.22 mag for self defense

MILITANT - I have read (and agree with) so many posts here that start off with the question "What should I buy for my wife?" and the most correct answer given states "Whatever SHE is comfortable using."
Free advice is usually worth what you pay for it, but that is sound advice IMHO. If your wife is good enough with the 22 Mag, GREAT!!! At least the lady is carrying something, and somewhere down the road she might say, "I'd like to try something bigger." and go from there, keeping in mind it's always what SHE is comfortable with, not me and not you. Nuff Said.
 
My EDC gun forever has been a NAA Mini-Revolver in .22WMR. The modern SD loads from Hornady, Federal, Winchester, etc., are quite formidable, providing high velocity, good penetration and reliable expansion even out of 1 5/8" barrels. I can put 5rounds into an under 3 inch circle at 15 feet in 5 seconds, and that's good enough for me. I do not feel undergunned.
 
post #25, .22wmr ....

I disagree with post #25.
The .22 round has killed several people over the years but there is no way you could compare it to a .44magnum revolver defense round in terms of lethal force or power.
I agree that the .22wmr may benefit a shooter with limited mobility or health problems or it could be a decent 2nd gun but you can train to use a .38spl, .380acp, .44spl, .40, .45acp etc.
Those larger handgun calibers are far better for close range defense or duty than a .22 round.

I'd add that Gunblast on YouTube gave a + review of the Ruger LCR .22wmr & stated it could be a good defense or back up revolver.
 
militant, a 22WMR is better than a 22LR, the wheelgun for the wife is a good thing, next(if you can find one) get her a Kel-Tec PMR-30, cuz if she is ever attacked(god forbid)and the BG isn't dead after 30 rnds of 22WMR then the BG must've live a charmed life.
 
It's better than nothing, but if she can't shoot anything else and get repeat hits, it's what you need at this point. Obviously, she needs add'l training to handle more suitable weapons. At that point, you might consider something of a larger caliber. Rod
 
Clydefrog, I'm #25, and my point was that if you get shot in the heart (or other major organ/vein), it would kill you just as dead.

That being said, they would need to have pretty good shot placement.
 
When my life is on the line I want more than "good enough" or "it will do the job if I do mine", or "It will work if you hit him exactly between the eyes".

There are a lot of really built guys coming out of prison these days. More than a few are built like tanks. Combine that with drugs and I sure wouldn't want to use anything in 22 caliber.

People tend to recommend something light for the elderly or wives that don't shoot much. It may be easier to shoot but you have to keep in mind that with something so light you will need to be a really good shot to put that bullet where it needs to go under pressure.
 
For a long time when under cover officers were mandated to be armed within my department... a lot of us carried .22 magnum pistols. (High standard derringers) A officer had to qualify with it before being allowed to carry it.

I personally believe the .22 magnum is as adiquate for self defense as any gun. The trick is to have a gun. Period. If the wife likes the .22m then she'll carry it. Thats 99% of the battle. In a revolver with 6 tries is even better. I qualified at night. The noise and fireball out of that thing scared me. It'll impress anyone who's even shot at. Are there exceptions?... sure there are. No one wants to get shot... and no one wants to get shot again. One reason I believe cause negative opinions of the round is many peoples concept of how their imaginary shootout will happen. A snub revolver no matter what it's loaded with is an up close and personal gun.
 
Update:sold the .22mag and got her a Browning High Power in 9mm. She is getting used to it and with standard pressure loads, recoil isn't scaring her.
 
Hope you can get a .22 lr version and, when .22 lr prices are back to normal, get lots of ammo for her to practice with. That way she can substitute accuracy for power.
Click to expand...

The cost of a second gun will probably not offset the cost in saving from .22WMR to .22LR. Just throw a ballpark $300 at the new gun, figure the difference in the cost off ammo at $10 maximum if you just watch where you shop. That is 30 boxes of 100rds for 3,000 rounds out of a revolver. It's a whole lot of practice and truth be told you probably won't get her out there that often to shoot that much up. If she loves the range that's one thing, but most women don't love it that much.

Better she shoot the same gun all the time.
 
Only drawback I see to the 22Mag for SD is the need to fire several shots which could be construed as sign of a sadistic and depraved character.
Click to expand...

But in the case of a woman being attacked it's much easier to sell "scared as hell".
 
Carry enough gun!....

I follow the carry enough gun mindset.

Your goal in a lethal force event is to stop the threat with the least amount of firepower you can.
If you stood & hosed down a attacker with .22 caliber bullets you may stop them & the subject may even die from the wounds but if you could get the same result from a double tap of .45acp or one .44 caliber round, wouldn't that be more prudent?

Clyde
 
I believe in carrying enough gun but some guns are too much for some people.
If the lady in question can get a good grip on that Browning HP it is an excellent choice, that steel frame dampens a lot of recoil.
 
My 3" 22 Mag fires a CCI Maxi-Mag 40gr JHP at 1180fps or 123ft/lbs.

I haven't done penetration testing but they say it goes deeper than a .38 spl. Gunblast recently did gel testing with an LCR and proved it.

After you shoot a guy with this cart he'll either be flopping around on the ground in pain, or running away. If he's not I'm sure anyone can outrun a dude who's been shot with a .22 mag first.
 
If you stood & hosed down a attacker with .22 caliber bullets you may stop them & the subject may even die from the wounds but if you could get the same result from a double tap of .45acp or one .44 caliber round, wouldn't that be more prudent?
Click to expand...
If deadly force is justified, the defender is justified in shooting as many times as necessary to stop the threat. Justification for shooting ends when the attacker is disabled, killed, or breaks off the attack and there is no longer any threat.

As long as the defender doesn't keep shooting after the point that the threat has ended the number of shots should not be an issue.

Besides, it would be pure speculation for a prosecutor to attempt to state that 2 bullets from a more potent caliber might have ended the attack sooner. There's no way to know whether they would have or not because there's such a strong probabilistic component to whether any given bullet impact causes a disabling injury or convinces the attacker that attacking is a bad idea.
 
If deadly force is justified, the defender is justified in shooting as many times as necessary to stop the threat. Justification for shooting ends when the attacker is disabled, killed, or breaks off the attack and there is no longer any threat
Click to expand...

Court room law is not like the law books. It's a contest of who can out bs the other side and convince the jury their view is the right one.

So try telling that to a DA or cop who hates guns. They will try to paint a picture of a 'Rambo'. Same goes for drastic modifications of guns, hair triggers, hollow points, high capacity guns, etc...

Now if you can articulate to the jury (or cops or DA) WHY you need to shoot the guy x number of times and the jury/cops/DA are 'reasonable' people, it might work. But if any of them hate guns, or feel only cops should defend people, or some other inane logic, then what out.

Lucky for me I live in Texas which is a bit more sane but lots of states still don't like guns or the citizens that use them to defend themselves.

Deaf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top