Stories/examples of .22 being insufficient for SD?

[David Armstrong]

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

But that is a horribly big "if", so we need to really look at what happens. By the same token, "if" you had more shootings with other calibers you might have more failures to stop with them. The truth is that handgun rounds of all calibers are fairly poor stoppers, sometimes they work well, sometimes they don't, and there just isn't any evidence to indicate the smaller calibers are any less effective than the large calibers in real-world SD instances.

 

[David Armstrong]

You can say without reservation that all LE officers prefer to carry heavy guns?

No, I can't say that, I didn't say that, and I won't say that. What I said was that your claim was not correct. Some officers prefer to carry lighter and smaller guns, some prefer to carry bigger and heavier 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?

Never under-estimate the "cool factor" with LEOs, just like other folks. But the point is that the issue is irrelevant. LEOs have a different role and mission than non-LE users, and that determines to some extent what guns and calibers are picked. Even in LE different agencies choose different guns and different calibers based in part on different needs.

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.

Sorry, but if the BG is running away, or he has stopped his attack, you don't get to "put him down" in most jurisdictions, and you don't need to in any jurisdication.

LE officers are no more allowed to continue shooting someone once he is no longer a threat than any armed citizen.

So what? Nobody has said they are.

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

The context is just fine. Whether or not a BG is likely to surrender to LE has nothing to do with whether or not a BG is likely to press an attack against an armed non-LE.

Quite valid, actually.

No. If you think that being told to "go away and stop bothering me or I will hurt you" has the same effect on a person as as "I am going to force you to go someplace you don't want to go and lock you up for several years against your will" are anywhere close to the same, we obviously have a complete disconnect.

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

No dodge at all. As I said, there are lots of things you can imagine, lots of "might" considerations. How likely those are is a different story, as you seem to admit later on in that statement.

Is this you now discussing reality? Grizzly bears in downtown Topeka? Really?

You are the one who said "The bottom line is that anyone who feels the need to carry a firearm should probably carry one that is most likely to get the job done in all situations." If you want to change that now to something a bit more reasonable, as you seem to, I'm all for it.

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.

It is a bad idea to assume that with any handgun. But reality shows that it does work most of the time, and when it doesn't work that shooting will work most of the time with those that have not already fled, and if they stick around and actually get shot most of them stop what they are doing. Nothing wrong for preparing for 99.9999% of the situations, but you aren't that much better off than those who have prepared for only 99.999% of the situations. If the .22 did not work for SD, we'd know about it, as it is used quite a bit. What we do know is that caliber is perhaps the least important factor in DGU, and that the .22 seems to work just as good as other calibers in real life SD situations.

 

[David Armstrong]

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?

I am saying exactly what I said: "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."

The only time caliber is relevant is when you actually have to shoot someone.

No, the only time caliber is relevant is when it makes a difference in the results, and even then it shjould be compared with and balanced with other items that can be considered relevant. In this case we are talking about non-LE, non-military SD. It is easy to show a difference in performance based in part on caliber, but showing any difference in actual outcome has not been done, AFAIK.

 

[David Armstrong]

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.

Of course, one can say that about so many calibers. I worked with an officer who had to shoot a dog (approx 35 pounds, IIRC). Officer was using a .45 ACP, 200-grain JHP Speer round, Colt Combat Commander. After 8 rounds in the chest at close range, the dog finally released its hold and ran off--after I butt-stroked it in the head with a shotgun. Dog was later found about 100 yards away, under some bushes.

 

[grymster2007]

Many years ago near San Jose, CA a woman was shot five times, point blank in the head with a .22 ( I think they may have been shorts). Not one penetrated her skull and she survived. Then again, a friend of mine was killed with a few .25 auto shots to her torso.

Never know.

 

[skydiver3346]

.22 for self defense?

No way, (if at all possible) but it is better than no gun at all.
Bottom line, I would suggest a .38 Special as the least potent round for self defense. Low recoil and a more proven manstopper more than a .22 round. But if all you got is a .22, then its better than nothing.
Personally, if it doesn't start with a .4 in front of it, I don't use it. Just my thinking and wish you the best.

 

[Donn_N]

So what? Nobody has said they are.

As usual, you have missed the point. If someone is going to run away in the face of a gun being pointed at them, do you really think they are taking the time to figure out what kind of gun it is? In other words, you are inferring that an LEO holding a .40 caliber will be able to apprehend a suspect, but an LEO holding a .22 would not. And if that is not what you are saying, then explain why, in a situation where an LE is simply pointing a gun and ordering a suspect to the ground, a .22 would not suffice.

Never under-estimate the "cool factor" with LEOs, just like other folks. But the point is that the issue is irrelevant. LEOs have a different role and mission than non-LE users, and that determines to some extent what guns and calibers are picked. Even in LE different agencies choose different guns and different calibers based in part on different needs.

Just because they have a different mission, doesn't mean that they need a different gun than the the armed citizen. A hammer can be used by a variety of different folks who all have a different mission and yet is the perfect tool for all of them.

No. If you think that being told to "go away and stop bothering me or I will hurt you" has the same effect on a person as as "I am going to force you to go someplace you don't want to go and lock you up for several years against your will" are anywhere close to the same, we obviously have a complete disconnect.

Well, you would seem to be reinforcing my point. If going to jail is the more undesirable outcome of the situation, than why wouldn't the BG simply run away from the cop pointing the gun at him like you claim he will most likely do from the armed citizen? Again, are you saying that it is because the cop is holding a large caliber weapon as opposed to a .22?

It is a bad idea to assume that with any handgun. But reality shows that it does work most of the time, and when it doesn't work that shooting will work most of the time with those that have not already fled, and if they stick around and actually get shot most of them stop what they are doing. Nothing wrong for preparing for 99.9999% of the situations, but you aren't that much better off than those who have prepared for only 99.999% of the situations. If the .22 did not work for SD, we'd know about it, as it is used quite a bit. What we do know is that caliber is perhaps the least important factor in DGU, and that the .22 seems to work just as good as other calibers in real life SD situations.

The simple fact is that it is is just a bad idea to depend on the deterrent factor of the mere presence of a gun and no respected self defense expert I know of recommends it. On top of that, I doubt the figures that you present and you have no statistics to back them up.

 

[Donn_N]

I am saying exactly what I said: "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."

Which as it turns out seems to be a pretty meaningless statement at best and simply untrue at worst.

 

[Donn_N]

No, the only time caliber is relevant is when it makes a difference in the results, and even then it shjould be compared with and balanced with other items that can be considered relevant. In this case we are talking about non-LE, non-military SD. It is easy to show a difference in performance based in part on caliber, but showing any difference in actual outcome has not been done, AFAIK.

Well since this discussion started over the claim that LE has a need for different guns than the armed citizen, I'd say you've done more to confirm that a .22 could be used for LE (using your rational for carrying a .22 for SD) rather than the other way around.

Since very few police officers (like armed citizens) ever need to fire their gun, they only need the deterrent factor to be effective. Since the deterrent factor is based only on the sight of a gun, any gun, and not the size or caliber, it would seem that an LEO would be just as well served carrying a .22 as a larger caliber.

Sure there is a chance an LEO may have to fire their gun, but heck, given the odds, why bother carrying a big clunky gun and all that extra ammunition day after day just for the maybe one time in a 20 or 30 year career when you have actually shoot someone. This is especially true when you consider that LEOs also carry batons, tasers, pepper spray, etc. Seems to me that the gun is kind of overkill for average cop on the street.

 

[David Armstrong]

As usual, you have missed the point.

Let's see now..I said that LEO and non-LEO have different roles, thus have different firearm needs to achieve their goals. You respond with to compare convincing someone to go away or they will be hurt with a LEO taking a guy into cusotdy. Yeah, right...I missed the point!

Just because they have a different mission, doesn't mean that they need a different gun than the the armed citizen.

Umm, nobody said they did. What was said was the LE picks guns for a different reason/role/mission than non-LE. Both can use the same gun if they want, but the reason to use it differs.

....than why wouldn't the BG simply run away from the cop pointing the gun at him like you claim he will most likely do from the armed citizen?

He often does run from the cop, and the cop has to chase him. The armed citizen doesn't need to chase him, or catch him, or any of that stuff. The armed citizen just needs to convince the BG to go someplace else.

The simple fact is that it is is just a bad idea to depend on the deterrent factor of the mere presence of a gun and no respected self defense expert I know of recommends it.

Nobody here has said you should depend on the deterrent factor of the mere presence of a gun either. What has been said is that the .22 seems to work just as well as any other caliber for citizen SD use.

On top of that, I doubt the figures that you present and you have no statistics to back them up.

Yep, don't let those hundred or thousands of proven instances of the .22 successfully being used for SD interfere with your beliefs.

Which as it turns out seems to be a pretty meaningless statement at best and simply untrue at worst.

Your opinion is duly noted. If it is meaningless to you that seems to indicate more of a problem with your understanding than with the information, IMO.

 

[David Armstrong]

Well since this discussion started over the claim that LE has a need for different guns than the armed citizen,....

No, this discussion started over the use of the .22 for self defense. Some suggested that since LE didn't use the .22 for a duty gun that indicated it wasn't usable for self-defense. I've simply pointed out that is a red herring. You seem to continue trying to paint that herring red again and again.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The question asked by the OP has been answered. 22s have been used successfully for self-defense.

It is better to have a 22 than nothing.

My crystal ball sees bickering about the perennial issue of since a 22 isn't an atomic cannon and I want to carry an atomic cannon, then no one should ever carry a 22.

So, we've learned all that's possible this sunday morning.