Adamant about a .22

P

Phoebe

New member
Was talking to some guy yesterday, who probably worked my ever loving last nerve. But, I recognize I'm new and maybe I'm overlooking something.

He is quite insistent that my gun should be a .22. He is insistent even after I told him I have a 9mm that I really love.

Per him, .22lr bounces around inside the body, causing mass destruction. .22lr has killed more people than any other caliber. .22lr is about shot placement.

And then he's asking me things like what happens if an intruder comes into my home in kevlar body suit. (Why are you asking me this?? And how is a .22lr more helpful in that circumstance than my 9mm hollowpoints?)

I find Ayoob to be a trustworthy opinion and Ayoob insists that women, in particular, should use nothing smaller than .38spc or 9mm.

So, then I have this bossy guy, pretty well in my face, telling me that's wrong. I'm thinking I may not a lot, but I'd trust Ayoob over some random guy.

He says the reason Ayoob recommends higher calibers is that he gets paid endorsement fees and because everyone wants bigger, badder, better, to drive more sales.

That sounded both conspiratorial and crazy to me. Paid endorsements are generally out from and specific to a manufacturer. In this particular realm, I assume a brand would be recommended, not just a caliber.

I got so irritated by this conversation. But, am I overlooking something? :confused:
 
Put your arm up as high as you can reach and save the watch as his BS is REALLY deep.

If you want nice neat non-destructive holes go with the 22. If you want and need to do some damage ya better go bigger.
 
Sounds like an "SAE" (self appointed expert) who is going to "set you straight" with his years of experience.

Anyways, nothing wrong at all with your 9mm so long as you are comfortable with it and practice with it. Everybody should do that.

As for the 22 "bouncing around"...inside a body it is probably no more likely or unlikely to do than any other round. Depending on clothing, shot placement, body fat and all kinds of other factors, the little 22 is going to lose its momentum pretty darn fast.

He is right though that a 22 is about shot placement...but then again so is any other round. A 9mm or 45 acp is not going to do you much good if you cant place the shot.

I personally carry a 22lr much of the time, but that is a personal choice. I know its probable limitations. I like to practice with my actual carry guns and with the 22 I can afford to easily shoot a few hundred rounds a week.

Assuming you and I both use our guns in identical self-defense situations and our shot placement is identical your 9mm is no doubt going to stop the attack much better than my 22.

As for his scenario of a bad guy in a kevlar body suit breaking in...well I doubt its going to happen...and if it did we would both be in trouble...time for the 30-06 I guess.

Just keep practicing and staying comfortable with your 9mm, and when you get some idiot like that guy talking to you, just ignore it and walk away.
 
Personally, I'm not a fan of .22's for a number of reasons - and I own three of them.

1. .22 LR is simply not a good self defense or home defense round - not even close! It doesn't bounce around inside of someone's body shredding it or whatever the guy was trying to tell you. Example - Ronald Regan got shot with a .22, and although if it had penetrated a little farther he might have died, shot placement was pretty darned good and he survived just fine.

2. .22 LR is not reliable. CCI stingers aren't bad, but even they fail to fire every now and then.

3. I find most .22 ammo to be filthy requiring more frequent cleaning of my .22 caliber guns. My Ruger Mark II has been rendered inoperable by the grime left by .22 ammo which required a complete takedown of the gun and all parts to get it operable again. Lots of Failure to feeds with .22 ammo in semi-auto pistols - it happens when they aren't perfectly clean.

4. At 25 feet, I'm no more accurate with a .22 than I am with a 9mm, .45, or 10mm. If you are shooting someone at a distance of more than 20 feet, you really should ask yourself "why?".

5. A decent .22 pistol is no more concealable (and probably less concealable) than many 9mm's and 45's.

I've had my Ruger Mark II for about 10 years now. I shoot it less than I do my Glock 17 (9mm), but more than I shoot .45 or 10mm. It's nice to have the Mark II around when I want to shoot cheap ammo, practice something where I don't want to be bothered by any recoil, or when I'm letting inexperienced shooters borrow it. I would never recommend a .22 pistol to an adult who is looking to purchase one gun for protection.

and then he's asking me things like what happens if an intruder comes into my home in kevlar body suit....
Click to expand...

First of all, I would have laughed in the guy's face by now, turned away and left. But, if this were ever to happen, which do you think is going to slow the guy down? Three 9mm shots to the chest or three .22 shots to the chest? Even with a vest on, several 9mm shots to the chest would make me turn and run....if I could.
 
Last edited:
Please make sure that your comments do not minimize the deadliness of the .22 LR cartridge. While I agree that it should not be included as an ideal SD round, please don't allude to it's being "non-destructive." The .22 LR can and will kill you.
 
On the suit, I think his point was the guy would need a hit to the head. But I'm not sure how a .22lr helps that anymore than a bigger caliber.

Much of the entire convo left me superbly irritated.

I don't know a lot, but I still don't want to be condescended to.
 
I think when you run accross a person who feels 1 thing is best and nothing else compares,that person is closed minded and is missing the point.
Personally i feel the best advice is the kind with options,as any one solution is not fitting for everyone.
 
I usually just smile and nod my head when people talk guns to me, responding with a well placed "Uh-huh" or "interesting" until they go away. Most just want the chance to prove how knowledgable they believe they are and I find it's quicker, smoother and overall less painful if I keep my opinions of their idiocy to myself.
 
Please make sure that your comments do not minimize the deadliness of the .22 LR cartridge. While I agree that it should not be included as an ideal SD round, please don't allude to it's being "non-destructive." The .22 LR can and will kill you.
Click to expand...

Well, I feel that the "deadliness" of the .22 round should be minimized in this particular discussion. This is a gun board where we compare the effectiveness of various rounds, calibers, firearms, tactics, etc. We are not instructing 7 year old children who have never fired a weapon before on the inherent dangers of aiming/shooting any firearm at any living thing.

Granted, the .22 round is capable of killing. But, in a self defense or home defense situation, you better not count on a couple of shots from that .22 putting down your attacker. In my opinion, .22's, as a self-defense round, are for those people who throroughly know the round's limitations, are more or less expert shooters and make a conscious decision to carry a .22 gun for some particular reason.

FWIW, I've been on the receiving end of this ".22 is the most lethal round..." discussion and I didn't much appreciate it either. These guys like to throw out "....special opps uses .22's.......Israeli Mosaud teaches shot placement with .22's to their best assassins..." The people who say this kind of crap are generally full of it and full of themselves. These kinds of claims have no practical relevance to normal people protecting themselves, their families and their homes.
 
Last edited:
Obviously, the best way out of such a conversation is to leave. Your BS meter was ringing and it seems like you are asking, "Was I right? Was he full of it?" I'm thinking... yes... you were right, he's full of it. Some of this is his nature, and the fact that you are a woman isn't helping him any, it just makes him act even more-- well, himself.

As for a .22 for defense, I'll say what most will say... it's better than a sharp stick or a rock, and it's better to have the .22 in your hand or pocket than the .45 at home on the dresser. Really, it is. But I don't believe it's any more than that. (I also firmly agree with Skans' point #2 in that all rim-fire ammo is inherently less reliable than center fire ammo, and reliability is job #1 with anything to be used defensively)

IMO, there's no better caliber for a recoil sensitive shooter in semi-auto than 9mm. (recoil sensitive could be because of strength, experience, disability, whatever) I say 9mm is the best choice in semi-auto because it does, by far, the most potential work/damage with the least amount of felt recoil.

With all that said, I think you absolutely, positively, no doubt, for certain, MUST go out and buy a good .22 pistol. Definitely.

The cost to shoot a .22 is fractional of any other caliber. It's so much cheaper that it's almost comical. You can quite literally shoot a minimum of FIVE times the amount of ammo for the same cash outlay. And .22 pistols can be had (relatively) cheaper than other calibers, too.

If you don't have and shoot a .22 pistol, you are, IMO, willfully handicapping your progress as a new shooter. They are an absolute blast to bang away with, they will make you a better shooter and they are cheaper all-around than any other caliber, bar none.

I really believe that if you go buy a .22 pistol, you will NOT regret it and you will say to yourself, "I should have done this long ago!" :)
 
22s are fun to shoot, build skills at a low cost, and are able to kill.
They are not a "front line defense" caliber.
These self appointted experts are everywhere, involved in every subject.
The BS flag waves often in my head, both in person and on the internet.
Study the subject, and practice, practice, practice.


Good shooting will make up for poor gear, but superior gear will not make up for poor shooting. Jeff Cooper
 
I DO NOT RECCOMEND 0.22 for SD

Hi,
I can personally vouch for the fact that a 0.22 will do little to incapacitate, never mind kill an oponent, unless your shot is perfect (brain,eye, heart) and he is not wearing any kind of protective vest.

in 1984 I took a 0.22 bullet through my right bicep, from 1.5M (my oponent had a Berretta 71, it went through the muscle and lodged in my vest (this was an army issue vest, that was designed only to stop Shrapnel, not bullets)

Not only it did not stop me, but I could still use my arm and hand fairly well.

Based on this, I do not advise anyone to rely on the 0.22 as a SD caliber.

I own a rifle, pistol and revolver in 0.22. I love to plink with them and use them to teach my son to shoot since he was 8 Y.O. but That is the only use I have for them.

Best Regards,

Danny
 
Last edited:
Kayla,

Are you female? At least, from your discussion, he didn't say that a .22 was best for a woman. That used to really :mad: my ex-wife. Her favorite gun to shoot was her .460 S&W.

Anyway, just another self-appointed expert you encountered. It's really sad too, because the guy may have had some real knowledge and sound advice, but will all the B.S. surrounding it you would never be able to see it.
 
The Creep

Because I think he's trying to rattle you.

First, a bullet-proof vest does not protect against all blunt trauma. If you shoot someone a number of times in the chest with something like your 9mm while he's wearing a bullet-proof vest, it's my understanding that that will be an extremely unpleasant experience for him, up to broken ribs. (Certainly when I wore a vest in Iraq and Afghanistan, with rifle plates, that was what I expected.)

Second, the tumbling wounds he says are produced by the .22 LR refer (more or less) to wounds supposedly produced by the .223 (5.56 mm) rounds fired by the M-16, the military's main infantry rifle. When the M-16 came into service, it replaced the M-14 and M-1, both of which fired 7.62 mm rounds, and that was really controversial. So to ease its acceptance, the round was said to tumble on impact causing horrific damage, and supposed actual incidents were cited. The only problem is that people who actually used the weapon in combat found that in their experience it simply did not have that stopping power. The guys who had the experience of being lied to about a weapon they relied upon in combat are often still very bitter about it. And while a lot of people have been killed with that round, infantrymen, especially special operations troops, have never been happy with the performance of that round - and that's a rifle round, with far more energy behind it than a pistol round.

Because of the typical height/weight disparity between the average man and the average woman, women are really in the position of most special operations troops, [ETA in that] You need the BG down, now and you need him to stay down. ETA: down as in stopped, not necessarily dead. Yes, a .22 pistol can give you that effect, but it will probably take more time, and at close range, time is your enemy. Especially against someone who is probably much taller and heavier (and thus stronger) than you.

This guy, who I doubt would use a .22 himself for personal protection, is trying to degrade your defenses and your confidence in them. He wants you vulnerable and he wants you afraid and second-guessing.
 
Last edited:
Well kayla, at this point I think my post is going to be redundant, but what the heck?

I don't know who this guy is, or how he got appointed to educate you, but he's wrong.

The only reason I'd recommend a .22 LR for someone for self-defense is if they were unable to shoot a larger handgun effectively. Sometimes injuries or problems get agravated by even slight recoil, and in that case you shoot what you can.

If you have a 9mm, and can shoot it well, then use it and don't think twice about it.

I have several handguns, including a .22 or two, but I don't carry .22's for self defense. I've seen what they can do on small game, and they're unimpressive for reliably stopping even slightly larger animals.

I've also seen what larger handguns do to larger animals, and they're far more effective. I've (thankfully) not had to shoot a person, and can't speak from experience, but from what I've seen from years of hunting, bigger is generally better...to a point. The 9mm and .45 ACP, and others in that same power range have proven themselves time and time again to be effective perp-stoppers, so they're the ones that deserve attention for that purpose.

BTW-one of the biggest reasons to NOT carry a .22 LR is that the ammo is far more prone to misfires and malfunctions than centerfire ammo. No one wants to have to use a gun, but when you really need it, you don't want it to "click" on a dud cartridge.

When the guy you mentioned has investigated as many shootings as Mas Ayoob, then he MIGHT be qualified to criticize; until then, consider this source of information to be mostly a minor irritation.

Daryl
 
2. .22 LR is not reliable.
Click to expand...

Untrue. I have a couple thousand bulk pack Federal rounds through my MKIII with out one malfunction of any kind. Maybe you meant to say that your .22 lr is unreliable. While I don't recomend .22 for SD, it's still better than being on hold with 911.
 
It ain't the gun that's unreliable, it's the ammo. Particularly bulk pack stuff.

If you've had a couple thousand bulk pack rounds through your gun without a single failure to fire, you are very lucky.

I've had numerous failures to fire in guns ranging from Marlin 60's to 10/22's to 22/45's to my SP101. It happens.

Rimfire ignition simply is not as reliable as centerfire..........
 
If your hesitant about getting a .22, just purchase one for plinking and target shooting and use your 9mm for SD.

I have a Walther P22 and Ive shot about 1500 rds out of it, and so far, its shot well but it is picky sometimes. Picky enough that I would not use it for SD, not about whether or not it will deliver a fatal shot to the BD, but moreso a reliability issue. Most .22 handguns on the market are good, smooth shooting guns, but at the same time, most rimfire ammo sucks. Its usually not the case of the gun being unreliable, its the .22 ammo.

With that said, I would love for someone to 'volunteer' to be shot in the chest at 5-7 yards with a .22 pistol. Damn right no one is going to volunteer, because we all know a well placed shot can kill you, be it a .22 or .45.
 
.22 is a good caliber. Fun to shoot, inexpensive. I always shoot my Ruger MIII for practice, and just fun shooting. But I always finish with my 9mm pistols, especially my carry 9mm, so that is the last feeling in my mind before leaving.

Would I use a .22 in a SD scenario? Only if it was the only possible choice.

So...our wonderful expert is not right, just full of it, but that doesn't mean the .22 is not dangerous. It should be respected just as much as a .45 ACP.
 
As for a .22 rimfire bouncing around inside the body, just think about the anatomy of the human body. It is basically a hairy bag of water. Inside of that bag there are some hard things called bones that occupy maybe 2% of the total volume.

Bullets may deviate, tumble, and/or deflect inside of the body but they don't bounce.

In choosing a handgun cartridge for self-defense you must keep the goal of quickly incapacitating an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death in mind. The primary means of incapacitation is loss of blood pressure caused by hemorrhaging of destroyed tissues encountered by a bullet fired into the threat from your handgun.

What is the most logical means of creating the greatest volume of destroyed tissue and thus the most hemorrhaging? You want the largest diameter and depth to equal the greatest volume in what roughly resembles a cylinder of destroyed tissue. Of course, bullet placement is critical as there are structures in the body which have a greater density of blood vessels than other areas.

I submit that all handgun choices are a compromise in size, power, and portability as compared to a long arm. So keeping the goal of stopping the threat in mind; as well as,knowing your personal preferences and skills choose your handgun, cartridge and tactics accordingly.

The statement about the .22 having killed more people than any other round may be true; but you need to know whether the threat was stopped within a few seconds; or whether the death occurred hours later after the threat completed his attack on the good guy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top