.22 guns for EDC?

[johnwilliamson062]

I have carried a Walther P22 for self defense. My first handgun.
I had tested it extensively before doing so to be sure it was reliable with anno I was using.
I only carried CCI mini mags or something CCI made that was premium stuff. I can't remember the details at the moment.
Given how fast I could empty the gun into a target I felt pretty comfortable with the amount of firepower available. I could also afford to carry multiple mags as they were tiny and light.
I don't carry it anymore as I have a centerfire.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by ttarp

Hey Walt, here's a video you might find interesting. Pardon the hijack, but the way this thread is going...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmhmtJvLZQU

Well... that impressed the crap out of me. I was seriously thinking about getting an FN 5.7 -- but maybe I'll wait. That the .22 WMR penetrates 15" or so of FBI ballistic jell suggests it's not your father's .22 -- almost the same as the ball 5.7 round!

A friend who has a PMR-30 has already ordered the carbine version of the same gun, and THAT might be a very effective home defense weapon...

.

[jonnyc]

"You are not a reliable source."

Gee.......all this time I thought we had such a nice relationship going!
So, if I tell you that I'm positive about what I've seen, done, and heard I'm not reliable..........but if I write it down and post a link to it I am reliable? Tell you what. I'll write an article about the subject in Hebrew, and then you can ask me to translate it for you. That should make it double reliable.

Really, this is a fun and informative website frequented by a bunch of guys who like guns. When I write pieces for my Masters and Post-Masters credits, I am careful and picky about sources and notes, but I don't feel that's really necessary here. Are you writing a Doctoral dissertation on Mossad weaponry?
If someone here, or on another site, says they're 150 to 500% sure of something, I'm going to believe them until I run across any evidence to refute their word. Do you have any evidence to refute my statements? To do so, I think you will need to learn Hebrew, make friends with my friends in the IDF and Israeli Police, and take a pistol training course with former El Al air marshals.
Or not.

[Walt Sherrill]

I have always believed that RELIABLE SOURCES are the ones that agree with what I believe to be true.

Apparently others feel that way too.

[walks with gun]

If a 22 handgun is such a fight stopper, I'd like to try a 22 rifle on Kodiak bear, Lion and Water buffalo, it should knock them right off there feet.

[Bill DeShivs]

There is a verified one shot stop on a charging bull elephant from A Colt Woodsman .22 LR. It may have been in one of Peter Capstick's books about African hunting.
-Just for anecdotal purposes.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by walks with gun

If a 22 handgun is such a fight stopper, I'd like to try a 22 rifle on Kodiak bear, Lion and Water buffalo, it should knock them right off there feet.

If we start having Kodiak Bear, Lion, or Water Buffalo attacks in this part of the country, I'll certainly look for something bigger than a .22 handgun. I might even be looking for something much bigger than a .45 handgun. That new 12-round Kel-Tec shotgun, loaded with slugs might be an interesting choice.

But we weren't talking about those kinds of attackers.

What some folks are saying -- with a degree of statistical data to support their claim -- is that the .22 round may be more effective than many realize. But, as noted in an earlier response, other rounds disable a higher percentage of opponents -- and disabling opponents (i.e., stopping the fight) is a critical concern.

My contribution to this discussion is to ask about the .22 WMR, which is a different round. (While the caliber is the same, it performs differently than other .22 rounds.) The .22 WMR might be more effective than most shooters realize -- particularly if the shooter using it can't handle a .40 or .45 well. Unhappily, there's little in the way of performance data to help us assess that round's potential. The YouTube video offered earlier is a step in the right direction, with ballistic gelatin results shown.

Did you look at the YouTube link?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jonnyc

...this is a fun and informative website frequented by a bunch of guys who like guns. When I write pieces for my Masters and Post-Masters credits, I am careful and picky about sources and notes, but I don't feel that's really necessary here....

It's only an informative website if the information is any good. So backing up your statements is necessary here, or anywhere else, if you expect to be taken seriously. I'm pretty amazed at how easily folks will believe whatever some anonymous denizen of cyberspace writes on the Internet -- as long as it's consistent with or confirms one's preconceived notions and cherished beliefs -- much like the anti-gun crowd does.

But some of us have higher standards and expect meaningful support and back-up for opinions and claims of fact. And it is never unreasonable for me, or anyone else, to expect someone offering an opinion, or stating something as a fact, here or anywhere else, support that opinion or claim. All opinions are not equal, and sometime people are wrong about what they believe to be true.

Originally Posted by jonnyc

...If someone here, or on another site, says they're 150 to 500% sure of something, I'm going to believe them...

Then you're a very gullible guy.

Originally Posted by amd6547

Check the link, Frank...

http://www.tactical-life.com/magazin...mossad-22-lrs/...

Okay, that's a source. But according to your source, the Israelis the .22lr was a specialty weapon for special purposes (emphasis added):

...The Beretta Model 70 and the functionally identical Model 71, both in .22 LR, have served with great distinction as the signature terminator pistol of the Mossad, the premiere intelligence agency of the State of Israel. The Beretta 70 was also carried by Israeli Sky Marshals....

These are highly specialized applications. Nothing in the article suggests that the .22lr was considered, or should be considered, suitable for general carry as a police/military sidearm. And indeed, according to the article, the .22lr was replaced by the 9mm in the mid-1970s.

Originally Posted by amd6547

...in the incident reported, the sky marshal first engaged the terrorists outside the plane from the cockpit window. He then left the plane and took the fight to them....

No doubt because that was the problem as it presented itself, and he was forced to try to solve it using the equipment he had available at the time. But also it is most likely that Israeli sky marshals were, at the time, armed with .22lr pistols because it was expected that they most likely would need to put them to use in close-quarter, crowded conditions.

Many folks keep trying to rationalize their choice of a sub-caliber handgun as a primary self defense tool. And to be sure, a sub-caliber can be an reasonable choice in specialized applications. But physics is what it is; wound physiology is what it is; and psychology is what it is.

[jonnyc]

Frank, Frank, Frank.........did you even read what I wrote???
You have used others' quotes and posts to refute my posts. You have posted snippets of my quotes in order to make it seem as if I said something I did not say, and you have posted links to articles I did not write and that I also disagree with. Was your intention to leave the readers as confused as your post appears? If so.......good one!
I will leave this non-academic discussion, on a non-academic forum, with my previous quote that you chose to cut in half:

"If someone here, or on another site, says they're 150 to 500% sure of something, I'm going to believe them until I run across any evidence to refute their word."

I believe that would make me open-minded, not gullible. I'll check in periodically to see if you've found anything of value.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jonnyc

..."If someone here, or on another site, says they're 150 to 500% sure of something, I'm going to believe them until I run across any evidence to refute their word."

I believe that would make me open-minded, not gullible. ...

First, if someone makes a claim or offers an opinion, it's his burden to support it. It's not my burden to refute it. And, as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Open-minded merely means:

willing to consider different ideas or opinions

But there's nothing in that definition that would require one to, as a condition of being open-minded, forgo an expectation that different ideas or opinions be properly supported, e. g., with good data or evidence.

Gullible means:

easily fooled or cheated; especially : quick to believe something that is not true

Being willing to accept someone's bald assertion at face value, without supporting data or evidence, and unless you can refute it, seems to me to bespeak a disposition to be easily fooled.

We seem to be a culture increasingly willing to uncritically accept as fact all manner of unsubstantiated claims, at least as long as those claims are somehow pleasing to our sensibilities.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

It's only an informative website if the information is any good. So backing up your statements is necessary here, or anywhere else, if you expect to be taken seriously. I'm pretty amazed at how easily folks will believe whatever some anonymous denizen of cyberspace writes on the Internet -- as long as it's consistent with or confirms one's preconceived notions and cherished beliefs -- much like the anti-gun crowd does.

But some of us have higher standards and expect meaningful support and back-up for opinions and claims of fact. And it is never unreasonable for me, or anyone else, to expect someone offering an opinion, or stating something as a fact, here or anywhere else, support that opinion or claim. All opinions are not equal, and sometime people are wrong about what they believe to be true.

All this is good and true.

I offered the Ellifritz study, which offers both heartening and disheartening evidence for those interested in the effectiveness of small-caliber rounds. You cherry picked some of the Ellifritz data and ignored other pieces. You also ignored (or perhaps, simply overlooked) my observation that the .22 round didn't disable as well as some rounds -- trying to make your case.

Note: You have NOT argued that BIGGER IS BETTER even if you can't shoot BIGGER WELL. I'm sure your position is that we should "shoot the biggest round we shoot best." I do think, however, that too many folks focus in this debate focus on that the first part of that sentence while ignoring the later part. I do think you're trying to say that the smaller caliber rounds just aren't effective. Maybe -- but the evidence isn't clear cut.

Let's compare .22 to .45 using Ellifritz data, all the while reciting the BIGGER IS BETTER Mantra:

People shot: .22 = 154 vs. .45 = 209
# of hits: .22 = 213 vs. .45 = 436
% fatal hits: .22 = 34% vs. .45 = 29%
Round until incapacitation: .22 = 2.2 vs. .45 = 1.71
% of people NOT incapacitated: .22 = 31% vs. .45 = 14%*
One shot stops: .22 = 31% vs. .45 = 39%
Head/Torso shots: .22 = 76% vs. .45 = 85%
Incapacitated by one shot: .22 = 60% vs. .45 = 45%

*As I stated earlier, this is an important, differentiating result -- but other rounds smaller than the .45 do it better than does the .45 -- 9mm (13%), .357 (9%), and .40 (13%). Rifles do it as well as the .357 (9%) and that rifle round is often a much smaller round.

The lowly .32 round did better in some categories than did either the .22 or .45. The .32 had the a slightly higher one-shot stop rate than the .45 (.40% vs. 39%), and a higher rate of incapacitation with one shot than the .45 (60% vs. 51%). Bigger is better? It all depends on what you're measuring or what you think is most important. The .380 round also had a higher one-shot incapacitation rate than the .45 (.72% vs. 51%) -- and the same rate of shots that were fatal (29%). The percentage of people NOT incapacitated was only slightly higher than the .45 (16% vs. 14%). Bigger is better? Again -- it all depends on what you're measuring or what you think is most important.

The Ellifritz study shows that rifles and shotguns have a far higher % of fatal hits, a much higher one-stop shot %, and a far higher incapacitation rate than any of the handguns except the .357 Magnum (in the case of incapacitation rates). Rifles typically don't have bigger diameter rounds! And shotguns spread the hurt -- unless you're shooting slugs. I'd argue that both rifles and shot guns make it easier to hit what you're aiming at closer ranges. What isn't shown in the Ellifritz study, and it's a glaring omission, is how many of the folks involved in those shootouts were on the losing end... I don't think we can assume that they were all winners!! hat data point might make us all rethink the caliber we want to use!

While BIGGER IS BETTER may be a good rule of thumb for handguns, I'm beginning to think that what matters most is whether you're a good shot with the gun you're and it's less important whether that gun shoots a larger caliber round!!

About credibility:

You cited the FBI "HANDGUN WOUNDING FACTORS AND EFFECTIVENESS" study. I keep a copy on hand. Little or no data is really offered in that study, and you must simply accept Special Agent Patrick's conclusions as valid. But, in the final analysis, it's just an expert's opinion.

Agent Patrick makes the point that without a CNS hit, your best hope is for the aggressor to bleed out, and that takes time. Penetration must be at least 12" to reach the things that bleed a lot. Those points can be observed in emergency rooms and in the after-action reports of many well-documented shootouts.

Patrick also observes that it takes LESS TIME to bleed out with a larger bullet --but that is only true if the larger bullet hits the right spot. His words are

"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."

I would argue that you might also increase bullet effectiveness by hitting the right spots -- but Patrick's underlying assumption seems to be that you won't. A dying aggressor who is bleeding out quickly can kill you just as dead as one who is bleeding out more slowly. And some of us will be more likely to hit the right spot with a smaller caliber gun we shoot well, than with larger caliber weapon.

What is it that makes Agent Patrick's study more credible than some of the other material offered up here as proof? I'd say it has more to do with the fact that it has the FBI stamp of approval than because of the study's content. The content is relatively void of data or evidence for many of the statements made.

Bigger may be better, but sometimes a bit smaller might be better, too. (That is NOT a call for everyone to shoot .22 or .32, or 380... If you're already shooting .40, .44. or 45 well, continue doing so!!)

With regard to the other point being batted around -- that some agents have used .22 with great effect:

That Mossad agents have used .22s is interesting, but those folks were highly trained martial artists -- "operators" who spent most of their working life constantly training to improve their skills. One of those agents could probably do more damage with a letter opener or fountain pen than most of us could do with a machete in a fighting situation. The fact that a highly skilled individual was effective when using a .22 round, doesn't mean that most of us will also be effective when our lives depend on it. I do think the Mossad use of .22 weapons suggests that the .22 round has more potential than most of us recognize.

I think this brings us back to the point I tried to make above: it's not the arrow but the indian that matters most. Or, put another way, selecting the weapon and the round that brings out the best indian in us.

[Big Shrek]

That right there...

I think this brings us back to the point I tried to make above: it's not the arrow but the indian that matters most.
Or, put another way, selecting the weapon and the round that brings out the best indian in us.

Bingo! Well said, Walt!!

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill

...I offered the Ellifritz study, which offers both heartening and disheartening evidence for those interested in the effectiveness of small-caliber rounds. You cherry picked some of the Ellifritz data and ignored other pieces....

No, I reconciled the apparent contradiction that while sub-caliber cartridges had impressive incapacitation rates, they also had high failure to incapacitate rates. That's all explained in post 60, and I won't repeat it in full here. But the basic point is that the psychological impact of getting shot is sufficient to stop the assailant, it pretty much doesn't matter what he gets shot with; and a sub-caliber will be just as good as anything else. But if the psychological impact of getting shot is not sufficient, one will need to rely on rendering the assailant physiologically unable to act; and a more powerful cartridge will more reliably accomplish that.

In effect, if you rely on a sub-caliber, you are betting that the psychological impact of getting shot will be enough. With a more powerful cartridge you are also increasing the likelihood that you'll be able to render an assailant physiologically incapable of continuing his attack. And indeed that's the conclusion that Ellifritz himself draws (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by Greg Ellifritz

...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

Note also the relatively small sample sizes in the Ellifritz study. That raises the question of how significant relatively small differences in observed results are.

Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill

...You cited the FBI "HANDGUN WOUNDING FACTORS AND EFFECTIVENESS" study. I keep a copy on hand. Little or no data is really offered in that study, and you must simply accept Special Agent Patrick's conclusions as valid. But, in the final analysis, it's just an expert's opinion....

Not exactly. Patrick's report is heavily footnoted and draws extensively on various studies including medical research in wound physiology.

And yes, it is just an experts opinion. But he makes it clear upon what he bases his opinion, including citations to his primary source material -- allowing validation and verification. Second, he is a recognized expert on the subject, having established credibility in a professional community; so he's hardly an "anonymous denizen of cyberspace."

Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill

...That Mossad agents have used .22s is interesting, but those folks were highly trained martial artists -- "operators" who spent most of their working life constantly training to improve their skills. One of those agents could probably do more damage with a letter opener or fountain pen than most of us could do with a machete in a fighting situation. The fact that a highly skilled individual was effective when using a .22 round, doesn't mean that most of us will also be effective when our lives depend on it. I do think the Mossad use of .22 weapons suggests that the .22 round has more potential than most of us recognize.

I think this brings us back to the point I tried to make above: it's not the arrow but the indian that matters most. Or, put another way, selecting the weapon and the round that brings out the best indian in us.

And I agree.

[HKFan9]

No, I reconciled the apparent contradiction that while sub-caliber cartridges had impressive incapacitation rates, they also had high failure to incapacitate rates. That's all explained in post 60, and I won't repeat it in full here. But the basic point is that the psychological impact of getting shot is sufficient to stop the assailant, it pretty much doesn't matter what he gets shot with; and a sub-caliber will be just as good as anything else. But if the psychological impact of getting shot is not sufficient, one will need to rely on rendering the assailant physiologically unable to act; and a more powerful cartridge will more reliably accomplish that.

Well said.


I only very rarely tell customers to consider a .22lr for self defense, and its generally elderly people who have wrist injuries or recoil sensative. Doesn't mean you or anyone else shouldn't carry it, just understand what you are carrying and its limitations, and that goes for any gun chambered in any round.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by FrankEttin, citing Ellifritz

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

I don't disagree with any of this. And Ellifrits seems to be subtly making the same point that Patrick made: good CNS (or head/heart) hits are what you want, but despite the relatively high percentage of cases where action stops after one round is fired, you can't expect them to happen. Both Patrick and Ellifritz say you should be prepared to wait for bleed out (or try to speed up the bleed-out process). Both authors tell us that the "psychological stop" isn't going to be there with someone who's experienced, is on drugs, or is intent on doing you harm regardless of the consequences. I would argue that without a CNS hit, we're all in the deep stinky stuff -- as even larger caliber rounds aren't likely to force a quick end to things. Short of a CNS hit, just ending the conflict more QUICKLY through faster bleed out may not be quick enough -- if the other gun is armed and firing.

Some argue that larger calibers are best, and others argue that the smaller calibers are good enough. They might both be wrong, depending on the shooter and his/her abilities.

Many, arguably most, shooters don't have the time or resources to try a lot of different guns and calibers to determine what works best for them -- so they go with what they can afford, with what they THINK will do the job, or they choose a bigger caliber weapon because that's what they've always heard works best. For many shooters, that decision process is a form of guesswork and not based on anything concrete.

For some shooters, smaller may be better -- because they find they can't shoot the larger caliber weapons well, and will never expend the time or money needed to become proficient in the use of those larger caliber guns. That's a rational thing to do, but these shooters shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that their weapon or round is better in any objective sense. I would argue that these smaller guns are better ONLY for them, and then ONLY because it's the best they can do. THAT "better for them" includes a BIG compromise, and many arguing in favor (or defense) of the smaller calibers don't pay attention to the "costs" associated with the compromise -- like 40% of the opponents NOT incapacitated (in the case of the .22 round, and similarly lower rates for the other smaller caliber rounds). Those same shooters, however, would have to deal with a different set of compromises if they used a larger caliber weapon they shot less well, and there would be costs HERE, too.

I was surprised to see, in the Ellifritz study, that .380 closely matched .45 in most performance categories: the same percentage of fatal shots (29%), a higher percentage of one-shot stops (44% vs. 39%), a higher percentage of one shot incapacitations (62% vs. 51%) and a similar (but slightly lower) rate of opponents not incapacitated: (16% vs. 14%). Seems as though a larger-framed .380 like the Beretta 84 might be a good weapon for folks who can't handle the larger caliber rounds or guns.

Well-used, the small-caliber gun may save your bacon, but a well-used larger caliber gun would too, and maybe do it more quickly. "Well-used" is the key, and not enough attention is paid to that part of the statement in these discussions: what we have here is more than just a caliber debate.

One of the subtle benefits of the combat games, like IDPA or USPSA, is that the games force shooters to try different things, or to use stances they wouldn't normally use at the range. At the range you may not be allowed to shoot on the move, or to take on a moving target. The gun games may even force the shooter to shoot with the offhand. He or she may also begin to appreciate what he or she CAN do when forced to do more than stand and punch holes in a target 10-20 yards away. He or she may also begin to understand how his or her performance compares to other shooters -- and that can be a powerful incentive to practice more. Hitting the bullseye at the range isn't anything like shooting in competition, and shooting in competition is only a pale imitation of actually defending yourself against a bad-guy who is moving, who comes at you from hiding, and who may also be shooting back or coming at you quickly with a knife in hand.

As for the Patrick study -- it references many studies, but does a poor job of showing the reader how those study results are integrated into Patrick's analysis, except by vague references. Incorporating by reference works with legal documents, but doesn't work well in instructional materials. Patrick cites the sources but seldom offers more than an almost passing mention of content. Gaining access to any of those materials is far more easily said than done -- I've tried. So having the references is of questionable value these many years later. As a consequence, we are dependent upon Patrick's analysis of the studies and his interpretation of what they mean. More linkage, if only in a technical appendix, would have helped make it all more meaningful.

The Ellifritz study is based on a relatively small sample, and we should ask questons about the statistical validity of the study. The methodology used, however, seems pretty good and is consistently applied; the study itself seems far better than any of the other studies I've seen cited or have examined. Hopefully, Ellifritz will continue update the data base. But, until we have something with more data points, I'd suggest that it's the best we've got -- and arguably more valid than opinions alone.

.

[sigxder]

It fufills the most important requirement that you mentioned. You shoot it accurately, quickly and it's easy to carry. .22 has been used effectively for a long time by both beginners and pros. The Israeli's have used them for "hits" for a long time. As have other groups. Fire a burst into the head, chest, and face and they go down. If they don't it can really be argued rather anything else would have done any better.
Best choice for a defensive firearm? Depend on your definition. Your statement tells me you can use it effectively so that is all that counts. Just as an example. A friend of mine carried one of the old Walther PPK's in .22. Not the Umarex zinc ones of today. Anyways a guy tried to attack him a few years ago. He shot the guy in the leg and he dropped screaming with blood everywhere. Femoral artery??? Had a friend that was "kneecapped" by a crackhead with a .22 a few years ago. He was down and out. Took numerous times under the knife to make him right. Ask them about how effective the.22 is.

[walks with gun]

Great news, After studying this thread our American military and allies are dropping the 5.56 and switching to the .22 long rifle both for carbines and handguns. Anyone make a belt fed crew served weapon. I am just kidding I hope you know.

[TimSr]

I'd like to see few links to anecdotal articles about all those citizens who shot attackers with a .22 or other small caliber weapon, where the attackers continued their attack after being shot as evidence to the ineffectiveness of small caliber weapons for personal defense so quickly claimed by so many. The poor original poster asks about carry for personal defense against criminals, and all he gets a big long discussion on military combat, lions and bears.

[SocialAnarchist]

The truth is pretty simple.

Practice with whatever you intend on carrying until you can't miss what you are shooting at. Caliber is less important than accuracy. A hit with a .22lr is far better than a miss with whatever other flavor of the day caliber you may choose.

Would .22lr be my first choice? Nope, but if I can rapidly put 10 to 25 shots (depending on the gun) center mass with my .22 and that is all I have should I just surrender? Of course not.

We have a saying in the fire service that says "Don't practice until you get it right, practice until you can't get it wrong." If more shooters lived by that the caliber wars would be meaningless.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by walks with gun

Great news, After studying this thread our American military and allies are dropping the 5.56 and switching to the .22 long rifle both for carbines and handguns. Anyone make a belt fed crew served weapon. I am just kidding I hope you know.

You made essentially the same point in your earlier response (#80), above. It was equally funny the first time through.

I would note that while our military doesn't use .22 LR, the round most used by our troops and by NATO is 5.65 mm, or .223. The 5.65 round is 25% smaller than the 7.62 mm round (aka .30) . That's the round our troops most often face on the battlefields of the world. The 5.65 bullet weighs in at 62 gr, while the 7.62 bullet weighs 121 gr. -- almost twice as much.

It would appear that not even our military always thinks BIGGER (and heavier) is BETTER.

(I'm just kidding, too.)

.

[deerslayer303]

Lol you guys are still going on and on about this age old debate. It got so boring and repetitive I quit reading pages ago.

[SocialAnarchist]

deerslayer303:

Lol you guys are still going on and on about this age old debate. It got so boring and repetitive I quit reading pages ago.

Yet you are here commenting...

[deerslayer303]

Cause when I hit the participating button on tapa talk this thread is always number one since I commented on the first few pages. Mods shut this thing down already. It's just the same recycled info and opinions over and over.

[Jim243]

What do you think? Does that round pack enough stopping power? Thanks.

Stopping what?? Small animals, yes, people?, maybe to no. Is it a good self-defense round, NO. Many factors are involved including distance at which the shot was taken. A 22 LR at 5 feet will be more effective than one at 25 yards or more even out of a rifle as opposed to a handgun.

I have two friends that had been shot by a 22 LR when they were in their early 20's and one is in his 70's now and the other in his late 60's now. One in his face and neck and the other in the neck and back.

I do not qualify as an expert on this subject since I have NEVER shot someone with ANY caliber let alone a 22 LR. Small game yes, rabbets and feral cats (and those were at less than 50 feet), yes and they are effective on these. But we are not talking about small game but self-defense against 150 lb to 210 lb attackers (maybe on drugs, maybe not, but with high levels of Adrenalin in either case).

As most hunters understand, shot placement is primary and the heavier the bullet is more effective in taking down an animal. No one I know of is going to go out with a 22 LR to take down a 150 lb to 200 lb deer (can it be done, yes, with a head shot). Would I do that, no, unless I was desperate and had no other option.

A 36 to 40 grain 22 LR bullet, would not be my first or second or even third choice in defending my life or a member of my family. I do not want to start a caliber war on this post, so let it suffice that I would prefer a 124 grain or 230 grain bullet to do the job. You might ask why either of these, well one travels at 1,100 fps and the other at 850 fps, so the speed of the 124 grain bullet compensates for the larger mass of the slower 230 grain bullet. Of course 158 grain bullet would be even better traveling at 1,500 fps. But that is a topic for another post.

When deciding what you want to use, take into consideration shot placement (accuracy), range (distance), effective speed (impact) and weight of the bullet (damage) you feel best suites your needs and budget.

Good luck, stay safe and shoot straight.
Jim

[couldbeanyone]

In the past, I might have argued that a .22 was a valid choice, provided that the cheap cost of ammo would be used to put 500 rounds a week down range to develop your skills.
But in todays reality, with the increased cost and constant unavailability of .22 ammo, I can see no reason to use a .22 unless a physical impairment causes extreme recoil sensitivity.