22lr effective as?

O

Oyster Stew

Inactive
Hi, Im a bit of a noob here, so forgive any faults!
Had this thought, I wanted to see others swing at it.
Lets see how you compare your carry round to 22lr.

How many 22s would it take to equal the effectiveness of a 9mm or your carry round. A signal 22lr doesn't compare to a 9mm, but what about a double or triple tap? A triple tap is about the same ft lbs as a 9mm. It would be over multiple softer impacts instead of one large one. Perhaps its an improvement? KEEP IN MIND this is a stressful situation and shot placement would likely be less than ideal.

My question is how many 22lrs on target would you be comfortable replacing one shot of a carry caliber?

I would be on the fence with 3 Im thinking 4 would be better than 1 9mm.
 
Shot placement is key. Problem is it doesn’t have the hydrostatic shock. I’d guess somewhere around 5.


Instagram: MuzzleblastMD
 
Whether you are hunting or shooting for self defense the 1st hit is far more effective than anything after that. If the 1st one doesn't do the job right now, then it could take a bunch more regardless of the caliber. After the 1st bullet hits adrenaline kicks in and anything else has much less effect.

I think a better way of looking this is to try to put a number on how effective the 1st shot is going to be. Not everyone agrees, but the results from numerous studies show that FMJ ammo of any caliber works roughly 60%-65% of the time. The better HP ammo is in the 85%-95% range. There have been results for 22 LR, but I don't recall the exact figures. But IIRC it is in the 50% range.

It isn't really a matter of IF a 22 will stop an aggressor, but WHEN. Multiple hits will stop someone. But if they are still be able to press an attack after being hit they can still harm you before going down. A single 9mm, or most any larger caliber handgun will likely end the confrontation sooner.

A lot depends on the aggressor and how determined they are.
 
One well placed .22 (LR or Mag) is all it takes.
One well placed 9mm is all it takes.
One well placed .44 mag is all it takes.
One kinda-sorta well placed 12ga. is all it takes.
I'm not scared when I carry my NAA if that's all I can conceal.
 
I would estimate two hits of 22LR would probably wear down the average
assailant fairly quickly. Many 22LR revolvers have 9 shots. I'd use CCI stingers,
with their extra MV, and not be stingy with follow up hits, were I you.
 
Statistics might provide the answer...

I am not sure that there is a provable answer to the question being asked due to the fact that there are many variables involved in what a bullet does within the human anatomy. Setting that aside for the time being...

If one looks at the M&S data (setting aside any debates as to their data's veracity), .22LR 40 gr. LRNs produce a rate of incapacitation of 21% with typical .22 JHPs (that expand) increasing the rate of incapacitation to 29%-30%. M&S data also indicates that Winchester 9mm 115 gr. FMJs produce an incapacitation rate of 70% and that .45ACP 230 gr. FMJs made by Winchester, Federal and Remington produce an incapacitation rate of 62%.

Using a binomial distribution to predict how many .22LR 40 gr. LRN bullets it would take to duplicate the rate of incapacitation of just one 9mm 115 gr. FMJ bullet or one .45ACP 230 gr. FMJ bullet, it would take 5 shots from the .22LR LRN to duplicate the incapacitation rate of a single 9mm 115 gr. FMJ and 4 shots to duplicate the incapacitation rate of a single .45ACP 230 gr. FMJ.

If we use a binomial distribution relying upon the .22LR 40 gr. JHP incapacitation rate (29%-30%) as a basis for such a comparison, the number of .22LR JHPs (expanded) that it would take to duplicate the rates of incapacitation of the 9mm 115 gr. FMJ and .45ACP 230 gr. FMJ, would be 4 and 3 shots, respectively.
 
Last edited:
As others have said, what matters most is your accuracy. We can be compared to a machine. The machine can be turned off by draining the fluid or damaging the CPU. A single properly placed shot to the central nervous system will be equally effective in any caliber, and will end the threat. The larger calibers make a larger hole, and therefore can drain fluid faster.

There's nothing wrong with starting with a .22, and in many ways it's preferable for someone new. Once someone masters this, then they can move up to a larger caliber. Practice for accuracy first. Speed comes in time with experience.
 
Last edited:
As another mentioned there's a difference in stopping and killing.

One round of 22 to the chest will likely kill the thug eventually without medical attention.

I've no confidence at all in 22 stopping a determined attacker or an armed one.

If it's all you got of course then it's what you'll have use.

To answer the question
17 rds. That's all my Marlin mod 60 holds.
 
Some really intelligent answers here,
Not saying 22 could ever be the same, but its size, its so easy to buy in bulk and train, its cheap, and you can pack so much of it. You could make it really stretch in a shtf or defense situation. Eventually it all boils to skill. A sling shot can prove that shot placement is keen.

However with such a supply of the little devils at some point on the scale it tips in their favor, in any practical situation. Im starting to think 22 gets a bad rap from legends but thats tugged from both sides. 22 with a lower lvl of skill will be more consistent. A string of shots could be within inches not feet.

IN NO WAY AM I SUGGESTING 22LR IS EVEN SUITABLE, just thinking 22lr deserves some more credit.
 
9mm has about four or five times the energy and momentum of .22 lr (out of a pistol).

That's a good starting point. However, .22 lr is also readily deflected by bones, which further reduces its stopping power.

Another issue is that it is tremendously difficult to place a single well aimed shot in a self defense encounter. Hit rates are low. It's foolish to depend on mitigating the low power by landing half a mag dump. Things also tend to happen very quickly, so it's possible there won't be time for half a mag dump.

Barring medical issues, desperation, or an unusual need for concealment, .22 lr doesn't have much place in self defense.

In the last thread about this, there was an entertaining new argument that since the .22 lr doesn't reliably stop raccoons, perhaps it shouldn't be depended on to stop anything bigger.
 
No handgun is a reliable stopper, and no handgun cartridge has hydrostatic shock.

Shot placement in the central nervous system is the only reliable physical stopper. And good shot placement with a .22 is the same as good shot placement with a .44 magnum.

The only other physical "stop" is from blood loss-which takes a LONG time if someone is shooting at you.
 
I've no confidence at all in 22 stopping a determined attacker or an armed one.
Click to expand...
Nor do I. I have little confidence that a .22 LR bullet, fired at a handgun velocity, would be likely to go through the ulna of an outstretched arm, continue on course without wide deflection, penetrate skin and fabric while leaving the arm and retaining much in the way of effectiveness, penetrate fabric and perhaps a rib as it enters the torso, and still perform adequately.

It is that performance requirement that has led to the establishment of an accepted range of handgun service calibers, and to the the development of premium defensive ammunition that will pass certain tests.

The .22 LR handgun is not among them.

If it's all you got of course then it's what you'll have use.
Click to expand...
Yep.

It just might well suffice, sometimes. It's a matter of likelihood.
 
As was said above, it's about the placement of the bullet. People don't stand still when you shoot them. EVER! Getting multiple hits in a "group" is nearly impossible. In fact, as a former US Marine I can tell you that getting close hits (groups) on enemies from M-16s and M-60 machine guns was almost unheard of. Multiple hits do happen in some cases from full-auto fire, but those hits are usually spread out and fairly random on the bodies of the enemy, and in MANY cases they come from 2-3 different weapons. With any weapon that is not full auto, the first round to hit is the one that is going to be the game changer in about 98% of the cases. And in no case is a shot man going to stand still for you.

If you shoot a 22 well and you can make the 1st round hit, go ahead and carry it. Hit's always trump misses from any caliber.

For deadliness, bigger is better.
Faster is better.
Bigger and faster are far better.
But bigger and faster come at a price, being size, weight, noise and recoil. If those things keep you from making consistent hits, go with the accuracy before you go for more power.

The best way to proceed is to have a more powerful gun and the ammo and time to practice with it until you can shoot it well. But if that is not realistic, or if you need to carry now, before you develop skills with a more powerful gun, by all means use and carry the 22.

Don't fall for the idea that "lots of shots" are fire-power.

16 misses are not firepower.
One hit is firepower.
 
Oyster Stew: said:
IN NO WAY AM I SUGGESTING 22LR IS EVEN SUITABLE, just thinking 22lr deserves some more credit.
Click to expand...

Of course the .22LR gets credit for being a caliber capable of lethality, but it is the immediacy (specifically, the lack thereof) of that lethality that makes it a undesirable choice where others exist. Service calibers (e.g., 9mm, .357, .40 and .45ACP) bring more of that (immediacy) to the table and rifle calibers even moreso. More kinetic energy produces more stress (strain energy that exceeds the tensile strength of soft tissue and causes damage); rifles excel at that. Pistol calibers, especially the .22LR, not so much...
 
How many 22s would it take to equal the effectiveness of a 9mm or your carry round.[?]
Click to expand...

Not a question for which a meaningful answer can be provided.
  • How do you define "effectiveness"?
  • What are you shooting both cartridges from?
  • Where on the target are you aiming?
  • What is the likelihood you will hit what you are aiming at?
  • Are you more likely to make a hit with one cartridge/weapon over another?

A single shot through the brainstem of a human being is almost invariably - and usually instantly - fatal, so it wouldn't matter whether such a shot came from a 22LR or 454 Casull. But then, how often are you going to be able to shoot your assailant in the back of the neck? And that means pretty much everything else that can happen in a self-defense situation depends on how the scenario is constructed, how well you have prepared for it and how it plays out vis a via that preparation and thus rests largely in the realm of conjecture and speculation.

In my opinion, if the only gun you can shoot accurately is a 22LR pistol, then by all means, carry it, practice with it, train with it, and be ready to employ it. But if you can be equally accurate with something more robust, it would probably be a good idea to use it instead.
 
The problem is that you are comparing a 40 bullet against a 120 (average) grain bullet with 58% larger diameter. You have three times the weight and a 58% increase in diameter and area. The 22 bullet is unlikely to do anywhere near the damage each time you shoot it that the 9mm will. If you compare it to my 357 you could shoot 22s all day long and likely never get a body shot to exit the other side.

Even though you fire the same weight of lead you are not doing the same damage. 6 22 40 grain bullets weigh the same as a 44 magnum 240 grain bullet. You just can't fire enough 40 grain bullets to do the same damage as the single 44 magnum round.
 
An old timer I knew years ago said "It's not a gun to start a gunfight with, but it would work to end one". He was talking about my 32 ACP PPK carry gun, but the same applies to your 22LR. If it's all you have, then use it. No one wants to get shot, and if you throw a bunch of rounds in their general direction they will leave in a hurry. And from 5 feet away, it will discourage anyone but the most determined assailant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top