What matters is shot placement. Actual bank robbery shooting.

[Double Naught Spy]

1) A .22 that the shooter can handle and is willing to carry is much better than nothing...

Something to remember with this is that while a .22 may have its place, "better than nothing" is an EXTREMELY low standard on which to base protecting your life. If you go any lower than 'nothing' then you move into the realm of those things that are worse than nothing. So 'nothing' is the last stage of non-negative standards...very low indeed.

[MLeake]

DNS, did you somehow miss 2), which was right after 1)?

[markj]

Really? You're not willing to have others challenge your notions

This is not what is going on here, them guys just dont understand what Ian writing so I am out of this one. Seems the same 3 guys go after any and all 22 posts. So go ahead, dont use it. Forget Ieven said anything about it.

Is like talking to a child that just wont listen. I posted I use a larger caliber but if a 22 was all I had......broken record.....

Did I mention I like a 45 1911? I know, I know, it doesnt hold 15plus rounds....

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by markj

...I posted I use a larger caliber but if a 22 was all I had...

Let's be clear. That is not exactly what you posted.

You initially wrote:

Originally Posted by markj, post 20

...It was a common carry round before the media brain washed everyone into thinking only a cannon will do the job...

And then you wrote:

Originally Posted by markj, post 20

...Would I consider a 22 for self defense? heck yeah, pin point accuracy and little noise, light recoil and fast back on target, sure would...

And then:

Originally Posted by markj, post 25

...Them riverboat gamblers carried multi shot 22s for the cartridges guns...

And then:

Originally Posted by markj, post 25

...Like I said themedia has brain washed most folks, Americans need bigger than anyone else...

All of that is about defending choosing a .22, not simply using a .22 if that's all that is available.

All of us are agreed that in an emergency, one should use what he has. And if a .22 is all that he had to work with, he's going to need to use it and hopefully find a way to make effective use of it. But if one can make a choice and pick something bigger than a .22, a .22 is not necessarily the best idea.

Originally Posted by markj

...them guys just dont understand what Ian writing...

Perhaps we aren't understanding what you are trying to say. But if so, perhaps it's because, as I've noted above, you're not making yourself very clear.

Are you trying to say that in an emergency, if a .22 is all that's at hand, one would have to use that and could, with skill, make decent use of it? If so, we can all agree on that.

But are you also trying to say that a .22 could be a good choice for a gun intended to be used for personal defense? If so, then several of us don't agree (at least absent special circumstances like serious recoil sensitivity or various disabilities), and we've explained why.

[iMagUdspEllr]

'Shot placement is what matters.'

Shot placement is what matters. But, when we say this we are also assuming quite a few things are understood. Like the fact that we are using handguns that generate ~400 to 530 ft/lbs of energy (Just a range of muzzle energy stats I have found from 9mm to .45 ACP without going into .45 super). Shot placement clearly doesn't matter if we are shooting spit wads or if they are wearing tank armor *face palm*. So we are also assuming we aren't shooting people in their vests (chest, chest, head anyone?)

'So why don't you use a .22?'

Well a .22 doesn't have the same energy as a 9mm. We are simply claiming that the difference in energy between the 9mm and the .45 ACP is negligible and the extra capacity and lower recoil are tangible, factual advantages. Putting a little extra energy in the same hole really doesn't affect anything and it has been proven that penetration is equivalent between the .45 ACP and the 9mm.

It's a fact that bullets delivered by handguns kill through blood loss and damage to vital organs. Only bullets delivered at energy levels on par with rifles start to kill through less precise means (hydrostatic shock) because the amount of energy delivered to the target is so phenomenal.

Muzzle energy:
.50 BMG: ~14,000 ft/lbs
5.56x45mm: ~1,300 ft/lbs
.44 Magnum: ~1,200 ft/lbs
.45 ACP: ~530 ft/lbs
9mm: ~460 ft/lbs
.22LR: ~200 ft/lbs

It is clear that the 9mm and the .45 ACP are in the same category and they are not to be compared to a .22 or a .44 magnum. They are equivalent.

[Double Naught Spy]

DNS, did you somehow miss 2), which was right after 1)?

Sure, I read the entire post. I fail to see why folks choose such low standards against which to base their protective measures. A BB gun is better than nothing. A sharp stick is better than nothing. There is a whole world of possibilities that are better than nothing. Nothing is a very low standard. Saying a .22 is better than nothing is just saying it is better than anything that doesn't actually cause detriment to the carrier.

A .22 is better than a lot of things that are also better than nothing. Many folks will claim that the .22 is better than the .17 hmr and better than the .25 acp for self defense as well. They too are better than nothing.

Nothing is a very low standard.

-------------------

.22LR: ~200 ft/lbs

200 ft/lbs? What .22 lr ammo are you shooting from your pistol to get ~200 ft lbs.?

I don't find any that come close to 200 ft/lbs. Most are less than 135 at the muzzle when fired from a rifle (not a pistol). Only a few go over 150 lbs. The only one I find at 200 is the Aguila Super Max (30 grains) and once more, that is when fired from a rifle, not a pistol, and even then I haven't seen where any end user has actually gotten that much velocity from it when they have chrono'd it.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/22_rimfire_cartridges.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm...dID=AU1B222297

[MLeake]

DNS, you left out the context where I said what I really recommended were rounds that had good reliability for breaking bone. The only "standard" I set for .22 was that it was worth considering for those who are too feeble to handle something more. Some folks do fall into that category.

For those who are not physically limited, I normally would recommend .38 Special or 9mm as a minimum.

If you are going to selectively quote people, in order to make your arguments, you might pick your quotes from people who actually illustrate your argumentative point. In this case, you are simply annoying somebody who generally agrees with you, by quoting in incomplete context and implying intent that does not exist.

I would put it to you, though, that as somebody who has some idea of how to use a sharp stick as well as a .22, that I'd choose my Model 18 over a sharp stick. Moving targets are a different matter, but on stationary ones I can shoot the eyes out of a zombie target at 10 yards with that revolver; I imagine it would work in a pinch.

But it won't have to, since my carry guns are .38 and .357 revolvers, and 9mm, .40, and .45 autos.

[threegun]

It was a sharp stick IN THE EYE.

posted by markjIf it is all you have its better than a sharp stick in the eye.

[MLeake]

Well, I'm not sure if the stick would break off in the eye socket or go on through. I suspect the .22 would go on through, so I'd go with the .22 in the eye over the sharp stick in the eye.

I'd take either over a bunch of raspberries.

But I'd take the Bengal tiger over the raspberries, stick, or .22.

[threegun]

I'm thinking spear like stick and not a twig.

[Nnobby45]

When ever you have a discussion about bullet effectiveness some one ALWAYS, without exception, points out that "shot placement" is what counts.

As if to invalidate the discussion regarding bullet technology and performance.

Get's kind of old.

We all know that bullet placement is extremely important.

It SHOULD be just as evident that, if shooting is justified, perforating Bubba the feral man's upper torso with the best in bullet techology/performance is much preferal to the ad nauseum "it doesn't matter what bullet you use" philosophy.

Who are these guy's? Seems to be some developing evidence that a large percentage are those who have convinced themselves (and are now trying to convince others) that their lives are just as well protected with WWB or some other "budget" ammo as with DPX, Gold Dot, HST or Golden Saber.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Nnobby45]

What we need to know about the .22.

Wounds are serious, dangerous, and deadly.

Ability to stop a violent attack quickly is very poor.

If you're determined to choose a .22 for self protection, why settle for the second worst caliber? You can always go with the .25 Auto and be armed with the VERY worst.

Lastly: Is a .22 better than nothing if that's all you have? Dang right it is.

Would you choose it as a primary SD weapon? Crap, no--I wouldn't.

If you needed a gun to secure food over a long period of time (in small game country) and it had to double as your SD weapon against two legged predators, would it be worth considering? Yes.

[iMagUdspEllr]

@Nnobby45: The reason why shot placement does invalidate bullet technology and performance is because even using the biggest and baddest loads in 9mm, .40, and .45 it is still very low energy levels. Those 50 to 100 ft/lbs of extra energy doesn't matter (assuming you are indeed using the best defensive loads for your caliber of choice). The only tangible differences at that point (after shot placement and bullet technology) are capacity and recoil.

Its very specific. The hottest commercial 9mm I have seen is around 480 ft/lbs and the hottest .45 I have seen is around 530 ft/lbs. 50 ft/lbs doesn't make a difference and simply does not make up for the lower capacity and higher recoil of a .45. A slightly better case can be made for .40 but apparently *sarcasm* .40 has higher "perceived" recoil than .45 so therefore it is actually "worse" than a .45 with more actual recoil and lower capacity. Go figure. */sarcasm*

I mean, if you don't agree that is cool. But, I have justified my standpoint with facts and if I'm wrong at least I based it on something more plausible than what many people normally base their opinions on (i.e. I like how this one goes boom).

[Nordeste]

Good point above. The BG on the video was shot with 115gr FMJ 9mm ammo, but the shot that got him down was placed near the heart. Game over.

[skifast]

Shot placement is important, but shooting until the threat is neutralized is king.

Any hit on the bad guy is good for the good guy, if he continues to shoot. A peripheral hit will cause damage and effect the bad guys ability to fight. The effect may be large or small. The key is to keep hitting him until the effect stops the bad guy.

In my opinion, get the first shot off fast. Even a miss will substantially raise the bad guys stress level. Work on accuracy as you continue to fire.

[Double Naught Spy]

In my opinion, get the first shot off fast. Even a miss will substantially raise the bad guys stress level. Work on accuracy as you continue to fire.

This is rather old school thinking. Back in the 1950s when my pop was a rookie officer for Dallas PD, their training included statements very close to this. At the time it was felt that getting off the first shot, even if it was into the ground during the draw, was important for establishing a dominant position in the situation by demonstrating a willingness to use lethal force. Of course, that was prior to all sorts of lawsuits and the like, bystanders who got shot around the country, etc.

Advocating possible benefits from a miss when you meant to hit as still a good thing isn't in line with current thinking.

[TylerD45ACP]

Corbon 165gr. +P 45ACP I have go 1250ft/sec with 573 ft/lbs. They are impressive and shoot well. Right now they are the 1st mag in my 1911. I agree the difference is not by much in terms of energy when if comes to pistols though. I still prefer the bigger bullet of the 45ACP, even if it weighs less its still .45 and has a better chance of hitting something when placed in the right area, imo. Plus out of everything I have shot in my life I shoot a 1911 best in 45ACP. I am most comfortable with it and can put rounds accuratley downrange quickly. I am very confident in the firearm and I believe that is important when using it for SD. My second choice is 9mm, I carry that the most in my 3913NL since it is small and easily concealed. I have complete confidence in the 9mm as well just prefer my 45. Winter months my 45 is carried and warmer times its the 3913. I feel fine with either. Sorry for the ramble post .

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by skifast

Shot placement is important, but shooting until the threat is neutralized is king....

But I'm afraid that's sort of backwards. Shot placement is one of the significant factors in how quickly and how surely the threat is neutralized.

Originally Posted by skifast

...A peripheral hit will cause damage and effect the bad guys ability to fight....

Maybe and maybe not. People, both good and bad, have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. Consider the 1986 Miami FBI shootout.

Again --

• More holes are better than fewer holes.
• Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
• Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
• Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
• There are no magic bullets.

[threegun]

Advocating possible benefits from a miss when you meant to hit as still a good thing isn't in line with current thinking.

Its has been well established that hit ratio's go way down when you are being shot at. Advocating getting off the first shot as fast as possible even if it may be a miss may be taboo these days but it is logical. In a game of inches it may turn a direct hit into a graze or even a complete miss.

If our number one priority is surviving then we do what is necessary to survive. If that means letting one go early so be it. If that means stopping the charge of the man with the Katana raised over his head even though he has a crowd of innocent women and children behind him, so be it. Do all possible to protect those innocents but do what is necessary to survive. When the two are in conflict survival takes precedence.

[Double Naught Spy]

Its has been well established that hit ratio's go way down when you are being shot at....

If that means stopping the charge of the man with the Katana raised over his head even though he has a crowd of innocent women and children behind him, so be it.

So where are the data to support that Katana hits go down when being shot at?

Seems to me that y'all are advocating spray and pray with speed over accuracy. Scary.

Yes, getting off a shot fast may be good. Getting off a shot fast just to be shooting isn't good.

[threegun]

So where are the data to support that Katana hits go down when being shot at?

Seems to me that y'all are advocating spray and pray with speed over accuracy. Scary.

Yes, getting off a shot fast may be good. Getting off a shot fast just to be shooting isn't good.

No such data is available at the time of print. However failing to stop a charging Katanaman usually ends bad for yee with no Katana.

I am only advocating returning fire as soon as possible even if to soon to get off a precision shot.

We will have to agree to disagree with the last statement because if being fired upon decreases someones chances of hitting you then it really would be good to fire on somebody just to be fast.


Spray and pray would also get the benefits of duress however it will not likely end the threat like controller aimed fire would.

[MLeake]

When the military does it, it's called "suppressive fire."

It has its time and place, but that usually isn't in a civilian SD scenario. Doesn't mean it could never have application, just that we normally don't carry enough ammo to waste any, and we often aren't in relatively clear areas as regards fields of fire.

[markj]

Are you trying to say that in an emergency, if a .22 is all that's at hand, one would have to use that and could, with skill, make decent use of it? If so, we can all agree on that.

Yes.

But are you also trying to say that a .22 could be a good choice for a gun intended to be used for personal defense?

Again yes, I do know a few folks carry small semi autos in 22 lr. it is what they prefer and Iaint gonna argue with em like you guys here do. How many of ya have faced another with a gun pointed right at ya? not many so we can surmise the percentager of folks carry that will meet up with said attacker is very slim. Around here almost none.

I have said this many times, carry what you can shoot and feel comfy with. I try to get folks using a 45 but some just dont want that. go figure, and my posts were about old times, many folks used a 22.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by markj

Again yes, I do know a few folks carry small semi autos in 22 lr. it is what they prefer and Iaint gonna argue with em like you guys here do...

And several of us disagree with you on that. Indeed, we think a .22 is a lousy choice, and we've explained why.

You may be entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that any of us have to agree with you. Several of us think, with good reason, that you're wrong; and we reserve the right to say so.

[threegun]

I'm with Fiddle the 22lr is a poor choice of self defense round. Only when it is the only viable option, IE disability or other physical impairment prevent the use of bigger calibers, should it be considered.