thibaultfelix40 said:
...the 22 left a hole about the size of a 50 cent piece in 8 inches of chest tissue. I think that the physical damage done by bullets to animals can be drawn on to extrapolate what might happen to a human...
You might think that, but do you have any evidence to support that claim?
In any case, the physiological effects of any particular amount of tissue damage would be vastly different for a 200 pound man compared with a 20 pound dog. The man has greater depth, density and amount of musculature, heavier bones, larger organs and a much greater blood volume. If, for example, a bullet damages 0.5% (by weight) of a 20 pound animal's total tissue mass (about 1.6 ounces), that amount of tissue damage is only 0.05% of the 200 pound man's total tissue mass. And even 2% of the dog's tissue mass is still only 0.2% of the man's.
Understand that there are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:
- psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
- massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
- breaking major skeletal support structures
- damaging the central nervous system.
Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.
Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.
Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.
The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.
So as a rule of thumb --
- More holes are better than fewer holes.
- Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
- Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
- Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
- There are no magic bullets.
The bottom line is that a lower power cartridge with a smaller caliber bullet will make smaller holes and may not be able to as reliably penetrate to where those holes need to be in order to be most effective.
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. LAPD Officer
Stacy Lim was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty.
I realize that there may be reasons why one would need to use a sub-caliber cartridge for self defense -- extreme recoil sensitivity, a need for deep concealment, etc. But a .22lr is a long way from being an optimal choice.