Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns How loud is it?

I am rather perplexed at the issue of relative noise levels of various calibers. Let me explain. When I first shot a handgun, a .357 mag with I suspect full power loads nearly 30 years ago. I noticed that it was quite a handfun and I could feel it in my ears even with with hearing protection. I then shot a .45 ACP afterwards and actually shot it better. I didn't shoot very much after that but did buy a .357 mag and shot some .357 mags but they didn't seem overly bothersome. Again, I used hearing protection. Since then I almost exclusively shot .38's in the gun. I wandered away from the .357 mag and mostly shot .22's and 9mm and .45 ACP for many years. I shot .44 mags but they never seemed to be overly loud or would cause flinching unless the owner had brewed up some special reloads. I also shot ISPC with a 9mm. I observed that other shooters who shot .38 Supers were very, very loud, but the .45's, 9's and .40's (although a little louder) seemed comfortable with hearing protection.

The other day another shooter was shooting a Ruger Securty Six as I was driving by on a separate range and the noise level in my car 30 feet away was unbelieveable (AC on and windows up). I couldn't see how anyone could shoot something like that without hearing protection hunting or in a self defense situation without very seriously damaging their hearing. I found .38 Super's to be uncomfortable to be around with hearing protection up to 30 feet away. The .357 mag is worse!

Am I just a whimp? Was this guy using a very hot round or is this just the norm? Are there .357 mag rounds that are loaded down a bit that aren't so loud?

Thanks for any input

Here's a laymans observations. Some calibers like the 357, 7mm mags, 270's give a sharp crack upon discharge which is very annoying to the ear. I believe this is due to the bore size and velocity combination that results in this ear splitting report. Either shortening the barrel, porting, or increasing the velocity increases the problem.

I learned this early but too late the hard way. When I was 20 I got my first centerfire handgun, a Model 27 357. I bought 2 boxes of Browning 357's and went out to a friends farm to try'er out. I shot all 100 rounds without hearing protection and my ears rang so loud that I couldn't sleep for two days. No one had ever mentioned hearing protection and it never occurred to me until I was having problems. Between that and working in a big machine shop for 10 years, I've had a bit of damage done to the ears.

That's an interesting observation and one that I've noticed myself. I've owned and shot several .44 magnums and .357 magnums as well as at least one of each of these: .22 Lr, .22 Mag, .32 acp, .380 acp, .38 special, 9 mm, .40 S&W, .44 special, .45 acp, & 45 Colt.

I'd rather shoot ANY of them than the .357 magnum, including the 44 mag. Don't know why, but the concussion/ muzzle blast almost gives me the sensation of a nosebleed! And I've owned .357's in 1 7/8", 2", 3", 4", & 6"! I've kind of swapped them all out over the years except for a $250 stainless Rossi .357 (in 2") for my car. My 9mm Kahr puts out nearly the same power with much less muzzle blast and felt recoil with nearly the same effective power, but due to Ohio's stupid concealed carry laws, I'm forced to leave my gun in the car a lot and would rather risk $250 than $650 being stolen.

I've not fooled much with centerfire rifle varmit rounds, but I once owned a Contender Carbine in .223 with a 16" barrel and I considered it's muzzle blast VERY obnoxious! I could see 12" flames in the daytime out of the muzzle!

Yet I haven't been bothered by a: .25-06, .270, .30-30, .30-06, .300 Win Mag, .338 Win Mag, 16" .358 JDJ, .375 H&H Mag, .45-70, or my short-barrel 12 guage slug guns.

I think RickyD hit the nail on the head with his assesment though.

I've been loading my 3" Mod 60 with .38 PlusP's for exactly that reason, .357's being very loud, prob'ly even worse inside a room.

Out of a 3" barrel, I don't think there's enough of a performance advantage with a .357 to make that much of a difference over a good plusP load.

When carried in the boonies however, I stoke it with the heaviest bullet, hottest .357 rounds I can find, the worst case scenario besides criminal humans in those situations being a close-up wild hog or black bear dependent upon location. I figure on no expansion and all the penetration I can get out of that stubby 3" tube.

I remember a story on the old Shooters board where I guy in Alaska, fearing a big bear was sniffing around the outside of around his zipped-up tent, loosed off a .44 mag round to scare it away, perforateting both his eardrums for his trouble. Fortunately the other guy in the tent was encased in a mummy-style bag and escaped with ringing in the ears. I'll be a .357 could do the same thing.

Birdwatcher

Birdy,

Gotta agree with you on all except the performance difference between the +P .38 and the .357 mag. I never chrono'ed the +P's, but the Remington catalog for 125 grain loads with 4" test barrels claim: 945 fps with the .38 +P and 1450 fps for the .357 magnum.

I DID chrono several WW .357 125 grain JFPs thru my 1 7/8" S&W 360 and got 1100+ fps! That's scootin'!!!

As an aside, recoil in that Scandium with full house .357's has to be experienced to be believed! On the other hand, it wasn't too bad with about 4.0 to 4.5 grains of Unique with 125 grain lead bullets running at a leisurely 550 to 600 fps!

bhemry,

I feel your pain on the 357 hot loads out of a 360PD! I shot seven rounds using hard plastic lasergrips out of mine that bruised my hand for two weeks.

I switched to the stock grips that came on my model 60 that cover the backstrap with 1/2" of rubber cushion and was able to shoot the gun using full bore 357's without immediate damage to my hand. I was getting 1200+ but those were just too wild, so dropped down to 1100 fps. I don't know why in the world Smith would put backstrap covering rubber grips on the 60 and not the 360's.

I agree that the light loads are easy shooters in either the 60 or 360 but once velocity gets around 800-900, the weight difference in the guns becomes painfully apparent! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for reminding me of something that I'd almost forgotten � hadn't thought-of in decades.

When the .44 Magnum was introduced (1956, IIRC), I got the first .44 Blackhawk (no. 1226) in these parts, and several boxes of the first ammo (Remington). A bit later, friends were buying Smith & Wessons and Western ammo. I shot both kinds of ammo in both kinds of handgun, and watched others do the same.

The Ruger and the Remington ammo were noticeably easier and more pleasant to shoot than the S&Ws and the Western ammo.

The differences were equally obvious to both the shooter and any on-looker.

Recoil was more of a push with the Remington ammo, a much shorter, sharper jolt with the Western ammo.

The Ruger rolled back in the gun hand. The S&W's sharp grip checkering "tenderized" the palm of the gun hand.

The Remington ammo, loaded with about a caseful of coarse powder, barked with a lower-frequency boom! and spit-out quite a large ball of flame. The Western ammo, loaded with only a husky pinch of very fine Ball� powder, had a much shorter, higher-pitch, nastier crack! that hurt the ears but didn't put-out much of a muzzle flash.

I have no way of guessing whether the Remingtons' lower-pitch boom! or the Westerns' higher-pitch crack! was louder than the other. But the Westerns were beyond question nastier in both muzzle report and recoil.

.

Reminds me of the first Bren Ten I ever laid eyes on. It was mine. It seemed like just before you pulled the trigger that thing jumped way up and torqued, hard, in the hand. After 50 rounds or so my hand was tenderized. It was deafeningly loud. That was the first run of Norma 200fmj's. Man they were something.

SS

Ken makes an interesting point. I was at an indoor range
tuesday and fired my super redhawk indoors for the first
time. I had fired it numerous times at outdoor ranges,
but never indoors before. I was using remington UMC
180 grain .44 mag. The thing had a louder report than
the 12 guage that someone had been practicing with the
week before. And a long flame spit from the barrel. I
fired 9 more rounds and then put it away.

The recoil on that heavy pistol was fine. With both protector
muffs and ear plugs, the noise was not as bad as a 155 mm
howitzer at the gun line. (It was not macho to wear ear
plugs in those days.) But I did find all the "What the heck
was that?" stares from the other people at the range a bit
unnerving.

As I was leaving the range later I mentioned at the front
counter that I had been firing a .44. The guy there said
"So that's what we were hearing." And they are insulated
and protected from the firing line, and facing away from
it.

I like my .44, But I think that I will only fire it at outdoor
ranges.

And that also convinced me to not use it as a self defense
weapon in my house. The noise would, I suspect, destroy
to what little is left of my hearing.

Chuck_Tree

I think this is the most neglected area of discussion about firearms. Excess noise damages hearing often even if hearing protection is used. Noise is a form of energy and I suspect on many magnum type calibers that more energy goes to noise than it does with non-magnum calibers. Perhaps it is a sign of inefficiency.

At the indoor range I have been frequenting lately it has been
interesting to note the different pistols' effects. Probably
the .357 in a 2" taurus was the most surprising to me. The
sound was among the loudest, and I believe that I felt a
pressure wave. Of course it was in the lane next to me.

A 12 guage shotgun and my 7.5" barreled .44 were also
amongst top "loudness" contenders.

By the way, there was a thread earlier in the handgun
forum that including JJHack discussing the likelihood of
poking your ears out with a .357 fired in a house.

Chuck

� an area that I've long intended to explore (and write about, of course) when I get the Powley Center up and running.

I'd appreciate any leads or tips that anyone can give me on how to record noise levels and show them graphically.

Muzzle flash and primer flash are dog-easy with any camera that can be set for an open shutter. Recoil is just as simple, with open flash. Chamber pressure is also simple with strain gauges and the necessary software. I have all those covered.

Barrel temperature is also easy, but the sensors and software are expensive. I'll have that covered, too, as soon as I can afford the needfuls. But the means of measuring, recording, and visually reporting muzzle blast still has me stumped.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />
.

A year or three ago, Jim Carmichel published an article in Outdoor Life on firearm noises and hearing protection. Jim C. mentioned that he had had a lot of technical support from his son Eric, who is some kind of professional who works with sound and its measurement. The article itself might give some hints about sound measurement technology. And Jim C. and/or his son Eric might be willing to give some further informatiion or enter into a cooperative effort with you. There may be others in the industry who would be interested in pursuing the subject. I'm certainly interested in learning more!

bhenry... I weren't thinking so much the ballistics, just the performance at the terminal end of the trajectory.

The concept of "one shot stops" and "bullet effectiveness" has been much debated, certainly velocity is critical but it ain't the whole enchilada.

Actually, given my druthers for an in-house load, the .45 ACP with standard-velocity 230 grain Hydra-shocks or similar would get my vote. Proven performance with modest blast and recoil.

But since reality dictates a 3" Model 60, I have sufficient confidence in the classic 158 grain LSWHP .38 plusP "FBI load", especially when used indoors. Sanow's (??) and Marshall's "street" stats indicate that these loads worked sufficiently about three out of four times. One the other hand the best .357 rip-snorters worked about nine out of ten times, prob'ly about eight out of ten times out of a snub.

Whatever one thinks of Marshall and Sanow's stats, they are useful ballpark figures that seem supported in real life experience. Hmm... 70%+ estimated effectiveness with a good .38 plusP, 80%+ estimated effectiveness with a rip-snorting .357 load and attendant loss of eardrums. Plus I can deliver those .38's right on target, one after the other in rapid succesion.

Given that, and all the other myriad factors figuring into the outcome of a self-defense altercation, I'll opt for the .38's.

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher,

Now that I reread your post, I see that you were referring to "real-world performance" rather than strictly ballistics- my bad. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

That being said, I'd been meaning to chronograph a 38+P versus a .357 just for the fun of it (curiosity) ever since I posted. Last night I finally did. Both were 125 grain bullets out of my 2" barrel Rossi. A Remington 38+P got 860 fps, the Win .357 turned 1260 fps.

I see that you are using a 3" barrel instead of a 2". While looking through some of my limited chrono data, I see where I got about 100 fps more velocity out of my 3" barrel with 148 grain bullets and 150 fps with 125 grain bullets when using 4.0 grains of Unique. (That's when I had one gun of each length).

While I was at it, I put a magazine of 60 grain Winchester Silvertips from my Kel-Tec .32 Auto through the choronograph at 790 fps. A little more anemic than I'd hoped, but... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

bhenry... thanks for the info. A couple of years back a guy at the range chronoed those 158 LSWHP plusP rounds out of my 3" Mod 60: 850 fps if I'm remebering right, about 40 fps off what the factories claim for the same out of a "vented 4-inch barrel".

I think 790 fps is pretty good for that dinky little Kel-Tec.

As you probably know, the Brits pioneered the defensive revolver. Sure Col. Colt invented it, but production of the .36 1851 Navy single action soon commenced in London, and many British Officers carried one as a sidearm.

Shortly the British themselves began designing their own revolvers, based largely upon combat experience. Double action quickly became the norm, and the caliber bumped up to .45 or even larger. Said weapons generally employed on foot, and at close range.

By the Webley era the standard "Bulldog" type round was a soft lead bullet of around 250 grains propelled at only around 650 fps. Despite the low velocity, these rounds worked very well.

The official Biritsh policy was "A British Officer will rarely need his revolver, but when he does he will need it very badly". To that end by the 1920's to graduate from "Revolver School", the Officer had one second to raise his arm from a one-handed low-ready postion and place a single round inside a 10" x 15" rectangle at some moderate distance (I forget, 20 feet?). A test which closely duplicated the conditions of actual use.

The point of all this being when the Brits downsized to the .380 Enfields in the 30's they specified a 200 grain soft LRN at a velocity of about 660 fps. This load reportedly worked well but never saw major conflict, the Geneva Convention obliging them to switch to an 180 grain FMJ at that same velocity, which performed dismally in combat in WWII.

Interestingly, a 200 gr LRN in .38 Special at about that same 660 fps was once a popular police round here in the United States (IIRC it was still loaded by Remington at least up until about 30 years ago, I have a few left over from a box I found).

This load had its adherents here too, and I remember reading an account of a fleeing criminal being killed on the spot by such a load at a measured 75 yards.

Some years back, in one of the "Gun Annuals", a guy wrote a piece on that same load (recreated through handloads) out of a 3" .38 j-frame and fired them into some test medium.

According to the author this load did not depend upon velocity or expansion for effectiveness, but rather upon the fact that the long 200 grain bullet invariably tumbled on contact. A pity no one still loads it, I'd like to see it tested out of a 2" snub.

I did find a box of .357 200 grain LRN and tried them out in my Mod 60, in that liitle revolver the soft lead bullets pulled under recoil, tying up the gun by projecting out of the cylinder.

Personally, I still think the long heavy tumbles-on-contact concept could work, might even turn out to be an excellent snub round. I ain't holding my breath waiting for its return though.

Birdwatcher

I think the biggest problem with discussing firearm related noise is it's mostly all based on opinion, and or, speculation. For example whenever the subject of muzzle brakes comes up, on this or any other forum, it immediately turns into argument about hearing loss. Yet little, if ANY substanciated fact is ever produced. I have fired braked rifles for over 25 years and have experienced no such loss. It isn't really accurate to argue Db's because it's an apples and oranges comparision. No one is going to tell me that an airport ramp worker, or a flight deck hand on an aircraft carrier who is exposed to running jet engines on a constant basis, isn't going to have more hearing loss over time than a shooter who shoots a muzzle braked rifle on occasion. This even though the shooter is exposed to a higher Db level. This is assuming that both are wearing equal hearing protection. I totally agree that firing most ANY center fire magnum handgun in an indoor range will produce far more noise than any muzzle braked rifle will outdoors. All sounds resonates off solid objects, and dissapates in open air. I have read posts that claim it was painful when they fired a braked rifle. If thats the case there is nowhere near enough hearing protection being worn! Sound should never be painful. billt.

billt,

The only and last time I fired my .454 without hearing protection was before it was ported. I had only one ear plug and installed it in the left ear because that's the one nearest the revolver. When I fired the blast in my right ear was way more than loud. It was down right, intensely, abusively painfull.

There are many good posts on this thread and I appreciate them.

My hearing ls about gone at my age, but i can still hear my S&W Mod 53 22Jet OK, George.