.22 guns for EDC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's true as far as it goes, but there are certain limits to that aphorism. At a certain threshold, bigger is indeed better.
Click to expand...

That's probably true, but you'll be hard pressed to ever prove it.

CNS shots are the only thing that really stops someone from "stopping" you. While bigger bullets are more likely to damage something critical, like lungs, bone structure, etc., and you might bleed out faster if hit by a larger bullet -- if you have to wait until the bad guy bleeds out, he may kill YOU while you wait.

Here's one of the best studies of actual shooting events, by Greg Ellifritz. Unlike the "stopping power" studies, it looks a the full range of events in a shooting. Smaller rounds do a surprisingly better job of putting the other person out of action than you'd expect.

I'm not advocating using .22s instead of .45s by linking you to this site, but it does make sense to shoot what you shoot best -- which means you might get better placement. In this survey, .32 acp does surprisingly well.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866
 
Yeah, a .22 placed properly will kill but then again, so will poking them in the right spot with a letter opener. My .22 firearms are for hunting, plinking and training only. Under no normal circumstances will they ever see duty as a defensive weapon, CCW, home defense or otherwise. I'm worth far more than having to resort to having to use a .22 to protect myself and have far better calibers designed to do that job and do it far better than a .22LR ever will.
 
Walt, thanks for the link. There is a lot of good information there.

I grew up on a small farm. I saw many cows dropped instantly with one round to their head. The round was a 22 long rifle.

USMC Grunt, your out plinking with your rimfire and all of a sudden someone rushes you with knife. Do you call a time out to retrieve a larger gun?
 
I saw many cows dropped instantly with one round to their head. The round was a 22 long rifle.
Click to expand...
That's fine if you can get the bad guy to stand passively while you choose the perfect spot to place the bullet.

Just because a cartridge is "deadly" doesn't mean it's effective for self defense, since the goal isn't to kill, but rather to cause enough IMMEDIATE injury to stop the threat ASAP
 
Bella, I guess your missed where I said, "Under no normal circumstances". If it's all you got it's all you got but if all you got is a pointy letter opener, all you got is a pointy letter opener to defend yourself with as well. I'm also not sure where your shoot at that random knifings are something to be concerned about but where I shoot, I would say that the previously mentioned random knifer dude coming at me while I only have a .22 has the same possibility of occurring as a volcano erupting in my basement. Possible, I guess but not something I'm going to worry about. What I fail to understand is why one would consciously choose to carry or employ a caliber that while can be lethal, is not known for being a fight stopper.
 
Just because a cartridge is "deadly" doesn't mean it's effective for self defense, since the goal isn't to kill, but rather to cause enough IMMEDIATE injury to stop the threat ASAP
Click to expand...

Yes, this is essentially what I was trying to say. A lot of things are "deadly", even a sewing needle, but stopping the threat quickly is a whole different ball of wax.
 
I am in the camp of shoot what you can control best. If you shoot a 22 good and can control it then it is a good option for you, if you own a 45 and cant hit the ground with it then its no good to ya. I carry my little Beretta 21 or my NAA 22's when I cant carry a bigger gun. I feel any gun is better than the best gun you left at home. YMMV Happy shooting.
 
What I fail to understand is why one would consciously choose to carry or employ a caliber that while can be lethal, is not known for being a fight stopper.
Click to expand...


And what I fail to understand is the mentality that you will have to shoot your way out of a gang of highly armed and trained criminals everytime you go to the grocery store. There's nothing wrong with preparing for a situation like that, but I've survived many trips to the grocery store without so much as a pocket knife, and I know others have too. Maybe I'm grossly complacent by not preparing for the apocalypse every time I step out my door, but its a risk I personally am willing to take.
 
I have a 351pd, 7 rounds I think it weighs around 13oz loaded, shoots 22mag and I can tell you, judging by a yotes I have tagged with that round, you do not want to be on the wrong side of that little wizard...

As far as carrying 22lr, I don't see an issue with it, given the choice I think I would rather get hit buy 2 poorly placed 357's vs 8 well placed .22's cci velocitors...
 
Yawn - pardon my sarcasm.

1. Guns have a tremendous deterrent value, so having a gun is better than none. There is no evidence of significant differential deterrent value and I know the criminological experts and they never heard of such.

2. If you do shoot one, that adds another layer of causing the opponent to cease their actions. Again a plus.

3. If the attacker is determined and it is not a deterrent, then a 22 is not as good as quality 38s, 9s, 40s and 45s. As far as we can tell, those are equivalent. Use the one you shoot best. However, folks have been stopped with them - so it is a plus to try.

A correction - it was argued that a CNS shot is the broad areas of the forehead. NO - that's not it. Go look that up, folks. Forehead shots have occurred with even larger calibers where the round doesn't penetrate or scoots along the curve of the skull. Aim lower. However, such precision shot under stress is not particularly easy.

To conclude, it's better than nothing and if you shoot is well and practice, numbers 1 and 3 give you tremendous positive outcome. If you shoot other things well, go up the scale but remember no handgun round is a one shot stopper.
 
In reference to seeing cows put down with a .22lr round...

Snyper said:
That's fine if you can get the bad guy to stand passively while you choose the perfect spot to place the bullet.
Click to expand...

That's true with a 9mm or .45 as well. And as noted earlier, unless you hit the central nervous system, and the other person is shooting, too, you're still in deep doo-doo unless you hit something that STOPS the fight.

Do I want to do this with a gun loaded with .22 LR. Not particularly. Would I consider it with a gun holding many rounds of .22 WMR? I don't know... but I would like to know more about THAT round's ability to stop things quickly. It could be it's no better than .22 LR -- or like the surprisingly effective smaller-caliber rounds cited in tne Buckeye site tests, it may do well. (See the link, below.)

That's why I mentioned the .22 WMR round. Nobody seems to know just how effective it might be in a self-defense situation. I disparaged the .32 acp round until I read the study below -- and now I'm not sure that my lack of respect was justified. The FBI study, not linked, but available, says you really want to go a bit higher on the caliber scale if you know you're going into a gun fight... but most of these opinions and judgments are just that: opinions and judgements, seldom backed with verifiable evidence. The original one-shot stop studies have been shown to be very flawed both in terms of data collection and methodology (and while flawed, somebody had to start somewhere...)

Here's that link, again, in case you didn't look. I found it surprising, and it's a far better documented and comprehensive study than others I've seen: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

I personally feel better carrying at least a small 9mm, but there are folks who feel very comfortable with 5-round .38 specials, and others who carry small revolvers shooting .327 magnum, or small semi-autos shooting .32 acp. We might all be nuts.
 
Last edited:
I saw many cows dropped instantly with one round to their head. The round was a 22 long rifle.
Click to expand...

Many farmers used to whack 'em with 5 lb. ball peen hammer, too...... then just bleed them out with a butcher knife while they laid there stunned ..... ammo was expensive in the 30's .....

That does not make a .22 or a ball peen hammer the right tool for self defense...

And what I fail to understand is the mentality that you will have to shoot your way out of a gang of highly armed and trained criminals everytime you go to the grocery store. There's nothing wrong with preparing for a situation like that, but I've survived many trips to the grocery store without so much as a pocket knife, and I know others have too. Maybe I'm grossly complacent by not preparing for the apocalypse every time I step out my door, but its a risk I personally am willing to take.
Click to expand...

As has been said before, it's not the odds, but the stakes......

Nobody in their right mind wants to be shot with anything ..... the problem is that folks that would be inclined to assault, or even threaten to assault you, for whatever valuables you have on you, are likely NOT in their right mind: they are just not making rational judgements, IMO. The crappy cell phone and few dollars I might have are not worth risking one's life over ....... and if such people were always placated with the crappy cell phone and the few dollars, I would not bother to Carry at all: I'd just give them the crap ..... but many of these people will be unhappy with a carppy cell phone and a few bucks and kill you because you might be holding out ... or just kill you for the fun of it, or because the voices told them to, or because the moon is full .... who knows why? I don't and don't even care why. I'm carrying the gun I think I can best shoot, conceal, and that will stop the fight..... and it's not going to be a .22 ...... YMMV.
 
I have no License to Carry-live in New Jersey, VERY hard to get-but carrying while on the way to the grocery or convenience store-no different than carrying a spare tire, jack, lug wrench, inflator cartridges, first aid kit, etc. in the car. Be Prepared!
 
I'll admit to carrying a .22 occasionally...

Once in a while, I will slip either a Beretta 71 or a Ruger SR22P in my belt, and call myself armed.

I've been shooting a lot of .22LR over the last couple years, starting long before the current ammo shortage. I've always shot the better CCI and Aguila high velocity offerings, as well as Blazer bulk. Rifles or pistols, I have not had a single ammo failure or even malfunction. Both the Beretta and the Ruger seem to keep shooting as long as there is ammo in the magazines...which can be emptied quickly and accurately.
 
Its better than throwing rocks
Click to expand...
Although with rocks you know they will work as far as leaving your hand when you throw them.
Rimfire ammo, even the best, on the other hand has a higher rate of duds than any centerfire.
Even with CCI ammo I have had a couple duds out of maybe a thousand or so. I just wouldn't want that one in a thousand be when I needed it for that one in a million situation!


This got me thinking. Is it a viable or a wise option to carry a .22 gun for self defence? The ease of shooting, weight, and cheap ammo are very enticing, yet I won't give away effectiveness in stopping an armed attacked for any of that.
Click to expand...

In addition, prety much answered your own question right there! :D
 
jimbob86 said:
As has been said before, it's not the odds, but the stakes......
Click to expand...

That's true. But... If you follow that line of reasoning, you could also argue that most of us would be well-served buying and wearing body armor. That equipment costs less than some handguns, and most of us have more than one handgun in the gun safe -- so it's not necessarily the cost of body armo that keeps us from using it. But THAT alternative never comes up in these discussions. If body armor is appropriate for GIs in combat and LEOs on the street, why isn't it appropriate for civilians who may also be at risk? The stakes are the same -- it's just the odds that are different.

I'm not advocating smaller caliber carry guns. I'm just trying to figure out what makes the most sense for me.

I think most of us might be at greater risk of harm from dog attacks than human attacks -- and that is seldom mentioned. What works best against a couple of Rottweilers or Dobermans when they're in the mood? That subject doesn't come up much, either. Some LEOs have to face that ugly situation from time to time; what works for them?

Most of us seem to be making decisions and offering judgements about self-defense weapons based on a conspicuous lack of information, few real-world facts, are relying on a lot of anecdotal information coming from folks who worked in (or who knew somebody who worked in) hospital emergency rooms, and too many viewings of Dirty Harry movies. :rolleyes:

We should be looking for more facts and add them to these discussions.
 
Last edited:
If body armor is appropriate for GIs in combat and LEOs on the street, why isn't it appropriate for civilians who may also be at risk? The stakes are the same -- it's just the odds that are different.
Click to expand...

Because wearing body armor, while even more uncomfortable than carrying a gun and much harder to conceal, will not stop an attacker ..... at best, it'll buy you a bit of time...... maybe enough, maybe not. Without a gun, wearing body armor is just betting you are a tougher punching bag than the attacker is prepared to deal with.

I'll fight back, thankee.
 
I guess reliability should be a factor. Then wouldn't a revolver be better than a semi? Wheelguns are more reliable. I realize this comment is off-topic here, but wonder how many use a semi auto and are also concerned with rimfire reliability?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top