Okay - With the recent post concerning ear protection, it seems
like a good idea to discuss quieter rifle calibers that will get the job done. Also, availabilty of the cartridge may be of interest to the non handloaders.

I will start off with one of the obvious calibers. The 30-30.
With a 24 inch barrel it is very quiet and can get up to 2600 fps with a 150 gr spire point bullet. It kicks very little. It is also cheap ammo and available about anywhere. matt

So far as hearing damage goes, even rimfires cause damage.
The damage accumulates, little by little, eventually becoming a problem.
From your ears standpoint, a 30-30 is not quiet enough to be harmless.

Good point fishdog52. But does it help? I would think so. And,
does it help even with hearing protection? Again, I would think
so.

At one of our gun shows here in Tulsa, there was a man who got a booth and was selling off his intire collection of Lazzeroni rifles due to the excessive noise and getting all new quieter rifle calibers.

Many of us have hearing problems, especially as we age, due to gun shot noise. I served in a tank unit when in the military in the 60's & at that time little was done to protect hearing. I have shot a lot at the range, hunting, & as an instructor. I always used hearing protection on the range, but the damage has been done. When I set in the woods I hear a symphony.

This 22lr and 223 are quiet, not mine though they belong to a friend who lives in Indiana.

Eldorado, That is where folks make a pretty common mistake. By this I mean the perception of less damage, is not the same thing as no damage. Fact is, you are still damaging your hearing...permanently.
An example I see a lot is with 22 rifles. Just cuz' it no longer hurts, it is common to see the shooter, often older, failing to use the hearing protection he uses with his centerfires or shotgun. This lack of pain hides the fact that you are continuing to contribute to the damage...permanently.

I will be 39 years old in May, and I have 60 percent of my hearing. That is to say, I have 20% in my left ear, and 40% in my right. I did it shooting.

The fact of the matter is, that when you mow your lawn, you should wear hearing protection. When you blow the leaves off your driveway, you should wear hearing protection. You should never drive around with your car radio turned up past #6. You should certainly not go to rock concerts, and never run a jackhammer. Avoid NASCAR races, and forget about Funny Cars and Dragsters. Chainsaws and weed eaters are also detrimental to your hearing.

I do, however think, that there are cartridges whose report is less painful and yet they are still imminently effective in hunting situations. I agree on the .30 WCF. It seems to me that the operating pressure of the cartridge is what determines this for me. The lower pressure cartridges tend to "boom" rather than "crack". For my ears, or what is left of them, the "crack" is more painful for me.

A wildcard, or caveat here is the use of a muzzle break. They make fairly sedate cartridges into nasty little crackers. I once had a Marlin .35 remington which was ported, and I shot it only once at a deer with no hearing protection. It was like shooting a 2 1/2" .357 Magnum with no hearing protection.

I agree with the earlier poster who said that we suffer damage, regardless of the pain, but I see no reason to lose chunks of hearing in leaps rather than baby steps.

You're not alone.....most days I hear the "symphony" too. I was in the artillery and when I think back on all the stuff we were shooting, its amazing that I can hear anything at all....105's, 155's, 8"er's, 175 guns....not exactly quiet stuff.

I enjoy quieter shooting rifles, even with good ear protection. Another advantage is less noise causes less concern among the neighboring landowners, and is also more pleasant for anyone else who may be with me when I am varmint hunting.

My two favorites are the .221 Fireball and the .250 Savage with lighter loads using the 75 gr VMax bullets. Very pleasant shooters.

I had a ported 44 magnum Marlin, one shot in the woods and it was gone.

It is time to have silencers taken off of NFA. It's a safety issue.

BarryC ++1

I agree, but it will never happen, gun control advocates and their useful fools the media would kill the idea stone dead if it were even considered.

I want to get a stainless steel 30-30 with a 20 inch barrel for a number of reasons. The Marlin is a wonderful rifle but their is no reason why a little 30-30 has to be as heavy as a boat anchor.

Here are some other cartridges that would serve the purpose.

7-30 Waters
35 remington
6.5 grendel
6.5mm benchrest magnum
44 magnum
25x39

http://www.eabco.com/65BRM.html

A single shot 24 inch barrel with the above 6.5's would suffice for the plains.

the 3030 idea is appealing as the rifle is cheap, the cartriges are cheap and available everywhere, kills deer fine, its accurate enough, report and recoil are mild, its a perfect deer cartridge.

My 6-250 is pretty useful... all the utility of a 243 Win crossed w/ a 22-250 Rem w/out the blast.

Ha ha ha... your post assumes the people who make the laws... like the ones who thought banning 50 BMG rifles was SO important... know which end of the peice the projectile comes out of...

But don't get me wrong; I agree COMPLETELY!

I handled a Krag rifle at a gunshow today that had the
barrel cut to about 16.5" and the stock was shortened
to fit a small person or a child. I was thinking how cool
it looked, but Im sure the recoil and blast would be nerve
racking.

.250Savage at factory pressures are very mild of report.

If you are hunting in a close range area, I would think a Marlin Cowboy .45-70 with soft cast 400 gr. WFN or HPs at about 1,000 out it's 26-in. bbl would be mild of report and deadly effective.

.........Without hearing protection, sooner or later and depending on the person, even a 24" tubed 30-30 will have an adverse impact on the hearing. Imo, all a so-called "more quiet" cartridge does, is offer more justification in the shooter`s mind, NOT to wear and get out from wearing any hearing protection at all. In other words, a quieter cartridge equals an "escape" goat.

As I read, it is interesting that most who have lost a small, moderate, or a higher percentage of their hearing due to lack of hearing protection in the field or on the range, mostly happened as a result from firing their longer barreled rifles.

Sometimes, these same folks that complain against shorter tubed rifles as being way too noisy, are in some cases, the same folks who have lost some if not most of their hearing firing longer barreled rifles.

A 30-30 or any 30 caliber that fires a 150 gr bullet at 2600 fps (tops) from a 24" barrel (as a so-called quiet cartridge), is all well and good up to a point without any hearing protection use, "IF" one desires only that level of performance.

However, without fear of any hearing loss, (after many many years my hearing is still 100%), I for one will continue wearing good field hearing protection while on hunts, and continue hunting with my "loud" 16.5" shorty barreled 300 WSM Frontier compact, that`s capable of 3000+ fps MV using a 168 gr VLD.

If some wish to limit or sacrifice ballistic performance by using so-called more "quiet" cartridges and do so without wearing any hearing protection, then that is clearly their choice.

However given a choice, I`d rather wear good hearing protection in the field without sacrificing ballistic performance, handloading up to any desired level.

bigsqueeze: If a person can wear hearing protection with a caliber of loud report and still retain 100% hearing after years of shooting, that is extremely good news to me.

So, what hearing protection do you use. I know there is another thread on this subject, but maybe I missed the comments on your type of results. What I have been using is ear plugs while hunting and ear plugs with ear protectors/muffs(don't know the right word).

When I load sub-sonic for my 16" Contender carbine in 44 Mag, it's pretty sedate. I'm still kicking around the idea of licensing a suppressor for it though. I like low pressure and I like quiet.

As I understand it, the muzzle blast can damage your hearing even if you're wearing hearing protection, and if the blast is excessive, such as from a short barreled pistol in a rifle caliber.

I've lost a good deal of hearing, need hearing aids both ears. There is NO gun that's safe to use without hearing protection. Maybe a CB cap.

I've got silencers on a couple of .22 rifles and a .300 WM, which doesn't suppress it all that much. The .22s are very quiet, but they're not legal in some states. In England, they're common and encouraged, in fact. Strange world.

..............Always have worn good muffs on the range and sometimes do ear plugs at the same time. Have 2 pr of 31 dcbl Peltier muffs for the range and use "Walker Game Ears" for field use.

Fortunately, my hearing has not been affected after all these years. Firing those three cartridges below, definitely requires protection.

Normal population will show a bisymmetrical hearing loss with age increase regardless of the use of hearing protection. Not saying that hearing protection isn't good, it should be used in all segments of daily activity, not limited to shooting. Loss starts with higher frequencies (reason why you can't hear soft femine voices-- like your wife's) any more. Building social awarness that aids are ok just as eyeglasses are is needed. Biggest area of concern these days is kids, and earphones.

What 30-30 ammo/rifle are you getting 2600 FPS in???

That is 300 Savage territory.


Why would someone even consider shooting without hearing protection (other than field use) is beyond me!

............Twice a year for the last 45+ years of shooting, I have gone and had my hearing tested. Every year so far (knock on wood), the results have been the same as far as how faint I can still hear the same frequency tones.

Haven`t been married since 1995, so I don`t have a wife problem when it comes to me not hearing her...

My mistake. I'm trying to talk myself into another rifle. Mine is a 20 inch model 94. Ballistics table for a 24inch 150 gr. rounnd nose is 2480 fps.

.222

I've hunted several times in Scotland. None of us in the U. S. would want to have the United Kingdom's gun laws, but interestingly they allow silencers (called moderators there). Most of the estate rifles and gamekeepers' rifles have them. Last year for the first time I shot one. A .308 felt and sounded like a .22 long rifle. In the United Kingdom, moderators are allowed to address the health issue of hearing loss.

There is another factor (possibly) making smaller calibers desirable. Some years ago I noticed on one hunt, I shot a deer with a 22" .270 running slow burning powder, and I didn't see another deer at the stand for 2 days. Next year at the same stand I used a .300 Savage with 24" barrel, killed a deer one afternoon, then a nice buck the next morning. Coincidence? I don't know.

Yesterday, I killed a doe with a Contender single shot, 23" barrel .30-30 with 36 grains of Varget. 15 minutes later other deer were walking up to the stand.

If you have a chance at multiple deer on a given stand, smaller/quieter calibers MAY be of benefit. It will be fun gathering more data.

The 7.62x39, and the 7mm TC/U are calibers I want to try in the future.

Along those lines, why does anyone need more than a 300 Whisper from most tree stands? Never could figure out what anyone needed a 30-06 for when shooting 150 lb deer at 75 yards? FWIW, Dutch.

I'll echo the 221 Fireball...

Doting pretty heavy on the 7.62x39 in a bolt action right now...

And, agreed on having suppressors taken off the NFA for health/hearing reasons.

How's that little gem treating you?

When you get brave, I'd like to know how turning it into a 22 PPC works....I'm too damn cheap to find out!

It went 3 for 3 this weekend, and I'm going to try some stuff with it this year. Stay tuned.

Would never do a .22PPC. A 6PPC, maybe, but never a .22.

Fine, a SIX.

I know a feller with cases.... (grins)

Interested in this "stuff" you speak of...

I'd vote for the 6PPC in this department. Mine is a 26" TC Encore barrel with 1-10" twist. 55 gr. Ballistic tips at 3500 and 85 gr. BTHP Sierras at 2800 are the top end for most loads, but with some of Seafire's Blue Dot loads and 60 gr. HPs the accuracy is stunning and the report is a little more than a .22 WMR.

A .44-40 from a 26" barrel ought to be about as quiet a deer rifle as you can get, barring suppressors.

A professor at Ball State University was to write a book on how various rifle types affect hearing damage. Some dB data which he sent me, as measured at the shooter's head, was surprising. The .22 LR was still pretty bad for your ears. Sadly, I don't think he ever finished the book, and I haven't heard from him in years.

What barrel length? Got a picture!

I am in "partial hearing loss camp" right now and am looking at 30-30's all of a sudden.

20" barrel. I'll get pics up soon.

For some reason I get the impression you're suggesting this is a negative?

Don't forget the 250 Savage - accurate, quiet and effective (for deer sized game).

300 Whisper with a suppressor.

Pmc

Damn it, PMC, don't go starting THAT stuff all over again....

Everyone knows the 2 inch 357 Magnum with H110 and the Ruger Blackhawk in 30 Carbine are the best to use without hearing protection. Huh what did you say?

I've wondered about the 6.8spc in a bolt gun with a 22" bbl. rather than the 16" of the Ruger Compact. Caliber looks interesting for a mild shooting gun.

I have the AR with 18 inch in 6.8 with the Vortex Flash Hider and it isn't all that bad. I would assume the 700 with 22 inch barrel would be better noise wise. If velocity is your major goal the 6.8 seems to do it best in the 16 to 18 inch platform with very little gain with the longer barrel.

I think we are going about this the wrong way. We should ban together and force the NRA to lobby for legislation against mumbling.

Or a suppressed 44 Mag

Or a suppressed subsonic 308

etc, etc, etc.....

Pmc

A little reading from Noisehelp.com



and Measuring Recreational Firearm Noise

Basically, unsuppressed firearms are not hearing safe.

Pmc