.22 guns for EDC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As long as your assailant or assailants are under 20lbs a 22 will be OK, I have and at times still carry a pocket 22 or 25 but not if I really feel the need. I've hunted enough small game to know how limited the 22 can be unless properly placed, and that's not gonna happen in a fight. Penetration out of handgun length barrels is pretty poor too.
 
Where do people get this Mossad and hitmen using a .22 crap from. They were used at muzzle contact ranges on unsuspecting or bound targets. They are not gunfighting tools although better than nothing, Ice picks were fairly common at one time, take one of those to a shoot out.
 
Not my first choice but would do the ultimate task of thwarting an attack most of the time. Its mathmatical odds vs TV movie shootouts. The NRA publishes statistics on how many crimes are ended without ashot being fired just because the potential victim had agun in their posession.

If you carry, the chances you'll ever need it is pretty slim. The chances that just pulling will not end an attack is pretty slim. The chances that firing it, whether you hit or not will not end an attack are pretty slim. The chances that hitting and attacker anywhere will not end an attack are pretty slim. So lets say you get the one in a million guy who wants your wallet, sees your gun, gets hit with a bullet and wants your wallet bad enough to continue to advance, the amount of firepower you have could make a difference. Those situations are not very common, even among documented defense situations. Most bad guys only enage in shootouts when they think nobody is shooting back, and as soon as they realize it, the attack usually ends.

I'm not advocating insufficient firepower, but simply makng the case that having anything that fires increases you odds over having nothing by far more than having a big gun with lots of bullets improves your odds over having a 6 shooter in .22 when applied to civilian self defense purposes.
 
For EDC, I for one live out in the sticks, so my carry gun, will be much more likely to be used against a four legged predator than two, the mere threat of a gun wouldn't likely stop something from chewing on my dogs or horses or grandkids for that matter. I like to have something with a little more umph than a .22lr. I am a fan of the .32 H&R mag though so I'm not talking hand cannons here, although I carry those some days too.
 
Old Stony said:
If I am not mistaken, a .22 is not legal to carry in some states with your carry permit. Some states mandate a larger caliber.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of this and doubt its veracity. Do you have a source?
 
Probably a misinterpretation of the some the caliber restrictions of the gun that had to be used in CCW or CHL tests. TX had a restriction to .GE. and then 32s, IIRC. But it did not mandate what you carry.

If other states did that - I dunno.

Frank has a great analysis using Greg's paper. Psychological stops can be caused by rational processes or autonomic ones that cause a person to faint. Some folks have a blood injury phobia (seen alot in medical injections) and out they go.
 
"...Where do people get this Mossad and hitmen using a .22 crap from. They were used at muzzle contact ranges on unsuspecting or bound targets. They are not gunfighting tools although better than nothing, Ice picks were fairly common at one time, take one of those to a shoot out..."

Not true at all. While there were definitely assasanations, Beretta 70 series guns were also used as general gun fighting weapons, such as the well known incident where an EL AL sky marshal used his Beretta 71 to thwart a hijacking, fighting very well armed terrorists.
http://www.tactical-life.com/magazines/tactical-weapons/israeli-mossad-22-lrs/


Put an alert, resolute individual like that with a Beretta 71 up against any American hobby-gunfighter, armed with his latest and greatest wonder pistol loaded with $2 a round magic hollowpoints, and my money's on the .22.
 
Last edited:
amd6547 said:
..when I carry my Beretta 71, I know I am as well armed as an average Mossad agent or El Al sky marshal from the '60's...
Click to expand...
amd6547 said:
...Beretta 70 series guns were also used as general gun fighting weapons, such as the well known incident where an EL AL sky marshal used his Beretta 71 to thwart a hijacking, fighting very well armed terrorists...
Click to expand...
How about some documentation? I've seen this "Mossad agents carry .22s" business floating around the Internet, but I've never seen anything to back it up.

As far a sky marshals using sub-caliber guns, using a gun in a possibley crowded, confined environment poses unique tactical problems.
 
I know for a 150% fact that Beretta .22s were used by El Al security, by choice, in the 1960s and 70s, switching over to 9mm weapons in the mid-1970s. I'm only about 99.5% sure that the Mossad also used them, mainly as a matter of convenience, since they could easily "borrow" anything they needed from an Israeli embassy or El Al office.
However, Beretta 70s were widely used throughout Israeli police and governmental security organs, issued to many from traffic cops and meter-readers to body guards and school teachers. I'm about 500% on this last bit.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Walt Sherrill said:
....If you compare the results in that Ellifritz study, link above, you'll see that 9mm and .45 were more similar than dissimilar in terms of effectiveness. But that insipid little .22 round (which included short, long, and LR) had a higher percentage of fatal hits (34%) than either .45 (29%) or 9mm (24%). The same data showed that people shooting .22s stopped the other person with fewer shots than the .45 (.22=1.38 rounds vs. .45=2.08), and had a surprisingly similar percentage of fatal shots (.22 = 25% vs. 45 = 29%). One-shot incapacitation for the .22 was 60%, while it was 51% for the .45....
Click to expand...
But that is not a fair summary of the Ellifritz findings. You're ignoring Ellifritz' "failure to incapacitate" data. See my discussion, above.
Click to expand...

Actually I DID NOT ignore that point -- just three lines down from the text you quoted, I wrote what's shown below. I bolded the final sentence in this version, but not in the original post (#45).

Walt Sherrill (earlier) said:
One big advantage of the .45 was the percentage of people NOT incapacitated (in which a lower % is better), but the .40 round did better than the .45! Results: .22=35%, 9mm=19%, .40=13%, and .45=14%. If the other guy is shooting at you, the .22 may not be your best choice.
Click to expand...

The FBI study argues that bigger is better -- but like so many of these analyses, we have to accept their conclusions on faith. I'll do that until I have better data.

But some examining the Ellifritz study might wonder about that generalization when they see that the .22 incapacitation rate was much better than the larger, hotter.32 acp, and that the .357 magnum (with similar bullet weights and operating pressures) does better than .40 S&W -- at least in terms of incapactitation.

Then too, if the person attacking you is armed, is hopped up on chemicals, very determined, or has been shot before, you're in deeper doo-doo than you can know unless you get a central nervous system hit, regardless of the caliber used. I didn't really mention it in this discussion, but that was one of the things that became very obvious in the infamous FBI Miami shootout...

As I said earlier, I'd still like to see test results for the .22 WMR round, which has to be more effective than .22 LR fired from a barrel long enough to use the extra powder. As I said in subsequent posts, I'll continue to carry 9mm. I'd also like to know what works best against a couple of angry dogs -- as that may be a bigger risk for some of us than bad guys.
 
Well....why don't you think police and the FBI and the military use 'em? (.22's) The advantages you list would apply to them too.
Click to expand...

Look up the term Hush Puppy... our military and others have used .22LR's.


Not my first choice in carrying, however, loaded with GOOD ammo, they can be certainly lethal. Statistically they are just as capable at killing as basically any other widely accepted SD round.

Personally I favor the 9mm... but I have been eyeing the Glock 42 for a summer carry in .380.
 
US U-2 pilot (and spy) Francis Gary Powers was carrying a US-issue High Standard HD with integral supressor when he was shot down over Russia.
 
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.
 
ttarp said:
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
Click to expand...

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...

.
 
Last edited:
"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.;)
 
I have always believed that RELIABLE SOURCES are the ones that agree with what I believe to be true. :rolleyes:

Apparently others feel that way too.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top