Posted by fiddletown: The question is not whether the .22 lr is capable, under some circumstances, of instantly killing with one shot. It is.
The question is not whether people shot with a .22 lr have eventually died. They have.
The question is what handgun cartridges are, overall and under the widest range of circumstances, most likely to reliably and quickly stop an assailant. The .22 lr isn't in contention.
Very true, and threegun
pointed out why way back in Post #14 on page 1:
Shot placement is what matters once you have a cartridge that can reach the vitals even through appendages.
Of course, one may not comprehend that unless one realizes that one's bullets might strike the assailant in the arm, and that unless the bullet is capable of going through the humerus, or perhaps both the ulna and the radius, and then through a rib, with sufficient energy afterwards to reach and destroy something vital, the shot will not be effective in stopping the assailant.
And, of course, it is also necessary to know that a .22LR fired from a short barrel is most unlikely to do that.
It is true that during the Civil War, some officers purchased the first S&W cartridge revolvers as backups for their .44 cavalry revolvers. I doubt that any of them relished the prospect of trusting their lives to the effectiveness of a black powder .22 Short. The sons and nephews of some of these same men later had the opportunity for use the .38 Long Colt in combat, and the results led to the abandonment of that weapon and in fact to the development of the more powerful .38 Smith and Wesson Special.
A century ago, the .32 Smith and Wesson was by far the most popular cartridge for personal defense in this country. For police use, however, the more powerful .32 S&W Long was preferred. I have one. Its performance in the hands of a sworn officer against a fleeing felon (long before Garner v. Tennessee) convinced the officer that, had the man been attacking, the officer would have died. He got rid of the revolver at the first opportunity and acquired a .41 Colt. I have that .32 now, but I would not like to depend on its effectiveness.
Regarding the .22, I might choose a .22LR over a .25 ACP (even though the rimfire ignition is less reliable), but I would choose a .22 WMR over the LR any day. Bill Jordan did praise the .22 WMR. However, the .22 WMR would not meet my threshold, either.
I consider the .32 ACP to be better but still questionable. I would feel better armed with a .380 ACP, but there are better choices for personal defense. Among them are the .38 Special, the 9MM Parabellum, and the .45 ACP.
Most police departments seem to use the .40 S&W these days, but I do not see the need. The .357 Magnum is popular, but I do not like the noise, the flash, or the recoil, nor do I see the need for the additional penetration for civilian use.
is worth bookmarking and studying.
Here's the end of the concluding paragraph:
Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.
said, "The .22 lr isn't in contention".