.22 Mag for self-defense concealed carry

[pax]

Here's another thought that I'm sure will rile up a few people here. If the gun I'm shooting has allowed me to practice that much and get that good and the bad guy in front of me has a short range weapon (knife, club metal bar etc.) do I need to kill him? On my worst day at self defense ranges I could keep all six shots inside of a quarter with my Ruger.

Legally, it does not matter if you aim at his upper center chest, at his cerebral cortex, at his pelvis, at his kneecap, or at his right big toe. In EVERY case, when you use a firearm, you are using lethal force.

Morally and practically, the law is written that way because any time you launch a bullet at someone, you run a strong risk of either killing them or crippling them for life. This is true even if you aim at some "non-essential" body part and hit exactly what you aim at.

If you are not at peace with the idea of killing someone who is trying to kill you, then carrying a firearm is not for you.

pax

 

[jason_iowa]

I would try a 38 in a poly frame yes it is lighter but it also flexes and in my experience reduces felt recoil more then the weight of a steel frame.

I would never recommend anything smaller then a 38 and personally would never carry anything less then 357 mag for SD. Hope you find something that strikes the right balance.

 

[scrubcedar]

I agree pax that the moment you start carrying a ccw, let alone draw it, you should be resigned to the thought of killing with it. While I respect your experience with firearms and see this as undeniable truth, I may have a little more insight into what happens to humans after they kill another human. In 20 years of spinal cord and brain injury rehab nursing I saw hundreds of veterans as well as normal everyday joes off the street after they had killed someone. In most cases it mattered surprisingly little whether the other persons death was justified, it was still devastating. A huge number of veterans ended up with us because of their substance abuse problems led to horrible accidents. I'm not shooting his knee for him, I'm shooting it because I know for sure what it's going to do to me. That being said, me or my loved ones dead, or me carrying a burden? Easy simple decision.

 

[btmj]

For some people (i.e. my 78 year old Mother in Law), their physical condition severely limits their choice of weapon.

My Mother in Law has arthritis in her hands, and she has lost hand strength over the years. She used to be quite nimble and able, and has enthusiastically played golf her whole life.

She can't load rounds into a magazine. She has difficulty racking a slide... therefore, she shoots a revolver. But she doesn't have the hand strength to shoot DA for more than a few rounds, even when using a S&W K-22 with a fabulous trigger. Her preferred method is to shoot SA, with a two handed grip, and use the left hand to cock the hammer. She is actually pretty good shooting this way. It has to be a fairly light weight weapon, and low recoil. For her, the choice came down to a 22 LR revolver.

After reading this thread, I may see if she is interested in a 22 mag revolver.

 

[zukiphile]

Remember that the goal is to quickly stop an assailant before he can hurt you (or someone else).

That can be a goal, but but on the way to it, other matters must be addressed first. The most prominant of those is finding an item a person can and will shoot. I am positive that my wife could not safely shoot a .357 snub nose revolver, so I wouldn't suggest that she carry one.

Or to put it another way, why would anyone think that a .22 will be enough when sometimes a .357 Magnum isn't necessarily enough.

Because "enough" at the receiving end may be "too much" at the delivering end. I would imagine that a gentle .22lr semi-automatic would be better protection for a woman than, say, pepper spray.


One topic I've never seen addressed is whether simply having a firearm, even one that may not be the most effective, would change the way a woman non-verbally communicates weakness to a predator. As I understand the predatory mindset, it is the signal of weakness that draws predation, and knowing that she may have options might influence her demeanor.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by scrubcedar: If the gun I'm shooting has allowed me to practice that much and get that good and the bad guy in front of me has a short range weapon (knife, club metal bar etc.) do I need to kill him?

Pax has addressed the deadly force issue.

On my worst day at self defense ranges I could keep all six shots inside of a quarter with my Ruger.

What you can do on a stationary target at the range has nothing at all to do with where you bullets wii strike a rapidly moving attacker.

Knee capping a bad guy no problem.

Ya think?

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Understand that caliber is not the only or even necessarily the biggest determinant of recoil. Recoil between different guns in the same caliber and different loads in the same gun varies wildly, too.

A 4" DA/SA K-frame (S&W) or Six (Ruger) or the equivalent with 148-gr. wadcutters is an extremely light-recoiling load, but effective for self-defense.

Some 9mm guns like the M&P have a reputation for being light recoiling for caliber.

Also full-size guns like the Sig P226 or Beretta M9.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Because "enough" at the receiving end may be "too much" at the delivering end. I would imagine that a gentle .22lr semi-automatic would be better protection for a woman than, say, pepper spray....

There may of course be circumstances in which a small caliber firearm must be pressed into service for self defense. If all one has at a time of need, one will need to make do with what he has. If one has physical limitations, one must make do with what he can manage.

But one also needs to be realistic about the limitations of that cartridge choice. He is trading possible effectiveness for other attributes -- such as that it's what he has or it's all that he can manage.

 

[scrubcedar]

Quote:
Posted by scrubcedar: If the gun I'm shooting has allowed me to practice that much and get that good and the bad guy in front of me has a short range weapon (knife, club metal bar etc.) do I need to kill him?

Pax has addressed the deadly force issue.

Quote:
On my worst day at self defense ranges I could keep all six shots inside of a quarter with my Ruger.

What you can do on a stationary target at the range has nothing at all to do with where you bullets wii strike a rapidly moving attacker.


Quote:
Knee capping a bad guy no problem.

Ya think?

I understand where you're coming from. If you read the post it came out of more carefully you will find no mention of a RUNNING attacker. I don't frankly care at that point what court defines deadly force a certain way, I'm trying to effect a certain result with a lighter than normal tool. The rattlesnakes I shot would have left me just as dead as a human I assure you, head shots on both IMMEDIATELY stopped the attack. No I was not saying to try for that precise of a target on a running human. That's not how most muggers etc. operate. They threaten you from a set distance to get you to hand over your valuables. If I have a .22 chest shots are not likely to be immediately effective. I've seen enough GSW's to state that easily. If he is threatening me rather than tackling me, Immoblizing his leg makes more sense. A head shot is the next choice but listen to the old Brain injury nurse, I've seen more people live through a .22 to the head than you think! In the tackling/rushing scenario I wouldn't be confident of any of my.22 slugs being accurate and effective. I might very well wait until first contact and try to put multiple rounds in his head. Chest shots from a .22 would be as far down on my list of actions as possible, people can die from them but it doesn't happen quickly. In the scenario where he hasn't rushed you yet your best chance to stop him is to CRIPPLE HIM. I shoot his knee, you shoot his chest, which of us is more likely to have to continue to fight him? This post is probably what I should have written in the beginning. If I mislead anyone I apologise. There is no way to count the number of GSW's I've seen in 20 years of Trauma Nursing in a big city. My strongest contribution at this point may be what happens after the trigger is pulled. If I say something that doesn't make sense ask me to clarify I'm new here and I may be saying something different than you think.

 

[youngunz4life]

I disagree with choosing a 22 to be your go-to self defense firearm, but every individual needs to make his/her own choice on the matter. my mouse gun is a 38 and my primary is a 357 and that is only my choice.

 

[pax]

scrubcedar,

My point was that the law is written the way it is because putting a bullet into someone else's body -- even if it is "just" their knee! -- is very likely to kill them or to cripple them for life. If you aren't willing to accept that possibility, you should not be carrying a gun.

This doesn't say anything about whether or not the person's death is a desirable outcome, or whether the shooter really wanted him to die. It simply recognizes that death is in fact a very likely possibility whenever you pull the trigger... no matter where you aim to hit.

Killing someone is tough. It changes you. This is particularly and most heart-breakingly true for people who did not count the cost in advance.

If you're not willing to accept the possibility of killing another human being when you launch that bullet, you should not carry a gun at all. If you carry it, you may be tempted to use it. If you use it, you may kill someone. And this is true no matter what part of their body you aim at.

pax

 

[scrubcedar]

Fair enough. I couldn't agree with you more. I've unfortunately nearly had to fire at someone who was trying to harm my daughter within the last few months. We were at home so I grabbed the shotgun because it was far more likely to kill him quickly before he harmed anyone (we had reports he had a pistol of some sort.) I would have pulled the trigger without hesitation. We called the police, they intercepted him Thank God. It wasn't until that point that I TRULY knew whether I could pull the trigger. My first thought was not about mercy,wounding,or the Law. My first thought was the maximum amount of force I could bring to bear to protect my Family. Sort of puts the debate about using a .22 in perspective.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Expecting blood (pressure) loss to immediately incapacitate anyone is a very bad move. People can do very destructive things in the time it takes to bleed out-regardless of what caliber they have been shot with, or where they have been shot-no matter WHAT caliber you use.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by scrubcedar: No I was not saying to try for that precise of a target on a running human. That's not how most muggers etc. operate. They threaten you from a set distance to get you to hand over your valuables.

If he has a "short range weapon '(knife, club metal bar etc.)' ", he will have to be quite close to you to credibly pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury. So close that when you start to draw, he will most likely close the distance very quickly indeed.

And if he does not try to do so, you will have a very hard time justifying pulling the trigger.

Have you considered taking some training?

 

[kilimanjaro]

"Quite close" when an assailant is armed with a knife or club is about 21 feet, not much more than the length of a car or SUV. The distance can be closed in one or two seconds, about the length of time needed to react, draw, present, and fire a weapon. You will need to shoot instinctively to stop him, not shoot deliberately to wound.

 

[Tom Servo]

And this is true no matter what part of their body you aim at.

Absolutely. A few years ago, we had an ND at an oudoor range. The guy put a round of .380 ball through his arm just above the elbow. He knicked an artery and we very nearly lost him. Same goes for the kneecap. There's a big artery right there, and "knee capping" could cause a fragment of bullet or bone to puncture it.

If I shoot someone, there is no way I can guarantee what level of injury I will inflict. Therefore, I must assume that any shot will take a life.

And I have to think and act accordingly.

 

[scrubcedar]

You're assuming a person who immediately reacts when presented with a gun by running toward you full speed with an inferior weapon. I'm sorry that just doesn't make any sense. Most criminals are cowards. If you assume that such a person exists then I assure you any handgun you carry will not stop them before they reach you unless you shut off their central nervous system (brain or spinal cord). The only other effective tactic is breaking bones they need to run. I was always the one to who had to be first in on a takedown on an adrenalized or drugged patient let me assure you their pain receptors did not work at all, they could toss you around like a rag doll while horribly,even fatally injured. I was first in on the team because I could survive the beating that was unavoidable at that point. I'm a certified instructor in self defense/patient restraint under these circumstances. We taught our students what these people were capable of and why they could do it. That is the only person in my experience that reacts that way druggies or psych patients. Until you've seen it it's hard to even imagine humans being capable of the things I've seen. Unless what you are shooting these guys with leaves a hole the size of a baseball they are perfectly capable of killing you while bleeding to death. That being said yes some training is on the agenda for me when I get the time and money. My advice if you're dealing with these guys involves running like deer if at all possible. Since opinion is running so solidly against me I'm certainly willing to rethink this but can anyone rufute the points I made?

 

[SIGSHR]

Not my 1st or even 2nd choice but beats fists, feet and foul language.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You're assuming a person who immediately reacts when presented with a gun by running toward you full speed with an inferior weapon. I'm sorry that just doesn't make any sense. ...

I don't really see that anyone is assuming that. What can be expected is that an assailant with a contact weapon may charge you before you have drawn your gun. And of course that puts you well behind the curve.

And even if you start to draw the gun first, there are some who will think that they can still beat your draw and brain you or stab you before you can fire. Often they will be right.

...If I have a .22 chest shots are not likely to be immediately effective. I've seen enough GSW's to state that easily. If he is threatening me rather than tackling me, Immoblizing his leg makes more sense. A head shot is the next choice but listen to the old Brain injury nurse, I've seen more people live through a .22 to the head than you think! In the tackling/rushing scenario I wouldn't be confident of any of my.22 slugs being accurate and effective. I might very well wait until first contact and try to put multiple rounds in his head. Chest shots from a .22 would be as far down on my list of actions as possible, people can die from them but it doesn't happen quickly...

This is a pretty good outline of some of the limitations of a .22.

And while immobilizing the leg might sound good, it's a small target and would be shot under significant stress. I've trained with some very fine shooters, and I don't know that I've every trained with anyone who could reliably draw and hit a knee quickly, especially if the assailant were moving.

...In the scenario where he hasn't rushed you yet your best chance to stop him is to CRIPPLE HIM. I shoot his knee, you shoot his chest, which of us is more likely to have to continue to fight him?...

As far as that goes, in a high stress, dynamic violent encounter hitting with a shot to the torso is far more likely than hitting with a shot to the knee. And that conclusion is based in part on my experience with dynamic training where things happen quickly. Note that even if both of you are static at the same time, that state of affairs in highly unlikely to continue for long.

As far a a crippling shot, a shot to the pelvis might be a better choice than the knee. But reliably breaking the pelvis will require a solid hit with a round capable of meaningful penetration and able to hit the bone hard. Sort of takes the .22 out of the running for that purpose.

 

[youngunz4life]

there is always a better chance you will miss the target/assailant if you try to wound too. This isn't just because of a smaller target rather than 'center mass'...slight adjustments from norm cause misses you might not think would occur. If you aren't an expert shooter, one day while firing your pistol center mass change all of a sudden and try a head shot as an example(many targets don't have limbs and this is only an example). Don't be shocked if you clearly miss the target. It has already been mentioned, but if you don't shoot center mass and shoot to wound it is considered deadly force just by firing the weapon at someone. This is always the case. You would also have other unmentioned variables and worms climbing out of the can if you tried to wound. Either way people are trained to say they aimed center mass to stop a threat regardless of the outcome(you wouldn't say I aimed for the head as an example). One is playing with fire when not aiming center mass(In My Opinion)