisively by either side.

It's not a conundrum. The mechanics of hearing loss don't change, just because your brain is distracted by other senses.

Read up on hearing damage.
Understand the mechanics.
Ignore the retards on the internet that think auditory exclusion actually protects a person from hearing damage.
(I was going to suggest doing some searches, but there are just as many FALSE articles out there, written by uneducated idiots, as there are factual articles or papers. ...Pretty troubled water for someone that doesn't understand hearing loss, to begin with.)

[Lohman446]

32 not even close BUT in a modern gun designed from the ground up for it and not just adding a sixth shot to a J frame. Like the old break tops that make a J frame look fat. I don’t care for the “but you NEED” six shots over five argument. If it was about quantity alone there are autos that win that point.

[Lohman446]

Auditory exclusion has to do with your brain triaging information you are aware of. The mechanics of sound on your ear drums do not cease to exist just because you are not consciously aware of the sound. Our brains are remarkably good at not causing us sensory overload. Want proof? Your nose is in your peripheral vision and you are seldom consciously aware of it

[dgludwig]

I don’t care for the “but you NEED” six shots over five argument. If it was about quantity alone there are autos that win that point.

And if quantity doesn't matter that much in a gunfight, why do you need five rounds? Using that logic, wouldn't four do as well? Or save some weight and space by toting a two-shot derringer?

Of course quantity matters in a gunfight and, in some cases, the number of bullets you have at your disposal might well determine whether or not you survive a shoot-out but no one is arguing that it's about "quantity alone." Everyone has to decide how much it matters for their own selves in practical terms; given their own set of circumstances and their own individually perceived needs.

[Lohman446]

And if quantity doesn't matter that much in a gunfight, why do you need five rounds? Using that logic, wouldn't four do as well? Or save some weight and space by toting a two-shot derringer?

I guess I am more curious to the argument that says five is not enough, you NEED 6, but taking steps to get 7 (or 10) is not worth it.

[rep1954]

In a rimfire the extra shots could be a benefit in case of misfire. My S&W 351C holds 7 rounds. I think that I will look up some gel test results on the 32 Long and the 22 mag and compare penetration. I would go for penetration in the smaller calibers at least to the FBI standards.

[Lohman446]

I have not had a lot of misfires with high quality rimfire ammunition that I can recall recently. Sure some of the bricks of cheap ammo but its cheapest bidder. I know the technical reason that rimfire is less reliable but is this really a major concern with modern manufacturing methods?

I mean if my ammo is so unreliable I need extra shots its time to think that through. I don't think it is though.

[FrankenMauser]

.22 WMR is extremely reliable, as long as you're not buying bargain basement ammo (or Winchester Dynapoints).

If your life is worth so little that you're okay defending it with unreliable bargain ammo, then, by all means, complain about reliability.
Otherwise, buy quality ammo and don't worry about it.


Even then...
I have some 20 year-old Filipino .22 WMR here that I trust more than the common brands of new production USA-made 9mm, or nearly any box of Federal or Remington rifle ammo. I'd trust my life to this "old" imported rimfire before some of the bargain boxes of .32 S&W Long.

It's your life. Defend it accordingly.

[JERRYS.]

quality ammo vs. quality ammo. quality gun vs. quality gun.

[Lohman446]

I think both rounds are under rated.

A couple indoor ranges have "no magnum" rules. So the .22 Mag is out. I can shoot my 10MM all I want with whatever loads I want but the ballistically similar .357 Magnum is out.

I already favor the .32 for nostalgia. The more I think about it the more I think this is a thread that is literally about "a half dozen of one" or "six of the other" and makes no so little difference as to not matter.

[SHR970]

Both rounds at that barrel length have about the same amount of energy.

The 32 operates at almost 1/2 the pressure of the 22 Mag. so it will be easier on the ears.

Small and fast vs. bigger and slower; in this case I will take a 32 SWC over a 22Mag. HP. The 32 Long SWC can penetrate over 14".

For me the 32 Long is the winner.

[gwpercle]

I would pick 32 Long because I am set up to reload and cast bullets .

Otherwise , if I didn't and had to rely on factory ammo I would go 22 Magnum. You stand a much better chance of finding a box of 22 magnum than 32 Long at the local sporting goods store .

Gary

[dgludwig]

I guess I am more curious to the argument that says five is not enough, you NEED 6, but taking steps to get 7 (or 10) is not worth it.

"Every man must find his own salvation."

[RJTravel]

The NAA site used to have velocity and energy results for the 2" bbl and other bbl lengths for .22 mag from their actual firearms. Can no longer find that info on their site, however IIRC the .22 mag developed approx 80 fpe. The B/Bore site reveals their .32 L short bbl energy at approx 165 fpe. The .32 L appears to hit twice as hard with double bullet weight. Not even a close comparison.

[JERRYS.]

watch Lucky Gunners video on the .22 mag. penetration from a snub is in line with what the FBI likes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMkp2m6ZuIc

[Onward Allusion]

Here are the links.

https://northamericanarms.com/ballistics/ball-bwm/

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.ph...t_detail&p=344

The spread for 22 Mag is around 30 ftlbs or between 80 to 110 ftlbs. Speer Gold Dot specialty round makes ~100 ftlbs.

The Luckygunner write-up on the 32 S&W Long uses standard target loads from a 2" to arrive at the ~90ftlb result. Buffalo Bore's 32SWL specialty round makes ~130 ftlb.

Main benefits of the 32 S&W Long are:
- handloading
- specialty ammo
- centerfire

Main benefits of the 22 Magnum are:
- availability of +1 or +2 rounds guns

[Don P]

I'd go for the .32 but only because I think that centerfire ammunition ULignition is more reliable than rimfire is over the long haul.

The wife and I have over 1,200 rounds through our Taurus 941UL's without a fail to fire, NO DUDS. Granted center fire is more reliable BUT, I would not hesitate to carry the Taurus

[RJTravel]

Buffalo Bore 100 gr hardcast w/c from 3" Smith 872 fps / @170 fpe - similar to .380. .22 mag not even close. Our local Cabelas always has a variety of .32 L - @$15/box of 50. For me the .32 L is much more versatile for the remote mountains I frequent in the N/W - potent B/B for peace of mind and very soft whisper loads for grouse. Werks fer mee. I divested myself of the .22s as a result of this lack of versatility.

[FITASC]

No ear plugs but you'll probably have "auditory exclusion"

Doesn't stop deafness from happening though.