Which Ruger IV For Home Defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jetinteriorguy said:
I’d use my .22 but over penetration would be a big concern, plus the loud report and huge fireball would be a detractor. Oh, by the way, mine is a .22TCM. (Bad joke, sorry)
Click to expand...
With the right model you have 17+1 rounds. So an improvement over 10+1 and likely to be more effective ammo.

Never underestimate the potential intimidation effect of a fireball in low light conditions.
 
One, don't assume you're going to get head or face shots, that's a dream. You may not be presented with those shots and even if you were, you should take into account that while under attack, it's very common for accuracy to go to crap...in a hurry. That is why you might want something that can be effective with body shots. Relying on headshots is unrealistic.

Two, the .22LR is notoriously unreliable. Sticking with high quality ammo should help, but even still, don't trust it.

What about a SP101 or GP100 using 38 Special? It's very low recoil, more than a 22, but not bad at all. The LCR is fine for carry but it's light and that will magnify recoil, the SP101 and GP100 are heavy enough that 38's are nothing.

There are great options in between LCR 357 Mag and .22LR that should be considered and not overlooked.

Sticking with the Ruger theme, Ruger has their American line of 9mm's, at 30oz with standard pressure 9mm, I can't imagine recoil would be bad at all. Look that LCR 357 is nasty, you need to try something in the middle, we're trying to help you out because personally, it think it's unwise to rely on .22LR. Practice sure but not for defense.
 
Last edited:
Exhaustive study?

With all due respect, study harder.

My MKIV is a great pistol, but probably the last thing I'd consider for defense. I'd take a 22lr revolver before a semi-auto.
 
Your money; your call !!!

Which Ruger IV For Home Defense?
Click to expand...
I respect your choice and compliment your homework as you are the one that has to buy and use it. I am a Ruger fan and I guess you could say that bad guys, don't want to be shot with nor expect to be shot with any caliber. ..... :rolleyes:

veprdude Wow. Where to start?
Click to expand...

Exactly as the current Ruger MK-IV. family, is very broad. Just a few points to consider; All have tapped and drilled receivers for mounting a scope base, that may even be provided. If you compare the 22/45's to the standard, you may find them "less desirable".

Good luck and;
Be Safe !!!
 
Welcome to tfl!

I read the linked article, I'm not questioning the math, though I do wonder about some of the parameters used, and I note that the author himself also mentions how that had an effect on the results, and, (among other things) he also states he does not recommend a .22 for self defense.

SO, what I'm wondering is,
.22LR is as effective as anything for defense in terms of the critical metric of # of shots to disable an intruder.
Click to expand...

WHY do you think that number of shots to disable an intruder is a CRITICAL metric? Or THE critical metric??? When the author of the study apparently doesn't?

If you are focusing on just that one factor, and ignoring others that have significant effects on the results, I think you are in error.
 
I'm a big proponent of use whatever caliber or gun you want. However, I personally would not choose a semi-auto in 22LR for home defense if I had other choices. Even after my open heart surgery when a 12 year old could have kicked my butt, I would not have chosen a 22LR semi-auto for SD.

Aside from the marginal stopping effectiveness, 22LR semi-autos can and will jam or misfire a heck of a lot more often than their centerfire counterpart. BTW, I don't need to hear "I have such and such 22LR and it has never malfunctioned on me". It's either bullcrap or you should go buy yourself a lottery ticket, but I digress.

If you are set on having a 22LR for SD, get it in a revolver. Get a 10-shot like the S&W 617 or Ruger GP100 in 22LR.
 
As I have said about a hundred times-
NO handgun is a magic PHYSICAL stopper, unless the central nervous system is hit.
If the CNS is hit, most any caliber will do just fine.
"Stopping" someone with bleed-out can take minutes-and minutes is a very long time if they are shooting at you.

There are other "stops" like the psychological stop- The fear of getting shot, or the fear of getting shot again. These are more likely than the physical immediate stop.

That said, IF your .22 is reliable, IF your ammunition is reliable, and IF you can shoot it well, you are good to go.

A larger caliber may be better for various reasons, but only marginally so.
 
22LR from a pistol wouldn’t be my first choice. If it’s purely for home defense, why does it have to be a pistol? A lightweight rifle or braced pistol are generally easier to shoot and will at least get you more velocity. Plus you can readily put a red dot and light on it, which isn’t always true for a 22LR pistol. Is it a function of the strength needed to hold the firearm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jim Watson said:
The metric I would look at there is the percentage of people NOT incapacitated.

The big liability of a .22 LR for defense is reliability, both feeding and ignition.
I have seen a discouraging number of failures in the rimfire divisions of Steel Challenge competition where you would expect to see quality guns and ammunition.
The only .22 I have that I would go to war with is my little S&W M&P .22 Compact. 100% with MiniMags thus far and showing signs of "break in" with other brands.
Click to expand...
Yes two central issues:
1. The .22 must be ABSOLUTELY CLEAN in and out unlike any other pistol for reliability.
2. Ammunition is key. Usually higher end hunting rounds tend to be better: Stingers etc. Every .22 favors specific cartridges, its kind of weird.

Might think about an RMR optic instead of laser. Battery lasts a very long time.

22LR from a pistol wouldn’t be my first choice. If it’s purely for home defense, why does it have to be a pistol? A lightweight rifle or braced pistol are generally easier to shoot and will at least get you more velocity. Plus you can readily put a red dot and light on it, which isn’t always true for a 22LR pistol. Is it a function of the strength needed to hold the firearm?
Click to expand...
This is a very excellent point. My .22 rifles also seem to jam a good bit less.
 
Glorfindel said:
...read this:

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

As I said, .22LR is as effective as anything for defense in terms of the critical metric of # of shots to disable an intruder....
Click to expand...

But, again based on that study, the effectiveness of the .22lr is worse than just about anything else based on the also significant metric of its failure to incapacitate.

What the data, studies, and knowledge about wound physiology show us with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

  1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.

  2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.

  3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.

  4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.

  5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

  • The goal is to stop the assailant.

  • 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.

    • There are no guarantees.

  • With regard to the issue of psychological stops see

    • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates set out in the table headed "Here are the results."

      As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):
      Greg Ellifritz said:
      ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

      In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....
      Click to expand...

      • There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.

        • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.

        • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.

        • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.

        • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.

        • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.

      • The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.

        • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.

        • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.

      • And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.

      • From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.

    • Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:
      ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.

      The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....
      Click to expand...

    • And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":

      • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):
        In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.
        Click to expand...

      • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):
        The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.
        Click to expand...

      • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):
        Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....
        Click to expand...

  • And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who 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. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:
    ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....
    Click to expand...

So while in Ellifritz' study the .22lr incapacitation rate may be roughly comparable to more powerful cartridges, its failure to incapacitate rate is higher (worse) than almost everything else.

So a .22lr might be better than nothing, but it might also be worthwhile to consider some other possibilities. If one is particularly recoil sensitive, and if one's interest is home defense, a full size handgun is a somewhat more authoritative cartridge than the .22lr might still be manageable.

Another disadvantage of the .22lr is its generally less than perfect reliability. Sometimes the priming mixture doesn't get evenly distributed around the cartridge rim, so the firing pin will strike a spot where there's no primer, resulting in a misfire. And feeding problems tend to be more common because of the challenges associated with feeding rimmed cartridges from a magazine.
 
Glorfindel wrote:@SHR: Round nose? You've never seen a .22LR HP? Really?
Click to expand...

I assume you must not have taken a critical look at the HP offerings on the market. With the exception of Remington Viper (truncated cone) and YellowJacket (truncated cone hollow point) the vast majority of all 22 LR is round nose whether it be Solid or Hollow Point. That doesn't change the fact that a less than perdendicular hit will likely result in the bullet not penetrating the skull but rather pass under the skin coming out at some other location. 22 LR is NOTORIOUS for bouncing off of bones when shot out of a hand gun.

You have said you have a 357 LCR.....I have provided you with a relevant option of ammo to deal with your ammo sensitivity. The "Exhaustive Study" you have linked to has already been torn apart in so many ways. Do what you will and buy what you want. I would rather chance CoM hits with 38 Wad Cutters over Head Shot misses with a 22LR under less than ideal and stressful circumstances.
 
Wow this is a simple question with 8 multiple choice answers.

Standard
Target
Hunter
Competition
Tactical
22/45
22/45 lite
22/45 tactical

Forget the debate. If someone asked which claw hammer is best for pounding nails you wouldn't debate that he needs a sledgehammer.

I like my Ruger Mark 4 Hunter and it lives on a diet of CCI mini mags and has never had a jam or failure to fire. Works great for defending the birdfeeder from squirrels. For indoor use I would go with the one you like with a rail below the barrel for a light or laser. Probably the 22/45 lite.

I also sat on a jury where a kid trying to rob 2 dug dealers killed both of them probably waving around the pistol (also a ruger) and would have shot the witness if he didn't run out of ammo. Capacity is the only problem I have with my ruger.

Maybe the OP's wife will later find another caliber and gun she likes down the road.
 
Since you asked about 22 LR I will mention 22 LR and only 22 LR.

I have a few Ruger MK guns and I also really like the Ruger 22/45.

Think I saw a reference to the Buckeye Association back there which reminded me of the Chardon School Shootings of about 8 years ago. The shooter, a deranged kid, stole the gun used from his grandfather's barn. A Ruger MK III .22 caliber semi-automatic handgun. With a single 10 round magazine he managed to kill 3 and permanently put one in paralysis for life. No clue what ammunition was used but never underestimate the lowly little 22 LR round.

While it would not be my first choice only because in my case I have better choices I would not rule it out. When you can't be with the one you love then love the one you're with. :) Anyway, along the lines of whet you want I like the MK-LL and the 22/45.

Ron
 
I will admit, I can place 10 holes in a grapefruit size circle from no less than 25 yards distance in sumtin less than three seconds using a Ruger .22 lr 22/45 target model with the bull barrel.

And yes, even under pressure; as in someone wants to kill me.

If only .22lr were more reliable...

Nowadays though you gotta be able to make it through body armor.
 
"The big liability of a .22 LR for defense is reliability, both feeding and ignition.
I have seen a discouraging number of failures in the rimfire divisions of Steel Challenge competition where you would expect to see quality guns and ammunition.
The only .22 I have that I would go to war with is my little S&W M&P .22 Compact. 100% with MiniMags thus far and showing signs of "break in" with other brands."

This is great info. Defect rate of rimfire ammo is something I admittedly have not really considered - though I've experienced few failures myself.

Also did not know about the S&W. Will look into that.

I love the S&W .22 AR15 rifle.
 
It doesn’t matter. Here is why: your home has not been invaded yet. It’s been years. It won’t be. Even if it is, chances are won’t be ready. Even if you are, chances are you don’t know what you are doing.

Better locks for your doors and windows is probably a much better investment. Worst case scenario- you lock yourself out of the house.

No one ever made an exciting action movie where the hero saves the day because the bad guys looked at the door and said “nah, too tough. Let’s go someplace easier.” Then again, no one had a kid get ahold of their keys and shoot another kid with them.

Guns go bang. You’ve decided to use a gun suitable for rabbit hunting. Case closed- whatever you pick now is equally suitable.

“What is the best electric drill bit attachment for scrambling eggs?”
 
Last edited:
Regarding the bigshot who "declines to answer my question" because I didn't show enough respect - have a nice day.

My first post here doesn't mean I am new to shooting.

The study I referenced is one study but incorporates a massive amount of data. Dismissing it lightly is silly.
 
"I have a 22/45 Lite and Mrs. McGee has a 22/45 Target. I love both pistols, but there's no question about which I shoot more accurately. Mrs. McGee's target model."

Exactly the advice I was looking for.

And why is there no Quote function here? :)
 
"I own three Ruger 22/45 MKIV's. The STANDARD 5.5 in , the LITE & the TACTICAL. I would pick the TACTICAL loaded with CCI HP MINI MAGS. The TACTICAL is the newest of the three and is quickly becoming my favorite. Not too light, not to heavy and extremely accurate. I shoot all three a lot, a real lot. I have never had a failure with any of the three (after break in) when loaded with HP or RN MINI MAGS. If anyone ever broke into my home and I had to defend myself with one of my MKIV's, I believe that 10 rds to the face, neck or chest would be a pretty good deterrent."

More great advice. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top