What matters is shot placement. Actual bank robbery shooting.

[Frank Ettin]

There are four ways in which shooting an assailant stops a fight:

1. psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
   
   
2. massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
   
   
3. breaking major skeletal support structures
   
   
4. 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.

Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility, but someone with a gun can still shoot.

Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target.

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.

Because they tend to make bigger holes, and the modern ones are likely to penetrate sufficiently, I'll choose JHPs.

 

[threegun]

What fiddletown said times two

It was a common carry round before the media brain washed everyone into thinking only a cannon will do the job.

Read what Fiddletown said. If that doesn't allow you to understand why the 22lr is the worst defensive caliber choice available then stop debating because nothing will change on either side.

The media didn't brainwash me and I guarantee it didn't brainwash Fiddle. It really isn't rocket science to get it. A 45 caliber 12 inch deep wound is better than a 22 caliber 10 inch wound. A 45 cal 230 grain bullet at 950 feet per second will smash a blocking bone and continue to dig deeper into the body than a 22 caliber 40 grain bullet at 1300 fps will.

Its a simple as that.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Internet search shows nothing but I did read a book about the 22, the short was the first cased round made, the lr came later and gave the penetration needed to be a killing round many guns were made with 22lr.

Great, then I see you have confused the difference between results and design. So you have no information to support your claim that the .22 was actually designed to penetrate deeply and have high velocity? You have assumed that sense the .22 penetrated well that it was somehow designed different than other ammo in regard to how it would perform. I really didn't expect you to be able to produce any actual results for this and am not surprised that you failed to do so. However, if you are going to base your belief in design intent on the results of the product produced, then I believe you will find that the .22 wasn't any different than other calibers at the time. In fact, the first rimfire .22s were NOT designed for high velocity and deep penetration. The first .22s were designed as plinking target rounds for shooting galleries in 1845. With maybe 20 ft lbs of energy, it wasn't going to do much in the way of penetrating deeply. Sorry.

Like I said, I killed more critters were a lot scarier than any man I ever met all with a 22. Dropped 2000 lb animals right there one shot, now I am not saying a 45 wouldnt have done the trick but when meat is involed best not to waste much.

Executing animals for consumption isn't the same thing as defensive use of a caliber. There are plenty of folks that put down 2000 lb cattle with little air guns but that does not make air guns great for defensive use.

 

[threegun]

Critters don't have HiPoints in your face and shoot at you until their gun jams or they lose consciousness either.

 

[markj]

Read what Fiddletown said. If that doesn't allow you to understand why the 22lr is the worst defensive caliber choice available then stop debating because nothing will change on either side.

I never said it was the best, but if it was all I had Iwould not hesitqate to use it.

Executing animals for consumption isn't the same thing as defensive use of a caliber

On my trap line a 22 is all I ever take. I dont just kill cows dudes. I hunt, everything I can. In the 60s Ikilled a deer with my 22. Inuit indians kill polar bears with a 22, go check it out for yourself.

The 22 short is what you are thinking about, the lr was introduced to give the round power. Wish I could find that old book told the story of most calibers of that time (the 50s and 60s).

Them riverboat gamblers carried multi shot 22s for the cartridges guns.

Like I said themedia has brain washed most folks, Americans need bigger than anyone else.

Like I said, if a 22 was all I had Iwould not run and hide, I would use the durn thing effectivly. I know how to shoot the thing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I never said it was the best, but if it was all I had Iwould not hesitqate to use it.

If one has to improvise, he must use what he has as best he can.

If one can choose, one can do a lot better than a .22.

 

[threegun]

I never said it was the best, but if it was all I had Iwould not hesitqate to use it.

When you say that you have taken all types of animals with the 22 and post that indians have taken huge polar bear with it you are suggesting that because of this it is good for self defense against a violent human.

Like I said, if a 22 was all I had Iwould not run and hide, I would use the durn thing effectivly. I know how to shoot the thing.

So I would like to see you perform against a charging polar bear with your 22. Seems the task is much harder when your prey won't sit still and allow you to pick the sweet spot.

 

[markj]

you are suggesting that because of this it is good for self defense against a violent human.

If it is all you have its better than a sharp stick in the eye.

So I would like to see you perform against a charging polar bear with your 22. Seems the task is much harder when your prey won't sit still and allow you to pick the sweet spot

Well since you are not up on their hunting methods I will say not one was charging, they sneak up on the bear and shoot it in the rear legs as it will bleed out, they follow it till it dies and they eat. Sounds more like using their heads more than getting the largest caliber and being able to use what they have to survive.

Why cant you guys understand some old timers just dont go with your flow?
Bigger isnt always better.

My carry is a colt new agent in .45 acp fyi. But in the barn is a 22 in the truck is a 22 in the tractors cab is a 22.

What happened to using your head and adapting to what you have on hand?

You guys kill me when will it be enough for ya? a 600 nitro? lol miss that first shot the guy with a 22 will shoot 10 or 12 times... or dont you think you might just miss that first shot? lol

 

[Frank Ettin]

...they sneak up on the bear and shoot it in the rear legs as it will bleed out, they follow it till it dies and they eat...

And exactly what does that have to do with defending oneself against a violent attack?

...What happened to using your head and adapting to what you have on hand?...

Making do in an emergency with what you have is one thing. Choosing a cartridge for self defense is another. And if you have the opportunity to choose in advance of need, and you choose the .22 lr, you're not necessarily using your head. Under most circumstance, you'd be making a lousy choice.

It's too bad you don't seem to recognize the difference between improvising in extremis and preparing ahead of time.

There may be extraordinary circumstances in which the .22 lr could be a reasonable choice -- if one is infirm and simply can't manage anything bigger, for example. But if one can choose ahead of time and manage something bigger, a .22 lr is a poor choice.

...Why cant you guys understand some old timers just dont go with your flow?...

I, for one, don't care whether or not you "go with my flow." What I care about are newcomers who visit this, and other boards, to learn and who might get sidetracked by someone's poor or misleading information.

 

[threegun]

What he said

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If it is all you have its better than a sharp stick in the eye.

Not necessarily

So I would like to see you perform against a charging polar bear with your 22. Seems the task is much harder when your prey won't sit still and allow you to pick the sweet spot

Well since you are not up on their hunting methods I will say not one was charging, they sneak up on the bear and shoot it in the rear legs as it will bleed out,

This discussion isn't about hunting methods, but about self defense.

Why cant you guys understand some old timers just dont go with your flow?

Because being old just provide justification in the absence of data.

Bigger isnt always better.

You are right. It isn't. When it comes to don't tissue damage for the purposes of self defense, bigger is better much more often than not.

As for going with the flow...you are the one swimming up stream.

 

[threegun]

DNS, I used the charging polar bear as an example based on something familiar to Mark, hunting, to help him understand the difference between hunting and self defense. Shot placement being hyper important with the puny little 22 and very difficult to achieve on a moving deadly threat.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I understand about the example. markj keeps talking about hunting as if hunting had anything to do with self defense in this situation. You tried to cater to his out of context references by bringing up self defense against a charging animal. That still isn't hunting, of course, but markj's responses still seem to indicate that just because it can be done, killing an animal with a .22, that somehow it means the caliber is suitable for self defense or has a strong likelihood of being effective in self defense.

You can kill a polar bear with an ice pick, but that doesn't make it a good weapon for self defense either.

 

[threegun]

Gotcha

 

[markj]

to help him understand the difference between hunting and self defense.

I know the diff you guys are getting under my skin here.

I SAID I CARRY A 45 BUT IF ALL I HAD WAS A 22 I WOULD USE IT.

CANT YOU READ? OR DO YOU JUST CHOOSE TO POST AND THINK YOU ARE ALL THAT?

I was shot by a bad guy once, stabbed another time. I have a bit of xp. with bad folks and getting hurt and avoiding getting hurt.

I dont want a newbie to think he is unarmed if all he has is a 22. Now go on and post I dont know this and Idont know that crap. I do know how to defend myself and have done so successfully in the past. I survived a shooting hows about you?

If it is all you have its better than a sharp stick in the eye.

Not necessarily

So you would rather have a stick in yer hand before you would pick up a 22 and use it? in sd? wow is all I can say.


Next you will be telling me I need hps instead of fmj....just like a comercial.

 

[speedfreeq]

I always heard that if you wanted to really mess a bad guy up, to shoot him in the head with a .22, because the bullet goes in & then just rattles around inside the skull, pretty much guaranteeing immobilisation. Bigger calibers go through?
I'm not at all knowledgeable about using a gun for SD; hope it doesn't come down to that. Given a choice between using my little .22 revolver and some bad guy stealing my stuff or harming my family, I'm going to use my head & all available cover, and put as many of the 9 available rounds in dude's face.
I feel I could probably be somewhat less judicious with the 17 rounds in my 9mm, however.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I know the diff you guys are getting under my skin here.

I SAID I CARRY A 45 BUT IF ALL I HAD WAS A 22 I WOULD USE IT.

CANT YOU READ? OR DO YOU JUST CHOOSE TO POST AND THINK YOU ARE ALL THAT?

Maybe you missed it, but the discussion was not about what you carry.

I dont want a newbie to think he is unarmed if all he has is a 22. Now go on and post I dont know this and Idont know that crap. I do know how to defend myself and have done so successfully in the past. I survived a shooting hows about you?

Just because you are old and have been injured does not mean that a .22 is a good round for self defense just like just because you have killed a lot of animals with it does not mean it is good for self defense.

Nobody here has suggested or intimated that only having a .22 means that you are unarmed. In fact, that would be 100% counter to the definition of being armed. I would suggest you reread the thread if that was your concern. I think you will be relieved to know that newbies won't be confused even if you may have been.

So you would rather have a stick in yer hand before you would pick up a 22 and use it? in sd? wow is all I can say.

No. Apparently despite quoting me, you did not actually read and understand the words I wrote. I made no statement as to my preference. I simply pointed out that a .22 is not necessarily better than a stick in the eye.

 

[WW2]

No deadly force for "stuff"

Given a choice between using my little .22 revolver and some bad guy stealing my stuff or harming my family, I'm going to use my head & all available cover, and put as many of the 9 available rounds in dude's face.

Speedfreeq, remember that you cannot use deadly force to protect your "stuff". Deadly force can only be justified if you are in grave danger to life or limb (rape qualifies as grave danger to life or limb). Get to know the laws for your area NOW so you don't make a really bad mistake!

 

[threegun]

I dont want a newbie to think he is unarmed if all he has is a 22.

And we don't want the newbie to think that because you say it will kill a giant polar bear that it is a good choice for self defense.

So you would rather have a stick in yer hand before you would pick up a 22 and use it? in sd? wow is all I can say

I think you said a sharp stick in the eye vs a 22.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...you guys are getting under my skin here...

Really? You're not willing to have others challenge your notions?

...IF ALL I HAD WAS A 22 I WOULD USE IT...

You're still ignoring the difference between having to make do in an emergency and being able to prepare in advance of need.

If all I had was a .22, of course I'd use that. If all I had was a sharp stick, I'd use that. If all I had was a fireplace poker, I'd use that. But when I choose what I'm going to [legally] carry around with me in case I may have to defend myself, I'm not going to choose a .22, a sharp stick or a fireplace poker. There are better choices.

The fact that one implement or another can be pressed into service for self defense in an emergency when nothing else is at hand doesn't necessarily make a wise choice if you have the opportunity to choose in advance of need.

....DO YOU JUST CHOOSE TO POST AND THINK YOU ARE ALL THAT?...

This makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

...I dont want a newbie to think he is unarmed if all he has is a 22...

And you continue to confuse having to make do in an emergency with what's at hand with being able to choose and prepare in advance of need. The points for the novice are (1) in an emergency one will have to make do with what you have at hand, even if it wouldn't be the best choice; and (2) a .22 is a poor choice if one can prepare and can handle effectively something bigger than a .22.

...Now go on and post I dont know this and Idont know that crap....

What you may know or not know is apparent from your posts and the various responses to your posts.

...Next you will be telling me I need hps instead of fmj....

Again, it's a question of making a choice. If one has a choice, JHPs are a better choice for self defense applications. That's what pretty much every law enforcement agency uses.

...using my little .22 revolver and some bad guy stealing my stuff...

In most States, if you use lethal force to stop someone from merely stealing, there's an excellent chance that you will be going to jail.

...I'm going to use my head & all available cover, and put as many of the 9 available rounds in dude's face....

Are you really good enough to be able to do that reliably under the stress of a violent encounter?

...I feel I could probably be somewhat less judicious with the 17 rounds in my 9mm, however...

Bad thinking.

[1] Shot placement is of course vital with small calibers like the .22. But shot placement remains important if you hope to effectively and quickly stop an attacker even when you're using a more powerful gun.

[2] Spraying the countryside with 9mm bullets, and putting innocents in jeopardy, is irresponsible and a very bad idea.

speedfreeq, it looks like you would benefit from some good, professional training.