Stories/examples of .22 being insufficient for SD?

[Musketeer]

If the concern is simply having a gun, which upon presentation of which many self defense scenarios end with the criminal beating feet, then certainly the .22lr works. In any situation it is far better than throwing rocks.

If the attacker and situation do not allow for the presentation of the weapon to have a chance to deter the crime then we need to bank on its effectiveness.

Many criminal will run at the first shot fired, many will give up upon being shot, enough to be concerned about though do not simply decide to give up or run off even when shot. At that point the goal is make certain the threat is ended as quickly as possible without the "agreement" of the attacker.

To "force" the attacker to stop being a threat they must have their CNS shut down, their skeletal structure wrecked to the point at which it cannot support them so you can get away, or they must loose enough blood so that they can no longer operate.

1. Damaging the CNS. To do this you need to punch through the skull or penetrate through the torso and its bone structure to make your way through a vertebrae. Sorry, compared to other calibers the .22lr is woefully underpowered for the task of reliably punching through the curved surface of the skull or making it through the torso to crack the vertebrae and sever the chord. All handgun calibers are a compromise but in this case I cannot see the compromise as reasonable. (You could get lucky and shoot through the neck's vertebrae...)

2. Shattering Supporting Bones. Often hoped for with a pelvic shot every handgun has serious problems doing this, the .22lr being the worst of the bunch.

3. Blood Loss. All things being equal this comes down to depth of penetration and expansion. In short, wound cavity. Sorry, that .22lr will not make anywhere near the cavity of an expanding .38, 9mm, 45, 10mm, even a .380. Therefore bleeding out will take longer and the fight will go on. He may still die or collapse but it will take longer and he will still be a threat in that time.

Sorry, the success of the .22LR as a defensive round depends on the will of the attacker. It depends on him giving up. Should he give up it has worked as well as a .44 mag. Should he not give up you are now stuck dealing with all the round's shortcomings. Hopefully he gives up.

 

[threegun]

Because some things are unlikely we are not supposed to prepare for them??????wow. Last time I checked it was not likely that I ever need to pull my CW yet I still prepare for that unlikely event.

IMO It is illogical to prepare for one rare event by opting to carry only to argue that needing a larger caliber is unnecessary because it would only make a difference in a rare event. If you need your CW you have defied the odds already......so you push your luck I won't.

 

[Nnobby45]

As an example, if 1% of carries use a 22 and only 1% of carriers ever use their weapons, you are left with only 1% of 1% likely to be a 22.

I tend to agree, where CC is concerned, since so few people carry them.

However, when you look at all the people who have been shot with .22's, the shear number of shootings racks up a toll. People have been getting shot with .22's for many decades, even without CCW. Just because they're prevalent.

People can do their own Googling around, but .22's have probably done in more people (used in SD and by criminals) than .38's.

 

[csmsss]

However, when you look at all the people who have been shot with .22's, the shear number of shootings racks up a toll. People have been getting shot with .22's for many decades, even without CCW. Just because they're prevalent.

People can do their own Googling around, but .22's have probably done in more people (used in SD and by criminals) than .38's.

That's all well and good, but a significant number of those - almost certainly a majority of those shootings - has been done with rifles. The ballistics of a .22LR shot from a tiny pistol vs. those shot from a rifle are drastically different, and unless the shooting "data" (most is, by its nature, anecdotal) is corrected to remove those incidents where the subject is shot with a rifle, it cannot reasonably be relied upon. I can think of no other calibers commonly used in handguns where this is so dramatically the case - and certainly none of the small pistol rounds the .22 is commonly compared to (.25 ACP, .32 ACP, .380, .32S&W, etc.).

 

[David Armstrong]

Sorry, the success of the .22LR as a defensive round depends on the will of the attacker. It depends on him giving up.

Which is true of most handgun shootings regardless of caliber. For every story of a .22 failing there is a story of a 9mm, or a .40, or so on failing.

 

[monkeywrench]

.22 is not a bad round, and is better that nothing, but for SD, you may as well equip yourself with the most efficient weapon for the job. Knock down power is important for sure, but so is being able to control the weapon before and after firing. My pick: .40 and a lot of practice.

 

[mnhntr]

this is rediculously obvious, however it seems not to a few. yes some believe a 22lr is enough gun for sd however some also believe that if you pray god will keep you safe. i think i will stick to my 357
on a side note dead BG's dont testify against you in court. i would rather put down a bad dog than have it come back wounded for another fight another day

 

[rgoers]

"The argument that a citizen has to just make the bad guy go away doesn't wash. "

Anything beyond stopping the threat is no longer SD, and will quickly land YOU in jail!

 

[Socrates]

22lr penetrates around 8-14", some rounds, in gello. The majority of effective rounds go about this deep. Problem is, to get that you need to shoot it out of a rifle, and, those 'Hollowpoints" better not work, or you loose all penetration.

In real worlds stuff, with proper shot placement, it's effective on wharf rats. 6-8" of penetration, no exit, out of a rifle, 18" barrel. I wouldn't bet on any of those rounds going through bone. It's also not a one shot stop on wharf rats, who, I must admit, if they weighed 250 pounds would be one of the more terrifying animals on the planet.

 

[orionengnr]

With most subpar-calibers (380 or less), my usual advice is to save the last round for yourself, just in case. If you're talking bears, save the last round regardless of caliber.

With a .22LR, my advice is to save the last five rounds for yourself.

 

[Nnobby45]

For every story of a .22 failing there is a story of a 9mm, or a .40, or so on failing.

Not if you had an equal number of shootings for each--- with each shooting having the same number of hits and same shot placement.

All things being equal, I think the .22 loses the quick stop constest against commonly carried calibers.

 

[csmsss]

"The argument that a citizen has to just make the bad guy go away doesn't wash. "

Anything beyond stopping the threat is no longer SD, and will quickly land YOU in jail!

Quite simply, this isn't necessarily so. Several states permit the use of deadly force in the defense of one's or others' property. Obviously, you should check the laws of your state, but...my point is that every state has its own laws and its own set of judicial precedents regarding the use of deadly force, and it behooves each and every one of us who might use a firearm (or any other weapon, for that matter) in this capacity ought to be as close to intimately familiar with them as possible.

 

[Donn_N]

Yes I have, no they wouldn't, and no they aren't.

You can say without reservation that all LE officers prefer to carry heavy guns? And if they don't carry heavier guns in a large caliber because smaller guns in smaller calibers are less likely to do the job, then exactly why do they carry those big heavy guns? Just to look cool?

No it isn't. For SD purposes, the primary goal is to make the BG stop putting you in danger. Putting him down is pretty much irrelevant.

Yes, and the only way to ensure that you are no longer in danger is to put the BG down. If he doesn't go down, he is still a threat. Again, tho, if I don't need to put a BG down, then neither does a LE officer. LE officers are no more allowed to continue shooting someone once he is no longer a threat than any armed citizen.

Why would you want to keep him around you? If he goes away, how are you in any immediate danger from him?

Taken out of context. It needs to be responded to along with the second part of the paragraph.

That is an interesting idea, but I'm not aware of anything that would support it. In fact, since making someone go away and taking away their liberty are such totally different concepts, I doubt that there is much validity to the idea at all.

Quite valid, actually. The point being that if the mere sight of a gun is going to give you control over the situation it is going to give you control whether you're telling the BG to go away or to get on the ground. The fear of being shot is what it is all about.

It's possible to imagine lots of things. I prefer to stay away from imagination and discuss reality whenever possible. But maybe that is just me. Just because one can imagine it doesn't really give much support for something.

Nice dodge of the point. The fact is that there are situations where an armed citizen might need to shoot through a barrier.

So we should all carry around S&W 500s w/6.5" barrels just in case we need to fight off a wild grizzly bear in downtown Topeka??

Is this you now discussing reality? Grizzly bears in downtown Topeka? Really? But certainly if there were wild grizzly bears in downtown Topeka, it would behoove someone to carry a S&W 500 rather than a .22. But I will concede that the phrase "any situation" should possibly have been changed to "likely situation" or "possible situation". My point is that different BGs will react differently to a gun being produced. It is a bad idea to assume or hope when you slip that little .22 into your pocket that you will only meet one who will flee at the mere sight of the gun. Better to have something that is more likely to do a more efficient job of stopping the BG if you actually have to pull the trigger.

 

[Donn_N]

Which is true of most handgun shootings regardless of caliber. For every story of a .22 failing there is a story of a 9mm, or a .40, or so on failing.

So, you are saying that calibers of 9mm and above fail to stop an attacker at the exact same rate as a .22 fired from a handgun? Or are you saying that the stories are told at exactly the same rate?

 

[Donn_N]

"The argument that a citizen has to just make the bad guy go away doesn't wash. "

Anything beyond stopping the threat is no longer SD, and will quickly land YOU in jail!

Once again, this was taken out of context. I was responding to a post that was trying to explain why law enforcement needed different (i.e., bigger, larger caliber) guns than the armed citizen (they don't). The argument was the LE has to go after the BG and the armed citizen merely needs to deter the BG. True enough, but as an argument for armed citizens carrying mouse guns instead of more efficient calibers, it doesn't wash.

The only time caliber is relevant is when you actually have to shoot someone. If you have to shoot someone, you want a caliber that is likely to stop them immediately from causing you bodily injury or death. At that point, the goal of a LE officer and an armed citizen are identical and both need essentially the same weapon to accomplish that goal.

 

[B. Lahey]

I battled a psychopathic woodchuck with a .22 one time. I don't know if it was rabid or what, but it was unhealthy looking and extremely aggressive. It's a good thing they don't turn well in a full charge or I would have been badly chewed on. I must have shot the damn thing eight or ten times before it keeled over. Needless to say I was not impressed by the effectiveness of the .22lr. That critter was swiss cheese before it had enough.

If it won't stop a determined woodchuck, it's a little light for heavier tasks as I see it.

 

[AZAK]

The opposite extreme

Just playing the opposite side of the coin:

Christopher McCandless, from the non-fiction book Into the Wild, shot and killed a cow moose in Alaska with a .22 rifle.

The natives used to hunt polar bear with single shot .22 rifles successfully.

Now, I live in Alaska and I hunt moose and would never condone moose hunting with a .22lr. One of my big rules that I abide by is matching caliber to game.

However, it does really illustrate that shot placement is critical.

 

[BillCA]

Using a .22LR beats being completely unarmed. It is not my first choice for self-defense nor is it my last. The downside to the .22 is that against a determined attacker it is not very debilitating. That includes someone determined through rage, intense desire, psychosis and potentially drug use. There is too much "luck" involved with the .22 stopping someone.

The .22 Magnum, however, is an underestimated round that can and does do plenty of damage. At close range it is suprisingly effective.

It's hard enough to make bullets go where you want them, but add in adrenaline, fear, movement and emotions it can be incredibly hard to make an incapacitating hit. With the .22LR, your desireable hit zones are smaller than when using more powerful cartridges.

.22 Failures
In summer of 1967, a friend and I were returning from the local creek when we heard popping sounds. Rick was ahead of me and I heard a sound like an angry bumblebee pass by when Rick slapped the back of his thigh and uttered a few bad words. A few seconds later we realized he'd been hit by a bullet. We got to the street only to have a cop stop us due to Rick's bleeding leg. They found two young boys (11 and 13) about 40 yards further down the creek with a Hi-Standard revolver. The .22LR hit the back of Rick's thigh but was easily removed at the hospital with no lingering damage. At no time was Rick really unable to walk or fend for himself. It was painful but no more than a charley horse might be.

A woman I knew in the mid-70's drove cars from one car dealership to another up and down California. This was before Interstate 5 existed so she used Hwy 99, a truck-route. After being beaten and robbed of one car, she armed herself with a small .380 and a .22 pistol. One night at a rest stop south of Modesto, despite half a dozen other people present, she was assaulted as she was getting into her car. She pulled the .22 out of her pocket and fired twice, point blank. One round in the forearm and one in the upper left lung. He continued his attack, trying to grab the gun. Another round penetrated his right hand/palm. Diane saw the next round hit him in the left cheek which made him recoil (it broke two teeth off). When he raised his left hand in a fist, she fired three more times. The hits made him break off and she fired the last two at an oblique angle to his back. One round clipped his spine and disconnected his legs. CHP called it a clean SD shooting. Subject was tried and sentenced to 13 years due to a substantial prior record.

Success Stories
1983: Two men burst in to a shop and tried to rob a downtown jeweler. The Jeweler's wife fired twice at each robber with a .22 S&W kit gun, hitting each one once. Robber #1 fell to the floor from a hit just forward of his right ear. Robber #2 fled the store but was found DOA in his car. A bullet had entered between two ribs and bounced off the rear ribcage penetrating both lungs and stopping in his spleen.

Proving That Nothing is 100% Dept.
1976: After a night of binge drug use, a 24 year old man walked into a donut shop just before 6 am and pulled out a .38 revolver to hold up the store. An off duty armed security guard was finishing coffee at a table and when the robber turned the gun towards him, the guard fired a single round of .44 Special, impacting just to the upper right of the sternum. The robber looked surprised, dropped his gun and then looked down at his chest. He calmly walked outside and sat down on the curb then lay on his back to die a minute or so later.

 

[nate45]

I'll say the same thing about the .22 LR handgun as I do the .25 ACP, it is not better than having nothing, its better than not having a gun. They both fire a projectile that is capable of reaching the heart, brian and spine. That fact gives them a significant advantage over knifes, impact weapons and bare hands. If fact in all actuality they are no less deadly than a .45 ACP or 9 mm Para, it just takes greater skill and shot placement to utilize that lethality. Ironically the .22 and .25 are most often selected and carried by the least skilled users.

'A .22 looks small, till someone points one at you'- Elmer Keith

If someone points a .22 at you with obviously deadly intent and you aren't afraid, you are either stupid, ignorant, mentally ill, on drugs, or possibly all four.

So lets suppose your assailant fails into the not afraid category, thats when you have to back up the threat of your .22 with deadly marksmanship.

Back in the day when I regularly carried a .22 or .25 as a BUG or sometimes even a primary weapon, I constantly practiced making rapid, accurate head shots from two or three yards. If you know someone that can take getting shot six to nine times in the face with a .25 or .22 in 2 seconds or less, I'd like... on second thought I don't want to meet them.

 

[skoro]

I enjoy shooting my .22lr firearms, both rifle and handguns. My .22 handguns are a revolver and an autoloader. I can fire both pretty well, as the lack of recoil makes the sight picture pretty consistent from shot to shot.

Would I consider either for self defense? Only in a terribly unlikely scenario. Something like one of them was the only thing within reach while I'm under assault. And I keep them unloaded and stowed away when not in use.

The .22 can serve for self-defense, but it's a poor choice. It beats harsh words, but almost any other firearm is going to do a better job. I think the likelihood of a .22 stopping a determined attacker is very slim.