.22 vs .45acp and .9mm

I believe that more people are killed by a .22 caliber bullet than with any other caliber. At least that used to be the case. This is not because it is more effective, but rather because it is such a common caliber.

Perhaps this was the data he had heard and the basis of his statement.
 
As I like to say, a 22 is not my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice for self defense but it beats fists, feet and foul language. ANYTHING will kill, what pistoleros look for is stopping power,how quickly the chosen round neutralizes the threat. In that respect the 22LR is not a good choice. And I would like to see the original sources for such claims.
 
Jalcon tell your friend that you will not argue with him and then pass on this bit of wisdom that has served me well over the years, when I have had the discipline to heed it: When you argue with a fool, you are liable to act like one. :cool:
 
I think this is going to devolve into one of those tired but heated "9mm vs .45" debates quickly. And that's all I got to say about that, Forrest!
 
I believe that more people are killed by a .22 caliber bullet than with any other caliber. At least that used to be the case. This is not because it is more effective, but rather because it is such a common caliber.
Click to expand...

I have an extremely difficult time believing this is the case. Please show supporting evidence that shows a plinking round has killed more people than military chamberings.
 
Please show supporting evidence that shows a plinking round has killed more people than military chamberings.
Click to expand...
Some Google searching turned up reports that support and other that refute this (homicides, not military use). It appears statistics have not been consistently kept and, to the extent they have, vary widely from year to year. In any event, it is a common perception, whether true or not.
 
And I wouldn't volunteer to get poked hard with a pointed stick, either... that tired line of argument "Yeah, if it's so weak why don't you stand in front of one" is just annoying.

Things I don't want to experience:

I don't want to get bitten by a raccoon. (It would hurt; it could prove fatal if the raccoon were rabid, too.)

I don't want to hit myself in the knee with a 55-lb dumbbell (that one actually happened once, and I really don't want a repeat - twisted my kneecap 7 degrees out of proper orientation).

I don't want to have a 60-lb sonobuoy dropped on me from the main cabin door of a P-3 Orion (that one also happened).

I don't want to lose control of a sled and slam into a tree, and bruise my femur (yep, did that one too).

I don't want to slice myself with a sharp knife that opens unexpectedly in my pocket (oh, yeah, BTDT...)

Lots of things are unpleasant, and some can seriously injure or kill. Getting shot with any handgun round can do all of the above.

However, the odds of a single round, hitting a random body part, doing serious damage do go up in relation to the power of the round.

I don't want to get hit with any of them. I also don't want to get hit with a 30mm from an A-10. Does that mean .22LR = 30mm?
 
This might be useful for your friend. Notice the last graph where the highest percentages that do not incapacitate are attributed to the 22LR, 25ACP, and 32 ACP. This is basically what you would expect intuitively. This link was posted in another thread by Ruger480. http://buckeyefirearms.com/node/7866
 
Last edited:
Fascinating! I don't know what a statistician would think of his methodology, but it's damned interesting stuff.

And I'm sticking with my .38 Special +P 158 grain LSWCHP. Because that's what I personally trust. I suspect that's ultimately how most of us decide what to shoot.
 
The premise is absurd, and likely unprovable. To my knowledge there are no databases that have compiled "deadly" effects (presumably meaning death of the person shot?) of different calibers at an undefined "close range". It is possible that if one defines "close range" as say, one foot, that all shots could be consistently delivered to the cranium and in that instance there would be little difference in an outcome of death from various calibers. But that certainly would not prove the .22 to be "more deadly" than 9mm or 45 ACP.
Why ruminate on the provability of silly personal opinions?
 
I thought statistics bore this out. Not only are more people killed with a .22, but comparing those shot with a .22 to other calibers more die. I am talking here not Somalia or Afghanistan.

If you shot a deer with a 22 wouldnt it most likely die, eventually? Shoot a deer with some higher caliber, couldnt the bullet just go through, while the 22 doesnt and kills the animal. I know you could use a higher caliber bullet less likely to go through. But do bad guys who shoot people always use the best type of bullet?

I am pretty sure of this, but not positive.
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't surprise me to hear that .22 (if you include short, long and long rifle) has killed more people than any other single caliber.

The various incarnations of .22 have been around for a LONG time, it's a very popular caliber, and there have been a metric crap-ton of guns chambered for it.

And although we think of it as a "plinking" round now, that hasn't always been the case. I think I remember reading that .22 Short was originally a defensive round!
 
The notion that a 22 has the same shot-for-shot capabilities as 9mm and 45 is absurd.
(Shot-for-shot means identical placement and muzzle distance)

Oddly enough, years ago I had two idiot friends of mine shoot themselves in almost the exact same spot just a few months apart. Both were practicing quick draws (with obviously poor techniques) and shot themselves in the right thigh, the first one did it with a Ruger 22 and the other did it with a first or second gen Glock 17. (Early 90's)
The 22 bounced off his femur, made its way behind the knee and was dug out of his heel somewhere. He was walking (stiffly) in about 3 weeks or so.
The 9mm JHP took a chunk out of the other guys right femur, made a big exit hole nicking an artery on the way out and finally deposited fragments in his left ankle. He almost died on the spot, almost died a week later from infection, nearly lost the right leg, and never walked right again...ironically mostly due to the surgery required on his left ankle for fragments that worked their way in amid the bones.

No... I dont think 22's come anywhere close to the capabilities of 9mm/45.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top