22lr effective as?

[Mike38]

I can't compare my carry round to a .22lr, because 75% of the time, I carry a .22lr. I pant pocket carry. During the winter, when I can carry in a coat with an inside chest pocket, I carry a snub .38spcl revolver with five shots. My .22lr carry is nine shots, and feel fine with either. So I guess one could say I'm 2:1 (two .22 to one .38spcl)

[Danoobie]

You could look at it like this.
One shot from a 22LR could either stop or discourage a bad guy.

OTOH, some bad guys have had a mag of 45ACP dumped into them, and kept
on coming.

Now, you have to decide what caliber you want to carry, based on your
perception of both extremes.

[Bill DeShivs]

Temporary wound cavity and hydrostatic shock are entirely different things.

[mavracer]

There is no hydrostsatic shock with handgun ammunition.

Well then what's the magic point where it can happen?

[ms6852]

This guy makes a point most of us don't...funny to watch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAlU9nVnFx8

[Bill DeShivs]

Originally Posted by mavracer

Well then what's the magic point where it can happen?

About 2000 fps.

[mavracer]

About 2000 fps

So a 17 HMR is more likely to produce a bang flop than a 45/70.
Nope calling BS, please try again.

[darkgael]

2000 fps?
FN FiveSeven - Elite Ammo Protector 1 - 40 gr. Nosler @ 2100fps

[CDW4ME]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

Temporary wound cavity and hydrostatic shock are entirely different things.

I still have an example, the definition of hydrostatic shock is what they described seeing in the deer.

Definition:
"Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock is a term which describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact."

From the article I linked:
"We also observed mild hemorrhaging along the abdominal walls and rear rib cage on the right side. This is the area directly opposite from the entrance wound, but several inches caudal (rearward) from the point where the bullet exited the rib cage. Thus this region was out of reach of both the permanent crush cavity and the temporary stretch cavity, and it seems that the most likely cause of the hemorrhaging was the pressure wave"

135 gr. @ 1,367 fps = hydrostatic shock effect, from a handgun.
40 S&W loaded hot
10mm for sure
357 Sig produces that velocity with a 125 gr.

[Nanuk]

Well then what's the magic point where it can happen?

This has been beat to crap on the internet with very, very few people even knowing where it came from. Many people will parrot 2000 fps without even knowing where it came from.

In the late 1880's (If I recall correctly) a German scientist was studying bullet wounds. You must understand that smokeless powder had not been used yet in the military context. So we had high velocity bullet wounds caused by rifles @ 2000 fps and low velocity bullet wounds caused by handguns bellow 1000 fps.

Limited studies were conducted in cavtation and bullet wounds, it was discovered that the larger the diameter the lower the velocity needed for cavitation. It is a known problem for submarines for example.

When we discuss magnum revolver cartridges and rounds such as the 9mm +P+ and 357 Sig we are really making things interesting.

To the OP 22LR, self defense? Unless anything else is impossible, no. I don't have 3 weeks to wait for someone to bleed out or develop toxemia. I would use what police use as a baseline. Knowing the history of LE is helpful, the LRN 38 special was used for many years by many departments because it was cheap and politically expedient, not because it was effective.

[mavracer]

2,000 fps as
threshold speed Mythbusted

It's really even easier to prove than that, if it required 2000fps for remote wounding nobody would die in a car accident without a penetrating wound, football players wouldn't get concussions.
No remote wounding, hydrostatic shock, temporary stretch cavity or ballistic pressure wave whatever you want to call it, is much closer related to kinetic energy. And there's no magic number where it occurs, because it dang sure can happen at at least the upper end of service caliber handguns but still isn't a guarantee at the upper limit of battle rifle calibers.

[Onward Allusion]

It's said often - shot placement. So, I'd personally take my S&W 43C (8-shot 22LR) w/CT Grip Laser over any 5-shot 38 Special snub without a laser. A shot to the sternum and above is pretty darn easy with my 43C. With that said, I carry a G27 with a LaserMax Guide Rod

[Bill DeShivs]

Mavracer-
Car accidents and football concussions have nothing to do with hydrostatic shock.
Perhaps you should do more research. Internal injuries from shock have to do with organs moving and stopping suddenly.

[mavracer]

Bill a collision is a collision doesn't matter which one is moving or if both are moving.

[Onward Allusion]

Car accidents and football concussions have nothing to do with hydrostatic shock.

+1

[OldMarksman]

In terms of fluid dynamics, "static" and "shock" are mutually exclusive concepts, and the term "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron.

I remember first reading the term some time after WWII in books and articles by writer Jack O'Connor.

On the other hand, a pressure wave in a gas or fluid, depending upon the wave form characteristics (frequency and amplitude) and how it is experienced, can wound, destroy microphones, knock over structures, and tear the skins off aircraft that were not built to withstand it.

Of course, static pressure is also dangerous, to submarine vessels, boilers, pressure tanks, and so on. But it is not the same thing.

It is of little benefit to quibble over the extent to which pressure waves propagated in a living organism can contribute to wounding, or the velocity at which it might become a factor, in service caliber handguns.

That subject has been the subject of considerable scientific research. Handgun wounding depends upon direct tearing and crushing.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well then what's the magic point where it can happen?

About 2000 fps.

I have read that it is around 2500 fps, according to some hunting claims. I don't know. It seems so magical and mystical, yet so unreliable.

"Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock is a term which describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact."

Interesting. My understanding was that hydraulic shock was different from hydrostatic shock. Hydraulic shock is what produces your temporary wound cavity. Hydrostatic shock is what produces your remote woundings/incapacitation effects.

In terms of fluid dynamics, "static" and "shock" are mutually exclusive concepts, and the term "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron.

It may be an oxymoron, but the shooting and self defense realm is full of stupid sayings that don't actually make sense, but people repeat them all the time. (e.g., 2 is 1 and 1 is none, or Federal's "Hydra-shok" handgun ammo).

[OldMarksman]

My understanding was that hydraulic shock was different from hydrostatic shock.

It is.

A hydraulic pressure wave can produce effects that can reasonably be described as "hydraulic shock", be they temporary or permanent.

There is no such thing as "hydrostatic shock". It is a contradiction of terms.

[Hal]

.22 s,l,lr is 60% effective - as far as one shot stops go.
Beaten only by the .357 magnum@ 61%
Number of shots required to stop is 1.38 - which is the lowest of all calibers.

So basically, the OP should be asking is "what's as effective as the .22 s,l,lr"?
.

What was it about statistics? Lies, damn lies & statistics....?



https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/using-22-self-defense

[Doc TH]

Review again the videos of the Reagan assassination attempt, looking at the effects upon James Brady, the D.C. police officer, a Secret Service officer and the (delayed) effect on Reagan. We underestimate the .22.

[darkgael]

Yep. ^^^^. Graphic proof.

[481]

This-

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

It is of little benefit to quibble over the extent to which pressure waves propagated in a living organism can contribute to wounding, or the velocity at which it might become a factor, in service caliber handguns.

That subject has been the subject of considerable scientific research. Handgun wounding depends upon direct tearing and crushing.

Can we get an 'Amen'?