PDA

View Full Version : Stories/examples of .22 being insufficient for SD?


Eskimo
January 28, 2009, 01:51 PM
Any of you guys know of any stories about self defense with a .22?

Keltyke
January 28, 2009, 02:16 PM
Pointless. ANY round can be ineffective, given certain conditions. Also, ANY round can be a stopper, given different conditions.

First rule of a gun fight - Bring a gun. A .22 LR in your pocket is a better SD weapon than the .45 ACP sitting on the nightstand.

Dwight55
January 28, 2009, 03:30 PM
Several years ago, . . . couple locals got into a confrontation in one of the down town watering holes in a local blue collar town.

Both had revolvers, . . . both pulled em, . . . each shot the other guy several times, . . . both died.

Guy who was shot with the .357 died before EMT even got to the bar.

Guy who was shot with the .22 hung on until he was in the ER, . . . but he died too.

Lesson: if you need to shoot someone, . . . shoot em with something that has the "probability" of their becomeing no longer a threat, . . . quickly.

May God bless,
Dwight

Eskimo
January 28, 2009, 04:27 PM
The lack of response has brought be one step closer to believing that ".22s are insuffecient" is just a load of BS. Everyone seems to say that .22's arent good enough but for some reason, they always fail to give examples.

Brian Pfleuger
January 28, 2009, 04:41 PM
The lack of response has brought be one step closer to believing that ".22s are insuffecient" is just a load of BS. Everyone seems to say that .22's arent good enough but for some reason, they always fail to give examples.


I could also mean that so few people carry them for self defense that when those numbers are combined with the likelihood of needing ANY gun at all then you are left with very few SD incident involving 22LR.

As an example, if 1% of carries use a 22 and only 1% of carriers ever use their weapons, you are left with only 1% of 1% likely to be a 22.


Bottom Line: If you want to carry a 22 for SD, go right ahead. Why would anyone else care?

Japle
January 28, 2009, 04:42 PM
In the late '60s my father-in-law was raising pigs on his farm. He had a sow that was rupturing out the back end and had to be destroyed. She weighed about 60 lbs. I volunteered.

I took my Ruger .22 pistol, loaded it with Mini-Mag hollow points and went out to the feed lot. I got in front of her, lined up the sights and plugged her right between the eyes. The shot was followed by a squeal from the pig and the sound of the bullet spinning end-over-end into the east cornfield.

She ran 20 feet or so, shook her head and went back to rooting in the muck.
My next shot was broadside through the lungs. She twitched, but wasn't distracted. The 3rd shot got her behind the ear and she dropped. In a nasty puddle, of course.

Except for a small tear, there was no damage from the 1st shot. It had been perfect, except for my choice of caliber. I didn't bother to open her up to check on the last two. I'd already learned enough.

.22s are for rabbits. Small rabbits.

mnhntr
January 28, 2009, 04:53 PM
i have shot a couple of tree rats that made it from tree to tree and into their house. if it wont stop a tree rat that weighs in at a whopping 1-2lbs why would you believe it would stop a 250lbs person. common sense tells me not to hunt deer with a daisey red rider.

raimius
January 28, 2009, 05:02 PM
Any round CAN be effective. Larger rounds are more likely to be effective...and effective faster.

Musketeer
January 28, 2009, 05:04 PM
The lack of response has brought be one step closer to believing that ".22s are insuffecient" is just a load of BS. Everyone seems to say that .22's arent good enough but for some reason, they always fail to give examples.

Would you trust it to stop a 90# mountain lion?

Why then would you depend on it to stop a 200# meth addict.

I believe the lack of responses you are seeing is because most people do not take this thread seriously but by all means, strap on your .22.

Atltech
January 28, 2009, 05:26 PM
This is a case for '' size doesn't matter." A well placed .22LR HP in the head & heart will stop anyone.The art of SD is about out smarting an opponent.
I carry a 380 auto as my personal SD weapon because of it's compact size & weight.I keep within reach a Browning Buck Mark .22LR loaded with HP rounds.
1 in the chamber & 10 in the clip.If I can't stop an intruder with the .22LR,I need to hire a guard...:cool:

melchloboo
January 28, 2009, 05:27 PM
Not a SD situation...but a middle school girl here in Florida recently killed a classmate in the hallway with a .22. I do not know the details of the wounds, just that the newspaper reported it was a .22 semi-automatic.

I believe I read that Mossad agents hunted down and used .22 at point blank range on the masterminds of the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. Perhaps a mix of myth and reality, but supposedly during the cold war the .22 was the weapon of choice for international assassins. It is a very easily silenced round, supposedly.

mnhntr
January 28, 2009, 05:50 PM
This is a case for '' size doesn't matter." A well placed .22LR HP in the head & heart will stop anyone.The art of SD is about out smarting an opponent.
I carry a 380 auto as my personal SD weapon because of it's compact size & weight.I keep within reach a Browning Buck Mark .22LR loaded with HP rounds.
1 in the chamber & 10 in the clip.If I can't stop an intruder with the .22LR,I need to hire a guard...
really what about the Reagan assassination attempt? how many people got shot with a 22lr and didnt die. i have seen many gunshots over the years in my job and the only 22lr deaths that were even close to immediate were in the mouth self inflicted. not long ago i picked up a guy shot in the chest from 7 feet away with a 9mm fmj that hit a rib on his side and followed the rib stopping just under his pectoral muscle. SIZE DOES MATTER. you may trust your life to a 380 but i will stick to somthing bigger.

Eskimo
January 28, 2009, 05:54 PM
As usual, I see a lot of people being rude and hostile just because someone mentions .22 for self-defense. Lots of hot air on a subject that usually goes on pure hearsay..

I still don't see a single self defense example. : )

Glenn E. Meyer
January 28, 2009, 06:08 PM
There are web pages that document self defense and LEO uses of guns. Clayton Cramer, the NRA, Chris Bird, Evan Marshall - and others do this. The North American Arms folks have stories of using their 22 minis for self-defense.

A search might be useful. You can clearly come up with folks who used 22s for self-defense. So that's not an issue.

What is the point - the endless debate about stopping power?

omkhan
January 29, 2009, 01:53 AM
A friend of mine here used his .22 short revolver long time back. He used to live alone in the house when he saw some movements in the back & side yards of his 600 sq. yards home. He could see two men trying to sneak up in the bed room window. Shot a fire & missed the BGs head by a couple of inches. Shot a couple of times again outside the window in their direction. Went into the washroom to call the police & reload. Police arrived after 15 mins or so. The BGs had fled long ago. People outside witnessed "seven" robbers exiting the home. He was very lucky that no BG fired back & he wasn't ambushed by other BGs from some other entrance.

BTW he was very happy that he didnt kill or injured any BG otherwise he was sure that his "buddies" might have come back for revenge.

Double Naught Spy
January 29, 2009, 02:42 AM
The lack of response has brought be one step closer to believing that ".22s are insuffecient" is just a load of BS. Everyone seems to say that .22's arent good enough but for some reason, they always fail to give examples.

If you are going to base your research and the validity of the results from the responses here and arrive at the conclusion that because you aren't getting definitive answers to the contrary then the .22 is probably sufficient, then you have a poorly designed research plan.

First of all, what do you call "sufficient"? Technically, since most successful firearm use for self defense does not involve pulling the trigger. The mere presence of a firearm and its perceived threat is sufficient for self defense, even when the gun is unloaded. So caliber doesn't matter one iota at this level and this is the most common use of firearms in self defense!

Another group of people are sufficiently stopped by the mere discharge of a weapon, be it as a warning shot or shot that missed. Once again, caliber isn't an issue. The stop was effectively performed. The threat was mitigated, not neutralized, but mitigated.

Next you have people that do get shot with a given caliber that are psychologically stopped by the impact. Either they turn tail or the drop on the spot (even if the wound doesn't physically make this happen). These are usually soft tissue wounds striking non-vital areas with non-critical wounds. Once again, caliber isn't an issue so much of the damage is still psychological, not physiological.

Next is the level of wounding that does cause critical or life threatening damage, but may not bring quick incapacitation. The wounds are such that the person will be incapacitated if given time to bleed out or sepsis to work. It is at this level that the .22 argument are going to start having merit against them. .22s simply don't do as much damage as larger calibers and are more likely to not bring incapacitation quickly.

Last is the immediate incapacitation. You can look to the one-shot stop database for information here, controversial as it may be. Smaller calibers such as the .22 that are often used do not produce the best results. .25 acp is a poor performer as well. Shot placement is going to be critical and even then, .22s don't always perform well...performing worse than larger calibers.

So it is at these last two levels that the issue of .22 effectiveness is truly critical and it is at these two levels that the fewest actual number of events will be occurring. However, these are the most important events when stopping a person is physiologically critical, not just psychologically critical. Given that the .22 only effects a limited amount of damage compared to larger calibers, do you really want to rely on a .22 to actually perform the necessary physiological stop when larger calibers can do it much better (even if their records are far from perfect)?

Then there is the aspect of ignition system. Rimfire is simply not as reliable of an ignition system as centerfire. So when it comes to self defense reliability when you want your gun to discharge, your chances of that not happening are much greater with a rimfire such as a .22 lr.

FoMoCowboy
January 29, 2009, 03:06 AM
.....i dont know how to quote......but here is what i WANT to quote


"Why then would you depend on it to stop a 200# meth addict."


Since when to meth addicts weigh 200lbs?

Adrian
January 29, 2009, 04:07 AM
.....i dont know how to quote......but here is what i WANT to quote

Use {quote} and {/quote}, exchanging the curly brackets for square ones. If you want to include the name of the person who said it, use {quote="<name goes here>"}{/quote}, like {quote="FoMoCowboy"}.

"Why then would you depend on it to stop a 200# meth addict."


Since when to meth addicts weigh 200lbs?

That's easy; when they start at 300. =)

csmsss
January 29, 2009, 08:48 AM
That's easy; when they start at 300. =)Or when they're carrying your Sony Trinitron!

Keltyke
January 29, 2009, 09:49 AM
I got in front of her, lined up the sights and plugged her right between the eyes.

You don't know much about pigs. :) Even a shotgun blast has been known to bounce off the thick skull. :eek: You DO know how they stun them for butchering, don't you? ;) A sideways heart shot is best, as you found out.

coastie24
January 29, 2009, 10:02 AM
Forgive me if im wrong, but I believe I heard on, "The First 48," that the number one leading round of homicide is the .22.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of a .17 let alone a .22.

Musketeer
January 29, 2009, 10:30 AM
You can kill a person with a slingshot, paperclip, pencil, and a cherry pit. That does not make any of them the best, or even suitable, choice for the job given other options being available.

I will agree that the .22 is a good weapon for self defense given the availability of other cartridges in concealable firearms when you can show me ONE law enforcement agency which advocates that caliber for carry.

How about simply finding one serious hunter that advocates using the .22 LR for larger game like deer?

The .22 at its best is an available self defense option.

Brian Pfleuger
January 29, 2009, 10:46 AM
the number one leading round of homicide is the .22.


I don't think that's a valid comparison. Many homicides are perpetrated against an unsuspecting victim who is, for example, sleeping (or otherwise unaware or defenseless). Also, homicides are not "shoot two times COM and see if they stop" situations. Because some scumbag can sneak up on a sleeping person and put a 22 bullet in their head hardly justifies the use of that cartridge for legitimate SD purposes.

Turn the tables, if someone was intent on making YOU the victim of homicide and they were using a 22, is the cartridge you'd want to return fire with a 22?

csmsss
January 29, 2009, 11:46 AM
I wouldn't necessarily want to be on the wrong end of a thrown rock, but that doesn't mean I'm going to keep a pocket full of rocks for self defense either.

A factor to consider when you're quoting statistics - how many of those homicides committed with .22LR firearms were done with rifles and not tiny pocket pistols? Because that's the only SD context where the 22 has an advantage over any other cartridge commonly used for defense - concealability.

One other point - we all know how important shot placement is - yet that is the hugest compromise you'll make in a pocket pistol - the sights tend to be crude, the pistol doesn't tend to fit comfortably in the hand, and the sight radius miniscule. Throw in the adrenaline rush you'll be in the full throes of, and tell me how accurate you'll be.

You know, we can each of us buy and carry whatever the hell we wish to use, and if something in .22LR is what floats your boat, fine - but it is a grave mistake to suggest that it is a highly suitable cartridge for the task, at least from a terminal ballistics perspective.

If I had only a .22LR to defend myself with, would I use it? Sure. Would I wish I had something more substantial? You know it.

tjhands
January 29, 2009, 11:54 AM
As usual, I see a lot of people being rude and hostile just because someone mentions .22 for self-defense. Lots of hot air on a subject that usually goes on pure hearsay..


I don't think you're actually seeking knowledge here. You had already concluded that one of the smallest caliber available is plenty potent for you. This is purely a baiting thread. It's more than a little sad on a number of levels, but I guess I hope you're having fun with it. ;)

hogdogs
January 29, 2009, 11:56 AM
There is no pig of any size that has a THICK enuff skull to bounce off any round. Improper angle will deflect a bullet of any size on a large bone. I use a .177 air rifle and 8 grain pellet to kill hogs routinely. The skull seems fairly thin to me when I look at them all cleaned and boiled.
My father's old time bestest buddy was shot 6 times in the back with a .25 auto and got so mad at the little punk he went back, took the pistol from him and beat him about the head and neck with it and drove himself to the hospital. The shooting started from 15 feet and as he walked calmly to his truck increased the distance to 35 or so feet before he decided to lump the shooter up for using a peashooter...
Brent

tjhands
January 29, 2009, 12:01 PM
DN Spy, that was the best post I've read in a while - thank you. Even if the OP reads the first line of it and quits when he realizes that it's not going to reinforce his opinions you should know that others of us read it and appreciate your time and effort. :)

David Armstrong
January 29, 2009, 12:44 PM
Any of you guys know of any stories about self defense with a .22?
I've researched thousands of shootings, and the .22 seems to work just fine for the typical SD situation. In those situations where a .22 did not work it seems likely that bigger calibers would not work either.

David Armstrong
January 29, 2009, 12:54 PM
I will agree that the .22 is a good weapon for self defense given the availability of other cartridges in concealable firearms when you can show me ONE law enforcement agency which advocates that caliber for carry.
Times have changed, but there was at least one State Police agency that issued the High-Standard .22 derringer for BUG/off-duty use in the past.

Of course, the issue is somewhat irrelveant as you also won't find a LE agency advocating the .38 snub for carry, or the various .32s, .380s, 9mm Makarovs, etc. LE carry needs are quite different than most non-LE needs.

Eskimo
January 29, 2009, 01:06 PM
I don't think you're actually seeking knowledge here. You had already concluded that one of the smallest caliber available is plenty potent for you. This is purely a baiting thread. It's more than a little sad on a number of levels, but I guess I hope you're having fun with it.

When did I conclude that .22 was plenty potent enough? GJ shoving words in my mouth. You are assuming WAY too much. I am "baiting" the people who seem to always jump on anyone when they mention .22, because I never see any solid evidence that it's a terrible SD round. Keep the rude comments to yourself.

Wuchak
January 29, 2009, 01:19 PM
I am "baiting" the people ...

Thanks for admitting you are being a troll.


I've never seen any evidence showing rubber band, potato, and cork guns are terrible SD guns but I do have a brain and can grasp the obvious.

Musketeer
January 29, 2009, 01:54 PM
Come to think of it, I have seen no evidence from actual shootings of the .22LR being unsuitable for taking African Elephant.

teeroux
January 29, 2009, 02:16 PM
I've seen no evidence of its failure to penetrate tank armor either it must be suitable then.:eek::D

FoMoCowboy
January 29, 2009, 02:49 PM
QUOTE]How about simply finding one serious hunter that advocates using the .22 LR for larger game like deer?[/QUOTE]

I know of a handful who have used .22lr for deer and antelope with success


As usual, I see a lot of people being rude and hostile just because someone mentions .22 for self-defense. Lots of hot air on a subject that usually goes on pure hearsay..

This is EXACTLY why i left my last forum. over .22 trail guns.

tjhands
January 29, 2009, 03:20 PM
Well I never!


You make me sad. :(

Gadget
January 29, 2009, 03:30 PM
This is worth exactly what you've paid for it:

In my younger days on the farm, my father and I used to butcher 900-1200 steers for beef. A head shot in the right place with Dad's .22 guaranteed a day of butchering. Those days made a deep impression on me, namely that shot placement is the key to any bullets effectiveness. I carry much larger calibers on a daily basis, but I wouldn't be undergunned with a .22

Eskimo
January 29, 2009, 03:35 PM
Come to think of it, I have seen no evidence from actual shootings of the .22LR being unsuitable for taking African Elephant.

Are you claiming that people have arguments about the effectiveness of .22lr on African Elephants?

SigfanTN
January 29, 2009, 03:36 PM
I am "baiting" the people who seem to always jump on anyone when they mention .22, because I never see any solid evidence that it's a terrible SD round

So your intent is to call out those whose opinions differ from yours? :confused: As Glenn Meyer asks:
What is the point...


If I had to carry a .22 for SD I would since it is better than going unarmed, but I certainly would not go so far as to say it is a good SD round.

Please read post #16 where DNS gave the best response you could hope to receive in this farce of a thread.

What is "rude" and "hostile" is that you would try to post a thread such as this for your stated purpose above...

I am reporting this thread to the mods in hopes that it is closed since it is doing nothing to expand anyone's knowledge. I guess that makes me rude :p

Glock1975
January 29, 2009, 03:50 PM
I'd have to say no, but thats my own opinion and everyone is entitled to one. I prefer to carry what I'm comfortable with and thats all that matters. And thats what should matter to anyone who's carrying for SD. You need to have confidence in your abilities and your weapon. One doesn't go very good without the other! So will carry a .22 for SD? NO Wold I if its all I had? Yes. Is it a good all around SD round depends.:rolleyes:;)

Musketeer
January 29, 2009, 03:58 PM
I know of a handful who have used .22lr for deer and antelope with success

and I would say they were deliberately irresponsible hunters for using a cartridge so unsuitable to the game they were hunting.

tjhands
January 29, 2009, 04:11 PM
...but I wouldn't be undergunned with a .22

That would depend entirely on what your opponent was armed with. If he has a gun, chances are extremely good that you would indeed be undergunned.

But y'all carry your Beretta Bobcats if that's what tickles you.

ratshooter
January 29, 2009, 04:12 PM
Get a book titled "Vengence" by Goerge Jonus. It is the book the movie "Munich" was based on. The movie wasn't so hot but the book is fantastic. It will give you your answer to the 22 question.

I carried a 22 for years. An Iver Johnson TP22 that I wish I still had. I never had to use it but I almost did once.

I stopped at a rest area that was empty. I put the gun in my pocket and walked to the mens room. On the way there, a man was waiting outside the restroom. I really had to go. I was alarmed by his actions and manner. Plus there had been a string of robberies at the local rest stops.

While taking a leak I used my off hand and had the gun clutched in my right hand ready to use. I heard footsteps and thought "hear we go". It was two guys in suits that had stopped. I went outside and the first guy was gone.

Two weeks later there was story in the newspaper about a traveller that was roobed and killed. They caught the robbers. One of the guys was the person at the rest stop.

That little 22 wasn't much but it was there and I was more than willing to use it. I now carry a 357 in my truck. It was nice to be able to drop that little gun in my pocket and no one knew it was there. I use a Kel-Tec 32 for the same thing now.

Rich Miranda
January 29, 2009, 04:25 PM
It is a very easily silenced round, supposedly.

To me it sounds just like a pellet gun. VERY little report. With the right silencer, I suppose you could truly silence it.

Musketeer
January 29, 2009, 04:33 PM
Get a book titled "Vengence" by Goerge Jonus. It is the book the movie "Munich" was based on. The movie wasn't so hot but the book is fantastic. It will give you your answer to the 22 question.
Assassinating unaware people from close range is different than having to defend yourself.

ratshooter
January 29, 2009, 04:38 PM
The people that were shot were aware of what was happening. That includes a couple of russians with AKs.

Also no one was shot from behind. All were frontal shots. Like I said, read the book.

Donn_N
January 29, 2009, 05:03 PM
LE carry needs are quite different than most non-LE needs.

How so?

David Armstrong
January 29, 2009, 08:28 PM
LE has little concern with size issue ordinarily, as they carry openly or if they are made off-duty is isn't much of an issue. LE is expected to move toward and close with the BG, not away. If the BG goes away, LE is expected to follow. LE needs to plan for barrier penetration on a fairly regular basis. Assorted other differences. Non-LE is pretty simple...you just need to convince the BG to go someplace else.

Double Naught Spy
January 29, 2009, 09:11 PM
LE has little concern with size issue ordinarily, as they carry openly or if they are made off-duty is isn't much of an issue. LE is expected to move toward and close with the BG, not away. If the BG goes away, LE is expected to follow. LE needs to plan for barrier penetration on a fairly regular basis. Assorted other differences. Non-LE is pretty simple...you just need to convince the BG to go someplace else.

Oh I get it, because you are an LE, you need to make sure the BG goes down, but everyone else needs to just hope the caliber will make the BG go away and puny calibers are plenty fine for hoping that. :rolleyes:

Now where are my ruby red slippers?

I will say this, from the incidents I have researched where good guys are shot with .22 lr, their chances of not being stopped and their chances of survival are much better than when the BGs use bigger calibers.

gollbladder13
January 29, 2009, 10:39 PM
If I got hit with a .22, depending on where I got hit, it would send me home. I would think accuracy of the shooter would be up there in importance with caliber?

I could be wrong, but if I come after you armed I get hit in the stomach, I'll probably stop or at least be distracted for a few seconds. IMO, if I still try to get up and (probably slowly and labored) take aim on you, next guess is probably my head gets a round. If that doesn't turn somebody around (if they can still get up), well, idk what will.

Again, I could be wrong, and please stop me if I am...

Keltyke
January 30, 2009, 09:43 AM
[QUOTE]Again, I could be wrong, and please stop me if I am.[/QUOTE.

You got the right idea, 'golbladder13'. No one wants to be shot with anything and I guarantee a cylinder/magazine full of CCI Mini-Mag .22 LR (or the equivalent) in the chest, belly, and/or face will make anyone pay attention. The mere fact that you're willing to pull a gun and fight back will discourage a lot of BGs. Criminals want it easy.

CajunBass
January 30, 2009, 10:38 AM
I carry a 22 from time to time. Those times are when I'm too lazy to carry something bigger, or when I don't want to go off and leave my Colt Commander locked up in my truck.

I figure the odds against me needed a gun, any gun really, are about the same as the chances I'll get hit by a flying saucer that ran a red light, but you never know. I'm way to old and fat to fist fight, and too slow to run.

But I ain't kidding myself and saying "It's just as good as a .45."

Edited to add: To answer your original question, the NRA's "Armed Citizen" is full of cases of people sucessfuly using 22's for self defense. I don't know if they're availabe online or not. If you're a member of the NRA check out the column in "The American Rifleman." If you not a member, shame on you.

Chinny33
January 30, 2009, 11:36 AM
I was pumping gas at my local gas station one day and befriended a gas station attendant. We went on to talk about random things, then he said "hey wanna see something cool?"....so he lifts up his pants leg and shows me holes from 2x .22lr's. He never told me how it happened, but I did notice that it was an obvious violent confrontation with the wrong person.

The holes were only a week old and you can clearly see there were chunks of meat gone out of his leg.

What I learned from this...being shot is psychological. This guy realized he was shot twice and immediately gave up the fight. I know not eveyone will react like this and I realize that. I would not be "undergunned" with a .22lr. I believe just having adds comfort and piece of mind to the user and a BG wont care if its a 50BMG or a 17hmr pointed at him.

Also, the guy told me that it was the most incredible burning sensation he has ever felt, being shot, which is what immediately immobilized him.

Donn_N
January 30, 2009, 11:58 AM
LE has little concern with size issue ordinarily, as they carry openly or if they are made off-duty is isn't much of an issue. LE is expected to move toward and close with the BG, not away. If the BG goes away, LE is expected to follow. LE needs to plan for barrier penetration on a fairly regular basis. Assorted other differences. Non-LE is pretty simple...you just need to convince the BG to go someplace else.

Have you ever seen all the stuff on a LE officer's belt? If they could get away with a smaller gun, they would. They are forced to carry a larger gun because they know that a smaller caliber gun is less likely to get the job done.

If you have to shoot someone, the primary goal is to put him down as quickly as possible. It doesn't matter if you're a LE officer or an armed citizen. Some calibers seem more likely to do that than others.

The argument that a citizen has to just make the bad guy go away doesn't wash. If just showing a gun or firing a gun is sufficient to make the bad guy run away, it is also likely sufficient for the bad guy to surrender to the LE officer.

And while barrier penetration is likely to be more of an issue for LE, it isn't impossible to imagine a situation where an armed citizen might also need that capability.

The bottom line is that anyone who feels the need to carry a firearm should probably carry one that is most likely to get the job done in all situations.

Would I use a .22 if it was all I had? Sure. Would I leave the house with a .22 as my primary carry gun hoping that if I needed a gun it would be against someone who would run in fear at the mere sight of the weapon? Absolutely not.

David Armstrong
January 30, 2009, 12:01 PM
Oh I get it, because you are an LE, you need to make sure the BG goes down, but everyone else needs to just hope the caliber will make the BG go away and puny calibers are plenty fine for hoping that.
Well, since nobody said anything close to that, nor even implied it in any way, there really isn't much need to point out all the fallicies in that statement, IMO.

David Armstrong
January 30, 2009, 03:18 PM
Have you ever seen all the stuff on a LE officer's belt? If they could get away with a smaller gun, they would. They are forced to carry a larger gun because they know that a smaller caliber gun is less likely to get the job done.
Yes I have, no they wouldn't, and no they aren't.
If you have to shoot someone, the primary goal is to put him down as quickly as possible.
No it isn't. For SD purposes, the primary goal is to make the BG stop putting you in danger. Putting him down is pretty much irrelevant.
The argument that a citizen has to just make the bad guy go away doesn't wash.
Why would you want to keep him around you? If he goes away, how are you in any immediate danger from him?
If just showing a gun or firing a gun is sufficient to make the bad guy run away, it is also likely sufficient for the bad guy to surrender to the LE officer.
That is an interesting idea, but I'm not aware of anything that would support it. In fact, since making someone go away and taking away their liberty are such totally different concepts, I doubt that there is much validity to the idea at all.
And while barrier penetration is likely to be more of an issue for LE, it isn't impossible to imagine a situation where an armed citizen might also need that capability.

It's possible to imagine lots of things. I prefer to stay away from imagination and discuss reality whenever possible. But maybe that is just me. Just because one can imagine it doesn't really give much support for something.
The bottom line is that anyone who feels the need to carry a firearm should probably carry one that is most likely to get the job done in all situations.
So we should all carry around S&W 500s w/6.5" barrels just in case we need to fight off a wild grizzly bear in downtown Topeka??

gollbladder13
January 30, 2009, 03:36 PM
Armstrong,

Remind me to always stay on your good side when posting :p

David Armstrong
January 30, 2009, 03:47 PM
Don't need to stay on my good side, just need to post accurate and reasonable info. There are folks here I don't care much for that I've defended their position or info because it was right, and there are those I'm good friends with that I've taken to task because their info was wrong. There is enough nonsense , fiction, and mythology in the gun world already without helping to spread it, IMO!:)

AZAK
January 30, 2009, 03:56 PM
So we should all carry around S&W 500s w/6.5" barrels just in case we need to fight off a wild grizzly bear

Where I live, that is not what I carry for Brown bears; not enough.

However, a good flame thrower is hard to CC.

David Armstrong
January 30, 2009, 04:43 PM
What do you mean, "not enough"? Why, the mighty Brown bear is a gentle soul, a friend to man and Nature. The bears would never hurt anyone. I know because I saw the Grizzly Man Diaries!

Oh wait, never mind...the bears killed and ate him!:D

threegun
January 30, 2009, 04:46 PM
Example of a 22lr's failure to stop or cause severe enough damage to allow its user to survive the encounter..........in this case it was fortunate that the dead man used a 22lr handgun since he was killed by a homeowner as he attempted a home invasion style robbery.

My grandmothers jewelers (before she died) would visit customers at their homes, sell them gold, then visit monthly for payment and more sales attempts. This event happened to them and I believe the 22lr contributed to their survival.

One morning Mr. Penda went outside to feed his rotweilers. His wife was asleep in the bedroom and daughter was enjoying breakfast in the kitchen. Once outside a masked man armed with a handgun confronted him and demanded he go inside and give up his gold. Mr Penda knowing his wife and daughter were inside refused and was subsequently shot in the leg by the gunman armed with a 22lr handgun. Mrs. Penda still sleeping heard the gunshot but disregarded it as a backfire and continued sleeping. Mr. Penda now forced to go inside enters the kitchen were his daughter is now confronted. The gunman again demands the gold only this time he threatens to do ungodly things to the daughter if unsatisfied. Now MOMMY....Mrs. Penda is fully aware of the situation and knows the group will have to enter the bedroom to get the gold. She arms herself with a 357 Magnum revolver and hides behind the open bedroom door. As the gunman enters the room he is to close to her husband to chance a COM shot so she fires a round into the gunman's shoulder to in her words "separate him from my husband". It works she hits the bad guy in the shoulder area causing him to spin and allowing hubby to dive to the side. The gunman returns fire hitting Mrs. Penda in the weak hand arm. His round goes through her arm and into her side. Mrs. Penda then shoots the gunman in the head killing him.

While we will never know if a larger caliber would have changed Mrs. Pendas ability to hit the head of the gunman, I for one never want to leave that possibility open. The location of the wounds and her description of how she was positioned lead me to believe that a larger caliber would have broken the Radius and entered the side just below the heart surely traveling further than the puny 22lr did.

You will have stories, examples, and possibilities galore both pro and con for each sides arguement (puny vs larger caliber). The only thing that counts is if and when your turn comes up will the puny 22lr be enough help to overcome your adversary/ies. As many optimists like DA and others have said it will probably be all you will ever need. I on the other hand would rather not chance Mr Murphy. IMO a carry gun should have enough power to smash bone and still reach the vitals. For this reason I will do whatever it takes to conceal a firearm of sufficient power to do so. There are so many options that are both tiny and powerful as to make concealment a breeze even here in Florida and even on those humid 95 plus degree days.

Musketeer
January 30, 2009, 04:49 PM
If the concern is simply having a gun, which upon presentation of which many self defense scenarios end with the criminal beating feet, then certainly the .22lr works. In any situation it is far better than throwing rocks.

If the attacker and situation do not allow for the presentation of the weapon to have a chance to deter the crime then we need to bank on its effectiveness.

Many criminal will run at the first shot fired, many will give up upon being shot, enough to be concerned about though do not simply decide to give up or run off even when shot. At that point the goal is make certain the threat is ended as quickly as possible without the "agreement" of the attacker.

To "force" the attacker to stop being a threat they must have their CNS shut down, their skeletal structure wrecked to the point at which it cannot support them so you can get away, or they must loose enough blood so that they can no longer operate.

1. Damaging the CNS. To do this you need to punch through the skull or penetrate through the torso and its bone structure to make your way through a vertebrae. Sorry, compared to other calibers the .22lr is woefully underpowered for the task of reliably punching through the curved surface of the skull or making it through the torso to crack the vertebrae and sever the chord. All handgun calibers are a compromise but in this case I cannot see the compromise as reasonable. (You could get lucky and shoot through the neck's vertebrae...)

2. Shattering Supporting Bones. Often hoped for with a pelvic shot every handgun has serious problems doing this, the .22lr being the worst of the bunch.

3. Blood Loss. All things being equal this comes down to depth of penetration and expansion. In short, wound cavity. Sorry, that .22lr will not make anywhere near the cavity of an expanding .38, 9mm, 45, 10mm, even a .380. Therefore bleeding out will take longer and the fight will go on. He may still die or collapse but it will take longer and he will still be a threat in that time.

Sorry, the success of the .22LR as a defensive round depends on the will of the attacker. It depends on him giving up. Should he give up it has worked as well as a .44 mag. Should he not give up you are now stuck dealing with all the round's shortcomings. Hopefully he gives up.

threegun
January 30, 2009, 05:06 PM
Because some things are unlikely we are not supposed to prepare for them??????wow. Last time I checked it was not likely that I ever need to pull my CW yet I still prepare for that unlikely event.

IMO It is illogical to prepare for one rare event by opting to carry only to argue that needing a larger caliber is unnecessary because it would only make a difference in a rare event. If you need your CW you have defied the odds already......so you push your luck I won't.

Nnobby45
January 30, 2009, 05:21 PM
As an example, if 1% of carries use a 22 and only 1% of carriers ever use their weapons, you are left with only 1% of 1% likely to be a 22.


I tend to agree, where CC is concerned, since so few people carry them.

However, when you look at all the people who have been shot with .22's, the shear number of shootings racks up a toll. People have been getting shot with .22's for many decades, even without CCW. Just because they're prevalent.

People can do their own Googling around, but .22's have probably done in more people (used in SD and by criminals) than .38's.

csmsss
January 30, 2009, 05:49 PM
However, when you look at all the people who have been shot with .22's, the shear number of shootings racks up a toll. People have been getting shot with .22's for many decades, even without CCW. Just because they're prevalent.

People can do their own Googling around, but .22's have probably done in more people (used in SD and by criminals) than .38's.That's all well and good, but a significant number of those - almost certainly a majority of those shootings - has been done with rifles. The ballistics of a .22LR shot from a tiny pistol vs. those shot from a rifle are drastically different, and unless the shooting "data" (most is, by its nature, anecdotal) is corrected to remove those incidents where the subject is shot with a rifle, it cannot reasonably be relied upon. I can think of no other calibers commonly used in handguns where this is so dramatically the case - and certainly none of the small pistol rounds the .22 is commonly compared to (.25 ACP, .32 ACP, .380, .32S&W, etc.).

David Armstrong
January 30, 2009, 06:18 PM
Sorry, the success of the .22LR as a defensive round depends on the will of the attacker. It depends on him giving up.
Which is true of most handgun shootings regardless of caliber. For every story of a .22 failing there is a story of a 9mm, or a .40, or so on failing.

monkeywrench
January 30, 2009, 06:56 PM
.22 is not a bad round, and is better that nothing, but for SD, you may as well equip yourself with the most efficient weapon for the job. Knock down power is important for sure, but so is being able to control the weapon before and after firing. My pick: .40 and a lot of practice.

mnhntr
January 30, 2009, 07:29 PM
this is rediculously obvious, however it seems not to a few. yes some believe a 22lr is enough gun for sd however some also believe that if you pray god will keep you safe. i think i will stick to my 357;)
on a side note dead BG's dont testify against you in court. i would rather put down a bad dog than have it come back wounded for another fight another day

rgoers
January 30, 2009, 07:58 PM
"The argument that a citizen has to just make the bad guy go away doesn't wash. "

Anything beyond stopping the threat is no longer SD, and will quickly land YOU in jail!

Socrates
January 30, 2009, 08:07 PM
22lr penetrates around 8-14", some rounds, in gello. The majority of effective rounds go about this deep. Problem is, to get that you need to shoot it out of a rifle, and, those 'Hollowpoints" better not work, or you loose all penetration.

In real worlds stuff, with proper shot placement, it's effective on wharf rats. 6-8" of penetration, no exit, out of a rifle, 18" barrel. I wouldn't bet on any of those rounds going through bone. It's also not a one shot stop on wharf rats, who, I must admit, if they weighed 250 pounds would be one of the more terrifying animals on the planet.

orionengnr
January 30, 2009, 09:12 PM
With most subpar-calibers (380 or less), my usual advice is to save the last round for yourself, just in case. If you're talking bears, save the last round regardless of caliber. :)

With a .22LR, my advice is to save the last five rounds for yourself. :rolleyes:

Nnobby45
January 30, 2009, 10:24 PM
For every story of a .22 failing there is a story of a 9mm, or a .40, or so on failing.

Not if you had an equal number of shootings for each--- with each shooting having the same number of hits and same shot placement.

All things being equal, I think the .22 loses the quick stop constest against commonly carried calibers.

csmsss
January 30, 2009, 11:10 PM
"The argument that a citizen has to just make the bad guy go away doesn't wash. "

Anything beyond stopping the threat is no longer SD, and will quickly land YOU in jail!Quite simply, this isn't necessarily so. Several states permit the use of deadly force in the defense of one's or others' property. Obviously, you should check the laws of your state, but...my point is that every state has its own laws and its own set of judicial precedents regarding the use of deadly force, and it behooves each and every one of us who might use a firearm (or any other weapon, for that matter) in this capacity ought to be as close to intimately familiar with them as possible.

Donn_N
January 31, 2009, 03:10 AM
Yes I have, no they wouldn't, and no they aren't.

You can say without reservation that all LE officers prefer to carry heavy guns? And if they don't carry heavier guns in a large caliber because smaller guns in smaller calibers are less likely to do the job, then exactly why do they carry those big heavy guns? Just to look cool?

No it isn't. For SD purposes, the primary goal is to make the BG stop putting you in danger. Putting him down is pretty much irrelevant.

Yes, and the only way to ensure that you are no longer in danger is to put the BG down. If he doesn't go down, he is still a threat. Again, tho, if I don't need to put a BG down, then neither does a LE officer. LE officers are no more allowed to continue shooting someone once he is no longer a threat than any armed citizen.

Why would you want to keep him around you? If he goes away, how are you in any immediate danger from him?
Taken out of context. It needs to be responded to along with the second part of the paragraph.

That is an interesting idea, but I'm not aware of anything that would support it. In fact, since making someone go away and taking away their liberty are such totally different concepts, I doubt that there is much validity to the idea at all.

Quite valid, actually. The point being that if the mere sight of a gun is going to give you control over the situation it is going to give you control whether you're telling the BG to go away or to get on the ground. The fear of being shot is what it is all about.

It's possible to imagine lots of things. I prefer to stay away from imagination and discuss reality whenever possible. But maybe that is just me. Just because one can imagine it doesn't really give much support for something.

Nice dodge of the point. The fact is that there are situations where an armed citizen might need to shoot through a barrier.

So we should all carry around S&W 500s w/6.5" barrels just in case we need to fight off a wild grizzly bear in downtown Topeka??

Is this you now discussing reality? Grizzly bears in downtown Topeka? Really? But certainly if there were wild grizzly bears in downtown Topeka, it would behoove someone to carry a S&W 500 rather than a .22. But I will concede that the phrase "any situation" should possibly have been changed to "likely situation" or "possible situation". My point is that different BGs will react differently to a gun being produced. It is a bad idea to assume or hope when you slip that little .22 into your pocket that you will only meet one who will flee at the mere sight of the gun. Better to have something that is more likely to do a more efficient job of stopping the BG if you actually have to pull the trigger.

Donn_N
January 31, 2009, 03:14 AM
Which is true of most handgun shootings regardless of caliber. For every story of a .22 failing there is a story of a 9mm, or a .40, or so on failing.

So, you are saying that calibers of 9mm and above fail to stop an attacker at the exact same rate as a .22 fired from a handgun? Or are you saying that the stories are told at exactly the same rate?

Donn_N
January 31, 2009, 03:27 AM
"The argument that a citizen has to just make the bad guy go away doesn't wash. "

Anything beyond stopping the threat is no longer SD, and will quickly land YOU in jail!

Once again, this was taken out of context. I was responding to a post that was trying to explain why law enforcement needed different (i.e., bigger, larger caliber) guns than the armed citizen (they don't). The argument was the LE has to go after the BG and the armed citizen merely needs to deter the BG. True enough, but as an argument for armed citizens carrying mouse guns instead of more efficient calibers, it doesn't wash.

The only time caliber is relevant is when you actually have to shoot someone. If you have to shoot someone, you want a caliber that is likely to stop them immediately from causing you bodily injury or death. At that point, the goal of a LE officer and an armed citizen are identical and both need essentially the same weapon to accomplish that goal.

B. Lahey
January 31, 2009, 03:45 AM
I battled a psychopathic woodchuck with a .22 one time. I don't know if it was rabid or what, but it was unhealthy looking and extremely aggressive. It's a good thing they don't turn well in a full charge or I would have been badly chewed on. I must have shot the damn thing eight or ten times before it keeled over. Needless to say I was not impressed by the effectiveness of the .22lr. That critter was swiss cheese before it had enough.

If it won't stop a determined woodchuck, it's a little light for heavier tasks as I see it.

AZAK
January 31, 2009, 04:05 AM
Just playing the opposite side of the coin:

Christopher McCandless, from the non-fiction book Into the Wild, shot and killed a cow moose in Alaska with a .22 rifle.

The natives used to hunt polar bear with single shot .22 rifles successfully.

Now, I live in Alaska and I hunt moose and would never condone moose hunting with a .22lr. One of my big rules that I abide by is matching caliber to game.

However, it does really illustrate that shot placement is critical.

BillCA
January 31, 2009, 06:20 AM
Using a .22LR beats being completely unarmed. It is not my first choice for self-defense nor is it my last. The downside to the .22 is that against a determined attacker it is not very debilitating. That includes someone determined through rage, intense desire, psychosis and potentially drug use. There is too much "luck" involved with the .22 stopping someone.

The .22 Magnum, however, is an underestimated round that can and does do plenty of damage. At close range it is suprisingly effective.

It's hard enough to make bullets go where you want them, but add in adrenaline, fear, movement and emotions it can be incredibly hard to make an incapacitating hit. With the .22LR, your desireable hit zones are smaller than when using more powerful cartridges.

.22 Failures
In summer of 1967, a friend and I were returning from the local creek when we heard popping sounds. Rick was ahead of me and I heard a sound like an angry bumblebee pass by when Rick slapped the back of his thigh and uttered a few bad words. A few seconds later we realized he'd been hit by a bullet. We got to the street only to have a cop stop us due to Rick's bleeding leg. They found two young boys (11 and 13) about 40 yards further down the creek with a Hi-Standard revolver. The .22LR hit the back of Rick's thigh but was easily removed at the hospital with no lingering damage. At no time was Rick really unable to walk or fend for himself. It was painful but no more than a charley horse might be.

A woman I knew in the mid-70's drove cars from one car dealership to another up and down California. This was before Interstate 5 existed so she used Hwy 99, a truck-route. After being beaten and robbed of one car, she armed herself with a small .380 and a .22 pistol. One night at a rest stop south of Modesto, despite half a dozen other people present, she was assaulted as she was getting into her car. She pulled the .22 out of her pocket and fired twice, point blank. One round in the forearm and one in the upper left lung. He continued his attack, trying to grab the gun. Another round penetrated his right hand/palm. Diane saw the next round hit him in the left cheek which made him recoil (it broke two teeth off). When he raised his left hand in a fist, she fired three more times. The hits made him break off and she fired the last two at an oblique angle to his back. One round clipped his spine and disconnected his legs. CHP called it a clean SD shooting. Subject was tried and sentenced to 13 years due to a substantial prior record.

Success Stories
1983: Two men burst in to a shop and tried to rob a downtown jeweler. The Jeweler's wife fired twice at each robber with a .22 S&W kit gun, hitting each one once. Robber #1 fell to the floor from a hit just forward of his right ear. Robber #2 fled the store but was found DOA in his car. A bullet had entered between two ribs and bounced off the rear ribcage penetrating both lungs and stopping in his spleen.

Proving That Nothing is 100% Dept.
1976: After a night of binge drug use, a 24 year old man walked into a donut shop just before 6 am and pulled out a .38 revolver to hold up the store. An off duty armed security guard was finishing coffee at a table and when the robber turned the gun towards him, the guard fired a single round of .44 Special, impacting just to the upper right of the sternum. The robber looked surprised, dropped his gun and then looked down at his chest. He calmly walked outside and sat down on the curb then lay on his back to die a minute or so later.

nate45
January 31, 2009, 08:44 AM
I'll say the same thing about the .22 LR handgun as I do the .25 ACP, it is not better than having nothing, its better than not having a gun. They both fire a projectile that is capable of reaching the heart, brian and spine. That fact gives them a significant advantage over knifes, impact weapons and bare hands. If fact in all actuality they are no less deadly than a .45 ACP or 9 mm Para, it just takes greater skill and shot placement to utilize that lethality. Ironically the .22 and .25 are most often selected and carried by the least skilled users.

'A .22 looks small, till someone points one at you'- Elmer Keith

If someone points a .22 at you with obviously deadly intent and you aren't afraid, you are either stupid, ignorant, mentally ill, on drugs, or possibly all four.

So lets suppose your assailant fails into the not afraid category, thats when you have to back up the threat of your .22 with deadly marksmanship.

Back in the day when I regularly carried a .22 or .25 as a BUG or sometimes even a primary weapon, I constantly practiced making rapid, accurate head shots from two or three yards. If you know someone that can take getting shot six to nine times in the face with a .25 or .22 in 2 seconds or less, I'd like... on second thought I don't want to meet them.:)

skoro
January 31, 2009, 09:51 AM
I enjoy shooting my .22lr firearms, both rifle and handguns. My .22 handguns are a revolver and an autoloader. I can fire both pretty well, as the lack of recoil makes the sight picture pretty consistent from shot to shot.

Would I consider either for self defense? Only in a terribly unlikely scenario. Something like one of them was the only thing within reach while I'm under assault. And I keep them unloaded and stowed away when not in use.

The .22 can serve for self-defense, but it's a poor choice. It beats harsh words, but almost any other firearm is going to do a better job. I think the likelihood of a .22 stopping a determined attacker is very slim.

David Armstrong
January 31, 2009, 12:52 PM
Not if you had an equal number of shootings for each--- with each shooting having the same number of hits and same shot placement.
But that is a horribly big "if", so we need to really look at what happens. By the same token, "if" you had more shootings with other calibers you might have more failures to stop with them. The truth is that handgun rounds of all calibers are fairly poor stoppers, sometimes they work well, sometimes they don't, and there just isn't any evidence to indicate the smaller calibers are any less effective than the large calibers in real-world SD instances.

David Armstrong
January 31, 2009, 01:19 PM
You can say without reservation that all LE officers prefer to carry heavy guns?
No, I can't say that, I didn't say that, and I won't say that. What I said was that your claim was not correct. Some officers prefer to carry lighter and smaller guns, some prefer to carry bigger and heavier guns.
And if they don't carry heavier guns in a large caliber because smaller guns in smaller calibers are less likely to do the job, then exactly why do they carry those big heavy guns? Just to look cool?
Never under-estimate the "cool factor" with LEOs, just like other folks. But the point is that the issue is irrelevant. LEOs have a different role and mission than non-LE users, and that determines to some extent what guns and calibers are picked. Even in LE different agencies choose different guns and different calibers based in part on different needs.
Yes, and the only way to ensure that you are no longer in danger is to put the BG down. If he doesn't go down, he is still a threat.
Sorry, but if the BG is running away, or he has stopped his attack, you don't get to "put him down" in most jurisdictions, and you don't need to in any jurisdication.
LE officers are no more allowed to continue shooting someone once he is no longer a threat than any armed citizen.
So what? Nobody has said they are.
Taken out of context. It needs to be responded to along with the second part of the paragraph.
The context is just fine. Whether or not a BG is likely to surrender to LE has nothing to do with whether or not a BG is likely to press an attack against an armed non-LE.
Quite valid, actually.
No. If you think that being told to "go away and stop bothering me or I will hurt you" has the same effect on a person as as "I am going to force you to go someplace you don't want to go and lock you up for several years against your will" are anywhere close to the same, we obviously have a complete disconnect.
Nice dodge of the point. The fact is that there are situations where an armed citizen might need to shoot through a barrier.
No dodge at all. As I said, there are lots of things you can imagine, lots of "might" considerations. How likely those are is a different story, as you seem to admit later on in that statement.
Is this you now discussing reality? Grizzly bears in downtown Topeka? Really?
You are the one who said "The bottom line is that anyone who feels the need to carry a firearm should probably carry one that is most likely to get the job done in all situations." If you want to change that now to something a bit more reasonable, as you seem to, I'm all for it.
It is a bad idea to assume or hope when you slip that little .22 into your pocket that you will only meet one who will flee at the mere sight of the gun.
It is a bad idea to assume that with any handgun. But reality shows that it does work most of the time, and when it doesn't work that shooting will work most of the time with those that have not already fled, and if they stick around and actually get shot most of them stop what they are doing. Nothing wrong for preparing for 99.9999% of the situations, but you aren't that much better off than those who have prepared for only 99.999% of the situations. If the .22 did not work for SD, we'd know about it, as it is used quite a bit. What we do know is that caliber is perhaps the least important factor in DGU, and that the .22 seems to work just as good as other calibers in real life SD situations.

David Armstrong
January 31, 2009, 01:25 PM
So, you are saying that calibers of 9mm and above fail to stop an attacker at the exact same rate as a .22 fired from a handgun? Or are you saying that the stories are told at exactly the same rate?
I am saying exactly what I said: "Which is true of most handgun shootings regardless of caliber. For every story of a .22 failing there is a story of a 9mm, or a .40, or so on failing."

The only time caliber is relevant is when you actually have to shoot someone.
No, the only time caliber is relevant is when it makes a difference in the results, and even then it shjould be compared with and balanced with other items that can be considered relevant. In this case we are talking about non-LE, non-military SD. It is easy to show a difference in performance based in part on caliber, but showing any difference in actual outcome has not been done, AFAIK.

David Armstrong
January 31, 2009, 01:31 PM
I battled a psychopathic woodchuck with a .22 one time. I don't know if it was rabid or what, but it was unhealthy looking and extremely aggressive. It's a good thing they don't turn well in a full charge or I would have been badly chewed on. I must have shot the damn thing eight or ten times before it keeled over. Needless to say I was not impressed by the effectiveness of the .22lr. That critter was swiss cheese before it had enough.
If it won't stop a determined woodchuck, it's a little light for heavier tasks as I see it.
Of course, one can say that about so many calibers. I worked with an officer who had to shoot a dog (approx 35 pounds, IIRC). Officer was using a .45 ACP, 200-grain JHP Speer round, Colt Combat Commander. After 8 rounds in the chest at close range, the dog finally released its hold and ran off--after I butt-stroked it in the head with a shotgun. Dog was later found about 100 yards away, under some bushes.

grymster2007
January 31, 2009, 04:01 PM
Many years ago near San Jose, CA a woman was shot five times, point blank in the head with a .22 ( I think they may have been shorts). Not one penetrated her skull and she survived. Then again, a friend of mine was killed with a few .25 auto shots to her torso.

Never know.

skydiver3346
January 31, 2009, 04:11 PM
No way, (if at all possible) but it is better than no gun at all.
Bottom line, I would suggest a .38 Special as the least potent round for self defense. Low recoil and a more proven manstopper more than a .22 round. But if all you got is a .22, then its better than nothing.
Personally, if it doesn't start with a .4 in front of it, I don't use it. Just my thinking and wish you the best.

Donn_N
January 31, 2009, 05:07 PM
So what? Nobody has said they are.

As usual, you have missed the point. If someone is going to run away in the face of a gun being pointed at them, do you really think they are taking the time to figure out what kind of gun it is? In other words, you are inferring that an LEO holding a .40 caliber will be able to apprehend a suspect, but an LEO holding a .22 would not. And if that is not what you are saying, then explain why, in a situation where an LE is simply pointing a gun and ordering a suspect to the ground, a .22 would not suffice.

Never under-estimate the "cool factor" with LEOs, just like other folks. But the point is that the issue is irrelevant. LEOs have a different role and mission than non-LE users, and that determines to some extent what guns and calibers are picked. Even in LE different agencies choose different guns and different calibers based in part on different needs.

Just because they have a different mission, doesn't mean that they need a different gun than the the armed citizen. A hammer can be used by a variety of different folks who all have a different mission and yet is the perfect tool for all of them.

No. If you think that being told to "go away and stop bothering me or I will hurt you" has the same effect on a person as as "I am going to force you to go someplace you don't want to go and lock you up for several years against your will" are anywhere close to the same, we obviously have a complete disconnect.

Well, you would seem to be reinforcing my point. If going to jail is the more undesirable outcome of the situation, than why wouldn't the BG simply run away from the cop pointing the gun at him like you claim he will most likely do from the armed citizen? Again, are you saying that it is because the cop is holding a large caliber weapon as opposed to a .22?

It is a bad idea to assume that with any handgun. But reality shows that it does work most of the time, and when it doesn't work that shooting will work most of the time with those that have not already fled, and if they stick around and actually get shot most of them stop what they are doing. Nothing wrong for preparing for 99.9999% of the situations, but you aren't that much better off than those who have prepared for only 99.999% of the situations. If the .22 did not work for SD, we'd know about it, as it is used quite a bit. What we do know is that caliber is perhaps the least important factor in DGU, and that the .22 seems to work just as good as other calibers in real life SD situations.

The simple fact is that it is is just a bad idea to depend on the deterrent factor of the mere presence of a gun and no respected self defense expert I know of recommends it. On top of that, I doubt the figures that you present and you have no statistics to back them up.

Donn_N
January 31, 2009, 05:10 PM
I am saying exactly what I said: "Which is true of most handgun shootings regardless of caliber. For every story of a .22 failing there is a story of a 9mm, or a .40, or so on failing."

Which as it turns out seems to be a pretty meaningless statement at best and simply untrue at worst.

Donn_N
January 31, 2009, 05:33 PM
No, the only time caliber is relevant is when it makes a difference in the results, and even then it shjould be compared with and balanced with other items that can be considered relevant. In this case we are talking about non-LE, non-military SD. It is easy to show a difference in performance based in part on caliber, but showing any difference in actual outcome has not been done, AFAIK.

Well since this discussion started over the claim that LE has a need for different guns than the armed citizen, I'd say you've done more to confirm that a .22 could be used for LE (using your rational for carrying a .22 for SD) rather than the other way around.

Since very few police officers (like armed citizens) ever need to fire their gun, they only need the deterrent factor to be effective. Since the deterrent factor is based only on the sight of a gun, any gun, and not the size or caliber, it would seem that an LEO would be just as well served carrying a .22 as a larger caliber.

Sure there is a chance an LEO may have to fire their gun, but heck, given the odds, why bother carrying a big clunky gun and all that extra ammunition day after day just for the maybe one time in a 20 or 30 year career when you have actually shoot someone. This is especially true when you consider that LEOs also carry batons, tasers, pepper spray, etc. Seems to me that the gun is kind of overkill for average cop on the street.

David Armstrong
January 31, 2009, 08:19 PM
As usual, you have missed the point.
Let's see now..I said that LEO and non-LEO have different roles, thus have different firearm needs to achieve their goals. You respond with to compare convincing someone to go away or they will be hurt with a LEO taking a guy into cusotdy. Yeah, right...I missed the point!:rolleyes:
Just because they have a different mission, doesn't mean that they need a different gun than the the armed citizen.
Umm, nobody said they did. What was said was the LE picks guns for a different reason/role/mission than non-LE. Both can use the same gun if they want, but the reason to use it differs.
....than why wouldn't the BG simply run away from the cop pointing the gun at him like you claim he will most likely do from the armed citizen?
He often does run from the cop, and the cop has to chase him. The armed citizen doesn't need to chase him, or catch him, or any of that stuff. The armed citizen just needs to convince the BG to go someplace else.
The simple fact is that it is is just a bad idea to depend on the deterrent factor of the mere presence of a gun and no respected self defense expert I know of recommends it.
Nobody here has said you should depend on the deterrent factor of the mere presence of a gun either. What has been said is that the .22 seems to work just as well as any other caliber for citizen SD use.
On top of that, I doubt the figures that you present and you have no statistics to back them up.
Yep, don't let those hundred or thousands of proven instances of the .22 successfully being used for SD interfere with your beliefs.
Which as it turns out seems to be a pretty meaningless statement at best and simply untrue at worst.
Your opinion is duly noted. If it is meaningless to you that seems to indicate more of a problem with your understanding than with the information, IMO.

David Armstrong
January 31, 2009, 08:24 PM
Well since this discussion started over the claim that LE has a need for different guns than the armed citizen,....
No, this discussion started over the use of the .22 for self defense. Some suggested that since LE didn't use the .22 for a duty gun that indicated it wasn't usable for self-defense. I've simply pointed out that is a red herring. You seem to continue trying to paint that herring red again and again.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 1, 2009, 10:44 AM
The question asked by the OP has been answered. 22s have been used successfully for self-defense.

It is better to have a 22 than nothing.

My crystal ball sees bickering about the perennial issue of since a 22 isn't an atomic cannon and I want to carry an atomic cannon, then no one should ever carry a 22.

So, we've learned all that's possible this sunday morning.