.22 guns for EDC?

[jad0110]

I didn't read the whole thread, so someone else may have already made this point.

I know people for whom the .22 LR is really the only effective option. People with rheumatoid arthritis or carpal tunnel syndrome that can only manage the recoil of a .22. My own mother finds the relatively mild to us kick of a full size .38 or 9mm too painful, but a .22 is just the ticket. There is no way someone like her will practice, AT ALL (much less a little bit), with a gun that causes significant pain like that. Her house gun is currently a Hi Standard Supermatic Citation. When she gets her carry permit, she is leaning towards a Ruger LCR 22.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Isn't the whole point?

If that's what you can use - then use it. If it's all you have - use it.

If you have better choices, then use that.

As far as sample size, Greg does what he can with what he can gather. Getting truly large sample sizes is not an inexpensive exercise and would take a good deal of time. Perhaps, the NIJ (fat chance) or DARPA would fund such. Who wants to write the grant?

 

[The_Doctor]

@ Frank

Thanks for your post - sorry I didn't get back on the other one that I zombied before Christmas.

I wasn't commenting on the .22 magnum (or .22 in general) in terms of physiological damage, I was pointing out that in terms of self defense effectiveness, the .22 mag is an excellent choice. An assailants who is willing to 'press on' after being shot is good for the pulp novels, but it's not borne out in the real world.

You can see some statistics here:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

But .22 (all flavors) has a lower number of shots fired to stop attackers, higher fatality rate, and generally 'just as good' as any of the higher caliber pistols.

And Claude Werner, who's been tracking shooting data for ~15 years claims that he has not been able to find a single instances of a *civilian* who was killed after they had managed to put at least 1 .22 caliber round into their assailant.

In a word, it is all about risk management.

The odds of being violently attacked are very, very small (less than they have been since any of us reading this board have been alive).

The odds of being attacked by someone who is *not* discouraged by being shot (even a single time) are further miniscule.

Similarly, the odds of high-quality rimfire ammunition misfiring from a well maintained pistol is extremely small.


The *only* time I have ever felt the need to be armed was when my father and I confronted some gentlemen loading some of our cattle that they hadn't paid for. At that point, I felt a .22 mag was perfectly acceptable, and was *not* concerned about being 'under gunned'.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I wasn't commenting on the .22 magnum (or .22 in general) in terms of physiological damage, I was pointing out that in terms of self defense effectiveness, the .22 mag is an excellent choice. An assailants who is willing to 'press on' after being shot is good for the pulp novels, but it's not borne out in the real world.

You can see some statistics here:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power...

Well, it appears that you haven't been paying attention.

The ability to cause physiological damage can be an important consideration in the choice of a self defense cartridge. Indeed one might need to rely on physiological damage to stop an aggressor. That was pointed out in the Ellifritz study to which I linked in my post 60 and to which you linked as well. But you missed a significant part of Ellifritz' data and analysis. You ignored his data on failures to incapacitate:

...With regard to the issue of psychological stops see

...this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates:

​

As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

...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....

...But .22 (all flavors) has a lower number of shots fired to stop attackers, higher fatality rate, and generally 'just as good' as any of the higher caliber pistols....

What's your evidence. Certainly not Ellifritz' study when you include the data on failures to incapacity, and certainly not on the basis of wound physiology.

...At that point, I felt a .22 mag was perfectly acceptable, and was *not* concerned about being 'under gunned'.

(1) But your idiosyncratic, subjective belief is not evidence; and (2) the fact that in that situation things worked out is not necessarily proof that you were correct.

 

[The_Doctor]

Frank - thanks for the response


We're arguing across different points, and I think you've got your basic premise flawed.

You *don't* need to completely incapacitate/kill your assailant in order to successfully defend yourself. Killing or otherwise completely disabling your assailant is the 'most sure' way - but .22 is perfectly adequate for 1st shot stops.

The larger calibers are *much* better eventual incapacitation (that is, the people who weren't stopped on 1st shot, but did not escape) - but there are virtually no circumstances where you are justified in self defense where a bleed out is going to be a viable tactic. If the guy was close enough / dangerous enough to justify shooting, he is close enough to close and stab you / shoot back *before* he bleeds out.

So in the hypothetical case of someone who is willing to rage past a gun shot wound to continue attacking you, if you didn't put them down instantly on the first hit, they *are* going to be able to close before that hit eventually takes them out of the fight. (Or they weren't very close in the first place). Once I've put a shot in someone, and he runs away, I am perfectly satisfied with that result. I've no need to chase him down and kill him.

Again, I'm not disputing the ability of a large, powerful cartridge to eventually subdue an attacker. But killing the other guy isn't the point. The point is defending yourself. If you shoot him, an he runs away, that's a win from the self defense standpoint. A gun that was 100% effective without having to fire a shot would be the *ultimate* self defense weapon.

The gun that kills or incapacitates in a single shot is ideal, and in that category, only the shotgun & centerfire rifles really stand out as significantly 'better' than a .22 mag.

Which brings me back full circle.

A .22 isn't a great gun for guaranteeing you can bleed out an attacker with one shot, but it's one of the best when it comes to actually protecting yourself.

But to answer some of your specific points:

Originally Posted by The_Doctor
...But .22 (all flavors) has a lower number of shots fired to stop attackers, higher fatality rate, and generally 'just as good' as any of the higher caliber pistols....

What's your evidence. Certainly not Ellifritz' study when you include the data on failures to incapacity, and certainly not on the basis of wound physiology.

Failure to eventually incapacitate is a tertiary measure. I may have a failure of imagination, but unless I was being threatened by a deadly weapon, OR my assailant was approaching physical distance, I would't feel justified in shooting him. If I *WAS* being threatened by a deadly weapon, or at extremely close range, the only shot that matters is the first. After that it's a crapshoot.

The article you posted goes on to make it clear that the primary benefits of a larger cartridge are in the ability to engage at longer ranges, and the need to shoot through secondary cover (car doors, etc). Those needs are why the military and LEO carry larger caliber pistols. They often need to use their weapons offensively, at longer distances, and against people who have use of cover.

None of that applies in a defensive situation.

I'm not arguing that *you* shouldn't carry whatever you feel is best for yourself, but I also think that telling people not to carry a .22 for secondary or tertiary reasons is doing them a disservice.

If you read another one of Ellifritz's articles he makes this statement:

(From Ellifritz)
Here's the good news for the .22 carriers...

In Claude's lifetime study of defensive gun uses, he has yet to find a single case where an armed citizen was killed by a criminal after the criminal had taken at least one .22 round. In the case of civilian defensive gun usage, the criminal almost always flees after the first hit. I have been unable to find any gunfights that prove Claude wrong.

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

To me, that is the proof in the pudding - in the Ellifritz's (and other expert's) review of the actual data, .22 pistols have had a 100% success rate (if you can hit the attacker) in keeping the defending civilian alive.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

You're gonna really tick off the "big guns" crowd!

 

[The_Doctor]

'going to' ?

What's kinda funny is that I personally prefer shooting a .45 auto, but that is just because I enjoy shooting it. Not because I think it's the best cartridge.

And if you're really serious about self defense, you use a 12 gauge pump gun. That's got like a 85 or 90% 1-shot stop rate.

But this is a discussion about pistols for carry & self defense, and I'd rather carry a small frame .22 mag revolver with 8 rounds up the pipe than a 5 shot three-finger .357 - or god forbid one of those tiny framed pocket cannons.

(even though I do really like my FIL's .40 auto - that is a pistol I'd seriously consider carrying).

 

[Pond James Pond]

killing the other guy isn't the point. The point is defending yourself. If you shoot him, an he runs away, that's a win from the self defense standpoint. A gun that was 100% effective without having to fire a shot would be the *ultimate* self defense weapon.

Agreed.

I'd rather carry a small frame .22 mag revolver with 8 rounds up the pipe than a 5 shot three-finger .357

Also agreed!
In this respect an LCR with .22Mag, I think, is a vastly underestimated SD gun.

I also think that in many cases the calibre of choice for carry is as much about reassuring the carrier as it is about actually being effective in repelling an attack.

 

[skoro]

Is it a viable or a wise option to carry a .22 gun for self defence?

Certainly better than harsh words, but it wouldn't be my choice. That said, I think a 22 would probably send the vast majority of muggers scurrying off into the darkness. They're looking for an easy mark, not a fight.

Where I wouldn't have any confidence would be a situation where a determined attacker really wanted to do me some damage.

 

[TimSr]

Doctor, Thanks for digging up this thread and posting that study! I've been making this exact argument forever, but it was based on my own personal theories, with no studies to cite as evidence.

(From Ellifritz)
Here's the good news for the .22 carriers...

In Claude's lifetime study of defensive gun uses, he has yet to find a single case where an armed citizen was killed by a criminal after the criminal had taken at least one .22 round. In the case of civilian defensive gun usage, the criminal almost always flees after the first hit. I have been unable to find any gunfights that prove Claude wrong.

I found this to be very interesting as I have repeatedly issued the challenge for examples of this.

Since the study cited centerfire rifles and shotguns I questioned whether .22 rifle data was inlcuded in the .22 stats.

Also a point I have made that is not addressed in the study is my theory that a criminal attacking a civilian has more incentive to flee, and less incentive to continue the fight than a criminal fighting the threat of arrest from LEO's. I would suspect most of those cases of "5 hits and he kept on coming" were law enforcement encounters, and a risk civilians are far less likely to encounter, but again, it comes from my own head, and I don't have stats to show it. A cop's objective goes a lot further than just halting the immediate attack to himself, and his episode does not end when the suspect flees, therefore his needs are different.

 

[aarondhgraham]

Indians and arrows,,,

Indians and arrows,,,
As in it's the indian not the arrow.

Four years ago I introduced a friend to handguns,,,
She liked my Bersa Thunder 22 so she bought one for herself.

Her intention was to learn to shoot with the .22,,,
Then buy a Thunder 380 at a later date.

She has a convenient place to shoot/practice,,,
And she has trained/practiced quite a bit,,,
She takes lessons at Stillwater Armory.

She can draw that pistol and place three shots in the clavicle very quickly,,,
I've seen her do it and I am not as fast or accurate as she is.

I did loan my Thunder 380 to her this last summer,,,
She went through about 300 rounds of ammo,,,
Then decided to stick with Queenie,,,
That's what she named her Bersa.

I would like to see her carry the 380,,,
But she isn't as proficient with it,,,
So it's really not the best gun,,,
At least not for her.

She likes the .22,,,
She is very proficient with it,,,
So I for one feel confident she isn't under gunned.

Aarond

.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

In this respect an LCR with .22Mag, I think, is a vastly underestimated SD gun.

The .22 mag can be effective, but is most effective when shot out of a relatively long barrel. Most of the ammo on the market was designed for rifles, and not for short- (or very short)-barreled guns.

Hornady has come out with a new .22 mag Critical Defense round that was designed for handguns. When shot through a longer-barreled handgun, like the PMR-30 or a Ruger Single Six, the round has surprising expansion and penetration. http://www.hornady.com/store/22-WMR-45gr-Critical-Defense/ Similar to .380 rounds.

THAT type of round might be a good choice for some folks unable, due to physical constraints, to handle the ligher-recoiling rounds. And in the case of the PMR-30, you have 29 MORE rounds if the first one doesn't do the job.

My PMR-30 shoot like a LASER!! I'm very impressed, but I'm not ready, yet, to make it my "carry" weapon.

 

[The_Doctor]

Also a point I have made that is not addressed in the study is my theory that a criminal attacking a civilian has more incentive to flee, and less incentive to continue the fight than a criminal fighting the threat of arrest from LEO's. I would suspect most of those cases of "5 hits and he kept on coming" were law enforcement encounters, and a risk civilians are far less likely to encounter, but again, it comes from my own head, and I don't have stats to show it. A cop's objective goes a lot further than just halting the immediate attack to himself, and his episode does not end when the suspect flees, therefore his needs are different.

I'm fairly certain that is exactly the reason the numbers are so unexpected with the little caliber guns. There is no logical reason to expect that .22, .25, .32 would all have such a low number of shots fired and such a high 1-shot stop rate, *unless* the shooter decides to discontinue the incident. The guy with the gun decides when it's over. Cops don't really have that option - and criminals who are in a gunfight with a cop might as well play to win, since they are screwed anyways if they lose.

The big caliber proponents I think are making the case that since so many assailants (30%) choose to flee, they could *also* choose to continue attacking you. But the number of random, violent, assaults (vs muggings or aggrevated theft) is miniscule. There is no margin in just randomly jumping a guy on the street and beating him. And as soon as you put a round in your attacker, you are no a mugging target - you make it clear you are perfectly willing and able to kill your attacker.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...You *don't* need to completely incapacitate/kill your assailant in order to successfully defend yourself....

Sometimes you don't. But sometimes you do. And if this is one time you do, and you don't, you'll be very sorry about how things turn out.

...If you shoot him, an he runs away, that's a win from the self defense standpoint...

Yes, but what if he doesn't run away. He often might but that's no guarantee that he will in your particular incident.

 

[Snyper]

There is no logical reason to expect that .22, .25, .32 would all have such a low number of shots fired and such a high 1-shot stop rate,

In about 80% of defensive gun use incidents, NO shots are needed at all, but that high number doesn't mean it makes sense to carry an unloaded gun, any more than the figures you keep using make a 22 a good choice

But if you want to bet your life on it, feel free

Just don't pretend it's a wise decision, since even you admit it's not logical

 

[The_Doctor]

Sometimes you don't. But sometimes you do. And if this is one time you do, and you don't, you'll be very sorry about how things turn out.

The biggest problem here is with the scenario. What you are describing is a homicidal maniac, out to kill you. That's rare. Not just 'probably not today' but 'probably not ever, not to anyone I have ever met'. I will concede the point, that if you know you have people who want to kill you, personally, a higher caliber may be justified. And you can't ever win the game of far-out chances. I mean, the Sov....er Russians could send out a bunch of roving sleeper cell hit squads, and I'd be really glad for some .50 BMG at that point, but there is no rational reason to explain having it.

Yes, but what if he doesn't run away. He often might but that's no guarantee that he will in your particular incident.

But that's why I go back to the statistics - and my own personal experience. The statistics show that a .22 gets just as many or *more* 1-shot kills as the bigger calibers. A .22 mag defensive round from a small frame pistol is a very hot round. It may-or-may not penetrate bone / through to spine. But the exact same thing is true for a bigger caliber. It's the strike angle that causes bounces, not the caliber.

I have bounced a 30-06 round off a deer's skull, and noone here will make the claim that any pistol is carrying more energy than a full up heavy rifle bullet. (maybe some of you guys shooting .454's will try...)

And Snyper, you didn't read my post well. Here is the *full* quote - please note that the text you left out completely changes the meaning of what you took out of context. That's not a fair way to argue. (bold text was left out)

There is no logical reason to expect that .22, .25, .32 would all have such a low number of shots fired and such a high 1-shot stop rate, *unless* the shooter decides to discontinue the incident.

Basically, I was saying that you, the 'defender' had control of the situation, and chose to discontinue the engagement. If you have a gun, and have control of the situation, that is a successful self defense incident. You may choose not to commit homicide, and let the attacker go. That doesn't mean you couldn't have stopped him if you wanted - or needed too.

I will post a challenge to the big-gun crowd. I've posted my reasonable interpretation of the statistics, explained why the small calibers appear to be perfectly functional, and pointed out that the vast majority of 'failed to insta-stop' are just as likely with a small vs large caliber. Those were all points very relevant to the original topic, of 'is a .22 a viable self defense gun'. And the statistics, facts, and logic say, 'yes, it is'. Maybe a .22 mag isn't *the best* self defense gun, but it is very, very effective.

Anyways, my challenge to the big caliber crowd. Can you find a single, documented, instance where a civilian carrying a .22 caliber weapon successfully shot their attacker, and subsequently lost their life.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Anyways, my challenge to the big caliber crowd. Can you find a single, documented, instance where a civilian carrying a .22 caliber weapon successfully shot their attacker, and subsequently lost their life.

Now you're being ridiculous. If you wish to rely on a .22, be my guest. Your fate is not my concern.

But if I have a choice, I will not rely on a .22. There are plenty of documented cases in which even a more powerful cartridge did not stop an attack.

...But that's why I go back to the statistics - and my own personal experience....

Your personal experience means nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to anyone. "One swallow does not a summer make."

And statistics are only about probability, not certainty. It's the outliers that can hurt you.

 

[The_Doctor]

But if I have a choice, I will not rely on a .22. There are plenty of documented cases in which even a more powerful cartridge did not stop an attack.

And some people won't rely on a bare bones F-150 for their work on the ranch, only the Ram 350 w/ big block Hemi will do. But that doesn't mean every guy doing yard work needs one. Maybe you *do* need one. Maybe you *like* carrying a bigger piece. That's fine by me, but it doesn't make a big piece the only good choice.

A tool should be suited to it's purpose. And for the purpose of killing a man, at less than 20 feet, a .22 mag is an excellent and deadly choice. No pistol, outside of big game guns, carry the energy to immediately disable via energy transfer. They *all* rely on getting a critical shot. Even heart / lungs is insufficient to take a dedicated attacker down, once they are within 'imminent danger' range.

The number of instances where a .22 mag, hitting in the exact same place, on the exact same target, will not be instantly incapacitating, but a 9mm or .40 *will* be is virtually nil. .22 mag out of a 5" barrel has virtually identical ballistics penetration to a .357 in a 4" barrel. And noone out there would say that a 4" .357 has poor penetration.

The guy is alot more likely to die, or end up in the back of a cruiser eventually if you put a .45 in his shoulder. But that aint gonna cut the mustart.

There are something like a whopping 250 justifiable homicides by civilians in the US every year, according to the FBI. That means that the Ellifritz study captured a pretty good chunk of the shooting data for the last decade or so, and is probably a pretty fair representative thing to base conclusions on.


But to bring it all back on home. The guy was asking a bout .22 caliber for self defense. The facts all point to .22 being perfectly adequate.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There are something like a whopping 250 justifiable homicides by civilians in the US every year, according to the FBI. That means that the Ellifritz study captured a pretty good chunk of the shooting data for the last decade or so, and is probably a pretty fair representative thing to base conclusions on....

In any case, the Ellifitz study shows that the light calibers (.25, .22, and .32) have a failure to incapacitate rate roughly double that of the heavier calibers (.38, 9mm, .40, and .45).

...The facts all point to .22 being perfectly adequate.

That's your opinion. But even Ellifritz, upon whom you rely, appears to disagree:

...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....

 

[ThomasT]

She can draw that pistol and place three shots in the clavicle very quickly,,,

She shoots for the collar bone???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavicle