Is a .22lr better than nothing?

F

Fer

New member
Some people say a .22lr is better than nothing and I agree, but that is not all to be said if you carry a .22lr as your only carry piece and a lot of peolple do carry a .22lr.
If you carry only a .22lr for defence your mind set should be to use it as a tool to escape or slow down the atack but not rely on it to stop the attacker.
Just recently a employee of my company was shot 7 times with a .22lr auto loader at close range. He managed to fight of the attacker whom ran out of bullets, got into a taxi drove 30 minutes to a hospital and was back to work within 30 days, 4 slugs went thru his lungs and 3 in the abdomen.
I know of another case in my community around 1989 or so wen a man attacked a supervisor in a chiquita banana plantation with a Machete, the supervisor armed with a .22lr auto loader discharged all 7 rounds in the magazine, all in the A zone, but he was sliced with the machete because the attacker dis not drop.
Shot placement? could be, Stoping power? yes I am sure it was a big factor, but I think the main mistake these two persons made was to assume that 7 rounds of .22lr could end any confrontation, I beleive the right method should be, if you carry a .22lr(or any other caliber)know that you will not stay still discharging you firearm asumming that you will stop the attack, you should fire two rounds or more at the target while you make some distance between the two, at the same time looking for a way out, also giving your attacker time to think that if he continues the attack he could get killed. If you don´t think that way it is my opinion that you should carry a bigger caliber.

What is your opinion?


Fer.
 
In some circles the smallbores like .22, .25, and .32 are known as "face guns" because they are most effective aimed for the "upper A panel." Jeff Cooper said - and we all know what he thinks of calibers smaller than .45 - once said that you could consider the .22 for self defense when you could hit a tennis ball from anywhere on the court.
 
My Opinion? In my opinion, a .22lr is better than a pointy stick. If anything, it still has the intimidation factor that comes from being a gun -- since just having a gun available is usually enough to disuade an attack, even if it is only a .22. To any semi-sane, semi-sober BG, any gun at all spells "TROUBLE", and they'll seek easier prey. That said, it is about the least effective round you could have. And that said, if that is what you are able to carry and you are comfortable with it, by all means carry one, since having one is still better than not having one.

In my particular case, my wife has "adopted" my range .22 as her bedside gun, since she shoots it fairly well and is comfortable with it and isn't comfortable with anything else I've got. What she really wants is a revolver that is smaller than my 686 which is my bedside gun. Anyway, what I told her was that general idea of that .22 is to think of each 10 round magazine that she has (there's 10+1 in the gun, and another spare mag of 10) as being the equivalent of 1 round of buckshot from a shotgun, since each individual .22 round is about as effective as a buckshot pellet. So what she is to do is point the gun at the COM of the BG and let rip with the entire magazine as fast as she can shoot it. Don't wait to see if any 1 round has done the job, but keep on shooting as fast as possible, and be ready and quick with the magazine change. That ought to buy me enough time to do my reload -- the assumption is that if she is doing that, I have already shot out the wheelgun and am reloading with a speedloader, or I'm grabbing the backup .380 that is under the bed. IOW she is buying me some time for my reload. Oh, and if I'm not around, then she is to forget about the .22 and grab my bedside 686 -- she can shoot it allright, but she thinks it is too heavy for her. In a pinch, she'll shoot it sure enough, she probably won't even notice the weight or the recoil or the blast.
 
My brother died from a .22lr.. in the head. One shot is all it took.

.22mag in a NAA might just be my next gun.
 
As the late President Reagan would say, " Here we go again." John Hinkley used a .22 revolver to assassinate Reagan. He was able to seriously wound the president with a richocett, and put down Brady and making him brain damaged/disabled for life. If Hinkley had any formal training on how to shoot, Reagan would have been dead. 22lr is not effective??? , then use it as an airsoft gun, and shoot each other with it.

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/march30.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt
 
Jeff Cooper said - and we all know what he thinks of calibers smaller than .45 - once said that you could consider the .22 for self defense when you could hit a tennis ball from anywhere on the court.
Click to expand...

If you had a choice of handguns to shoot tennisball in a tenniscourt what caliber would you pick???

A bullet to the face is a bullet to the face.
 
Does anyone agree with me that besides having a .22lr one should also have an action plan in case you ever need to defend your self with a .22lr? for the reasons I explained in my original post.

Fer
 
If you carry only a .22lr for defence your mind set should be to use it as a tool to escape or slow down the atack but not rely on it to stop the attacker.
Click to expand...
That should be true of all handgun calibers.
 
Fer: Yes. For the reasons and tactics/rationale you brought up originally? Hmm, not so much that, but I can't disagree with it either. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that you really do have to respect the round's limitations, which are many and profound. Whether you are planning on using it to cover your retreat as you suggest or as a last ditch time buyer as in my wife's case still means that you are consiously thinking about and planning around the inherent limitations of the round.
That should be true of all handgun calibers.
Click to expand...
Quite true.
 
Fer...Honestly...for real...with pratice you can kill someone with a .22, even ...dare I say it...with one shot. Check some of the other .22 threads. I have respect for the .22 because in skilled hands it can and will kill a deer (check the hunting treads about old timers poaching Deer with a .22LR rifle and a flashlight) or a human (Israeli assassin disscussions) with one shot. I have a Taurus .22lr snubby revolver (wife nightstand gun) and a Ruger MKII. I can do the smiley face Lethal weapon bit (really slowly) with the Ruger at 20 yards, and I bet (have not tried it yet) I can do the same with the revolver 7 yards(that is with a barrel smaller that 2"). While my PT-92 9mm is about the same size as the Ruger MKII, I can't make a good smiley face past 7 yards.

Moral of the story. I would not put my money on a single .22 body shot taking a big BG out and if I had one shot to the body I would perfer something bigger, however if I were to pick a caliber that anyone in my family (except the 2 year old of course) can shoot accurately it would be the .22lr pistols. And personally for me, I would go for a head shot with a .22 anyway, I will not miss, and the BG will be either dead or in a severe world of hurt. You should make plans with any caliber that you might not put the bad guy down. Never Assume.
 
Fer...Honestly...for real...with pratice you can kill someone with a .22, even ...dare I say it...with one shot...
Click to expand...
Mikeyboy:

While what you say is technically true, you fail to grasp a critical point. And that is that there is a difference between killing someone with a gun, and effectively stopping an attacker.

Yes, you can certainly kill someone with a .22lr, even with 1 shot. Nobody is debating that.

But -- can you reliably stop an attacker in a timely manner with a .22 using 1 shot, short of that face shot that others have brought up? A face shot that isn't at all easy to make, I might add.

The --->Timely<--- part is the crux.

There is a difference in taking a deer or assassinating a human and effectively stopping an attacker. That primary difference is elapsed time. It really doesn't matter that much how long it takes that deer to drop, as long as you can find it afterwards. It really doesn't matter (to the assassin, anyway) how long it takes the victim to die, as long as the victim eventually dies. Not so in a SD situation. Time is CRITICAL.

Edited to add:

There is another crux: --->Reliably<---

Ok, so there really isn't any handgun that will reliably stop an attacker with 1 round, or even with multiple. But a .22 is about the bottom of the barrel in that regards. I'd say that the only real reliable way to do it would be a medulla oblongata hit which is a really tough one, even for a skilled shot using a more powerful round. With a .22, there is also the BIG question of whether it will penetrate the bone involved and thus be able to reach it.

Keep in mind, that's a head shot, and not just the head but only a small portion of the head: a small target that is probably going to be moving, and is pretty well encased in bone. Don't count on being able to hit that target no matter your skill, and don't count on that round being able to get to the intended region even if you do manage to hit where you were aiming.
 
True the ODDS are the guy with the .45 slug will die quicker than the .22, however again in a panic situation you are more likely to miss with the higher recoil, lower capacity weapon.

Question? Would you rather have a .38 snubby with 5 round or a .22 snubby with 9 rounds against 3 attackers?

Ohh and check www.theboxotruth.com, .22 do not have limited penetration problems (just slightly less than a 9mmm or a .45) , just smaller hole issues.
 
True the ODDS are the guy with the .45 slug will die quicker than the .22, however again in a panic situation you are more likely to miss with the higher recoil, lower capacity weapon.
Click to expand...
Depends on the shooter. Personally, I have no problem controlling .45 ACP's, and I'd sure rather have the bigger holes.
Ohh and check www.theboxotruth.com, .22 do not have limited penetration problems (just slightly less than a 9mmm or a .45) , just smaller hole issues.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm quite aware of the box of truth. He doesn't test against living (or recently dead) bone, most of his tests are against boards and drywall, and other barrier materials. Not the same thing, remember that for the most part he is exploring wall penetration and other barrier issues. Living bone can be quite resilient, and is able to stop or deflect light small caliber bullets (like a .22lr) easier than you think. It takes a straight-on hit, and if you manage to hit right where the skull curves under (solid bone about the whole way), well, a .22 probably isn't going to make it, or it will be deflected. And that solid bone region is REALLY close to where you'd need to hit for that sure-fire 1 shot stop M.O. shot. It is the same problem as bear defense on a lesser scale -- you have to use a heavy penetrator to reliably make it through on a consistent basis, and that isn't a .22lr.
Question? Would you rather have a .38 snubby with 5 round or a .22 snubby with 9 rounds against 3 attackers?
Click to expand...
3 attackers? 9 rounds of .22lr or 5 of .38 Spl? Neither one. I'd take my 8 rounds of .380 with an extra mag of 7 (my usual carry) over either of the 2. And I wouldn't be comfortable with that, either -- in spite of the increased firepower. It would most likely serve to slow them down enough to escape, though. 3 on 1 are bad odds no matter what you are carrying. But if I had to choose between the 2, I'd opt for the .38 and my running shoes -- I can cover some ground in a HURRY.:D
 
What people fail to realize that surviving the encounter is different from a discussion of guaranteed stopping power.

We know from criminlogical research that aboug 90-95% of civilian DGUs have no shots fired. They are strictly deterrent in nature. This is well documented.

We don't have a breakdown of deterrence by caliber. Since I've met the folks who do the research and talked to them, a well done study doesn't seem to be out there. However, the interviews of prisoners on how they worry about guns never had mention of them ignoring small guns in a deterrent situation.

Most monetary crimes have victims chosen for the likelihood of success without hassle or being hurt. Thus, type of gun as a deterrent makes little difference - if there was a big effect we might have seen it and we haven't.
The number of people being disarmed and guns used against them is very very small in the crime reports. The number of document cases of criminals absorbing rounds and continuing the crime seems very small and much outweighed by those who are deterred.

So you get with :

1. Deterrence on appearance.
2. Stopping of crime (which is not stopping power as defined by commando types) on being shot
3. Actually 'stopping' the person with a 22 - as it does happen

vs.

The much smaller chance of a madmen absorbing all kinds of rounds.

Since not carrying a gun if you only have a 22 eliminates that huge deterrent effect and my other two points. Those who say you shouldn't carry a 22 IF that is the only available option due to expense or situation are really just blowing out internet gas.
 
What people fail to realize that surviving the encounter is different from a discussion of guaranteed stopping power...We know from criminlogical research that aboug 90-95% of civilian DGUs have no shots fired. They are strictly deterrent in nature.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out in post #3. This reason alone makes it worthwhile to carry at least a .22lr. If given my druthers, I'd REALLY rather carry something more potent, though. There are just too many other more viable solutions out there. But if a .22 is all you can carry, it is still worth it.
 
If the the person one proposed to shoot isn't full of vim and vigor and the shooter can put every round from the cylinder/magazine into the shootee's uncooperative brain pan without the bullets skidding along the skull and just rearranging the hair, it might work as a last resort. A big stick might be better.
 
...it might work as a last resort. A big stick might be better.
Click to expand...
viable as a last resort? Yep. Big stick better? That's debatable. Like a baseball bat? Hmm, unless the BG has a gun, you might have something there -- assuming that it comes down to actually having to use it. One problem with the big stick thing is that it is difficult to use one to cover your retreat -- you have to be in contact range. Another problem with the big stick is that they are pretty darned hard to conceal, and they aren't at all easy to carry comfortably. Well, unless you are talking about something like that big walking stick I use for hiking -- even then, that isn't something that you could just carry around with you while you are doing your errands or whatever. Maybe a nice, stout walking cane -- those work pretty well, if you can get away with it. Me? Nah, they'd be wondering why someone like me was on a cane when I'm obviously not in need of one.

But that big stick still doesn't have the "Oh, Sh*t!!!" factor of a gun, any gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top