Which Ruger IV For Home Defense?

[Glorfindel]

Stinky Pete:

"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."

That's what the article I referenced suggests. So - anything that can shoot bullets is as good as the next thing. That's what the data says.

As for "[my home] won't be invaded" - what if I told you that Antifa threatened the town I live in last week? Yup.

I liked your reply. Also, no offense, but you stink.

 

[zoo]

Don't misinterpret what I was trying to say, Glorfi. A Ruger 22/45 target model or any other .22 firearm would not be my choice of self-defense weapon! Better than harsh talk or rocks though certainly.

 

[Glorfindel]

My takeaways from this awesome thread so far:

- Rimfire ammo is unreliable. I've shot thousands of rounds, yet did forget this! I've probably had one bad round out of a hundred or less, but that could be something that matters at the worst time.

- Revolver over auto: I plan to have a S&W .22 revolver also. The problem is you can't reload them quickly, even with speed loaders.

With recent developments, my fear scenarios have shifted from a small number of home-invader assailants to a mob attacking our rural home. It seems crazy, yet, with the state of the world now, it's bound to start happening. The town we live in has already been threatened by Antifa for "protests."

We have five children and any "protestor" who breaks into my home I will kill immediately.

A factor is .22LR ammo is so cheap and I already have a huge stock. Maybe I should get a couple of real AR15s, bricks of .223, and learn Kyle Skilz.

 

[TunnelRat]

I think there’s a difference between a protest gone bad or a home invasion and you holding out in a siege type scenario. If the latter is your concern, and I’m trying to judge that based on your ammunition comment, then there’s not much I can say to alleviate that other than to echo some other thoughts that maybe hardening your location is a better alternative and likely to pay more dividends than stacking boxes of ammo. I’d add that boxes of ammo not in magazines aren’t likely to be of much use in a siege, from my perspective. I would agree that the current cost of .223 or 5.56 makes getting something in that caliber less appealing than in the past, but if this is an honest and serious concern of yours then at some level you have to decide if it’s worth an investment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Regarding the bigshot who "declines to answer my question" because I didn't show enough respect - have a nice day.

Since I am the only one in this discussion who said they decline to answer your question, you must be referring to me. I am not a "bigshot," and I didn't decline to answer your question because you didn't show enough respect. I wrote:

I will decline to answer your question, for this reason: I don't like it when someone asks a very specific question, and gazillions of people immediately chime in with everything except an answer to the question that was asked. Since you have asked for advice on the basis of what I perceive to be an erroneous assumption, I cannot in good faith or conscience contribute to your error.

This has nothing to do with lack of respect on your part. Over the years, it has been a huge source of annoyance to me that I can go on a forum -- somewhere, anywhere, on any topic -- ask a very clear and concise question (e.g. "If these are my parameters, is A or B a better choice?"), and 9 out of 10 responses will be 'C' or 'D' or 'X' or 'Y' or 'Z.' I hate that. Those people are probably trying to be helpful -- but they are NOT being helpful, because I had already considered and eliminated from consideration options 'C' through 'Z.' I asked for help deciding between 'A' and 'B.'

Your post was that type of post. You were specific -- Ruger III -- which model is best for home defense?

I don't consider any .22 to be a good choice for home defense. Therefore, rather than suggest that you purchase something in .380 ACP or .38 Social or 9mm (which you had taken off the table for discussion) -- I declined to answer. I declined because I can't give you a good answer to the question you asked, and I didn't want to answer a question you didn't ask.

Claro?

 

[TunnelRat]

I’d add that I read through the linked study. I think saying that it “proves that 22LR is as effective as anything for self defense” is a bit of a reach, one that not even the author makes in his conclusions (the author talks about choosing between a 9mm and a 45ACP at the end). To me the takeaway from the article is that not as much of a deal about caliber should perhaps be made as people tend to and even “lesser” cartridges can deliver fatal wounds. The focus really seems more among the "common defensive calibers (.38, 9mm, .40, and .45)", per the author. In fact the author makes the following specific caveats:

Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentages of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. 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.

What I believe that my numbers show is that in the majority of shootings, the person shot merely gives up without being truly incapacitated by the bullet. In such an event, almost any bullet will perform admirably. If you want to be prepared to deal with someone who won't give up so easily, or you want to be able to have good performance even after shooting through an intermediate barrier, I would skip carrying the "mouse gun" .22s, .25s and .32s.

There are a lot of people that use firearms professionally. I’m moderately confident that not very many of them would argue a 22LR is as effective as a 9mm out of a handgun. That’s not to say a 22LR can’t kill, but I think saying "as effective as anything" is a big claim. I would also add that if this were “proven” true then my guess is other people would have noticed this fact from the sheer number of people that do use firearms as part of their work and the focus on other cartridges as compared to 22LR that we see today in terms of self defense wouldn’t be what it is.

Lastly I’d add that banking solely on headshots isn’t something even people who do shoot “for a living” typically do. That is in no way saying that those people can’t and don’t make headshots and that many fights have been ended by such a shot. But there is a reason shooting for the upper thoracic cavity is often the first target. The head is a smaller target and unlike at a range people tend to move and people under adrenaline often miss shots they might otherwise laugh at. My own experience with scenario based training using UTM taught me that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Glorfindel]

"Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentages of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. 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."

I think he didn't recommend using .22s, despite the data, because he's speaking to a general audience, not marksmen, and because he knows he'd be roasted if he did.

The thing is you don't have one shot with .22s. You have 3 or 5 compared to the one you get from a hard-kicking centerfire.

I know this from my own shooting. I have .38s, and .380, a .44 mag, and a borrowed .22 Ruger bull barrel (old).

I can put several rounds on a head silhouette with the .22 but not with ANY of the others. Why? No recoil.

I neglected to mention this in my OP: NO ROUND WILL RELIABLY STOP A MOTIVATED INTRUDER WITH BODY SHOTS. Nothing will! I recently read an account of a bad guy who was shot THROUGH THE HEART with a +P .38 and kept fighting for nearly a minute. And I watched a suicide-by-cop take four 9mm HPs to the body, go down, then come up and attack the cop.

Only a nervous system hit can virtually guarantee a man down, and with such hits power is far less relevant than *the ability to hit.*

A target-style .22 pistol lets you shoot multiple rounds at that small target very quickly. This is due to the near total lack of recoil. Lack of power *is an advantage.*

Such a tactic is something for a marksman, not for a housewife with shaking hands, admittedly.

My one takeaway from this thread is that I'd admittedly forgotten that rimfire ammo has a higher failure rate, even if it's still low overall.

The solution to that is the backup gun: Everyone needs one, no matter the primary. It should be the type of gun that never fails and works in close quarters: A revolver.

 

[SHR970]

Glorfindel wrote: "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."

Then why ask us? You already have them and are already makiing up your mind. You have little to no idea what the 22 LR does in real life vs. live targets so platform is not relevant to the conversation. You seem to believe that the 22LR is superior to a 38 or 357 which you have already stated that you have in your battery. You read one article that you believe makes your case but many of us know is deficient based on real life experirnce.

Feel free to bet the lives of all in your household on your feeweengs and the poor advice of one article. It's known as confirmation bias. Anyone here who has disptached or culled small game knows better. You have been ponted to the water but refuse to drink.

Good Bye.

 

[TunnelRat]

I think he didn't recommend using .22s, despite the data, because he's speaking to a general audience, not marksmen, and because he knows he'd be roasted if he did.

I really don't think that's the case. I've done 29 courses at this point from different instructors with backgrounds in law enforcement and military. Many of these people are excellent marksmen and the courses themselves aren't what I would call "general audience" in that they are intermediate or advanced. I've never had an instructor suggest we switch to carry 22LR primarily. I'd add that many law enforcement and military units, even SWAT and special forces, still use centerfire cartridges over 22LR generally. If the argument is that those with experience do it or know this as opposed to the general masses, I don't see evidence of that playing out.

I can put several rounds on a head silhouette with the .22 but not with ANY of the others. Why? No recoil.

No offense, but that's a function of practice.

NO ROUND WILL RELIABLY STOP A MOTIVATED INTRUDER WITH BODY SHOTS.

Only a nervous system hit can virtually guarantee a man down

You can have a body shot that hits the spinal cord. In addition, hitting the aorta or other major vessels will cause rapid desanguination and can be fairly quick in terms of incapacitation. As quickly as a CNS shot? No, but law enforcement and military still generally go for the upper thoracic cavity first before going to the head unless we're talking known body armor or the body is behind cover. Maximizing your chances of making a hit is still a thing. You are certainly right that there are plenty of places in the human body that won't result in instant incapacitation. To that point people have survived shots to the head that didn't penetrate, even from centerfire cartridges.

target-style .22 pistol lets you shoot multiple rounds at that small target very quickly. This is due to the near total lack of recoil. Lack of power *is an advantage.*

Such a tactic is something for a marksman, not for a housewife with shaking hands, admittedly.

Being an excellent marksman is certainly an advantage. Being able to do that while dealing with adrenaline and shooting at a moving target is another feat in itself.

It should be the type of gun that never fails and works in close quarters: A revolver.

I think there are a number of answers to that, though I don't personally see any issue if you want to use a revolver.

 

[Jim Watson]

Reliability addendum.

Club USPSA director announced a rimfire division in light of Covid/Floyd ammo shortages.
So I cleaned and generously lubed the Colt ACE and Nelson Conversion so as to stay on the 1911 platform even though small and large Smiths are more reliable.
I loaded the ACE with MiniMags and the Nelson with CCI SV to suit their actions.

The ACE went 72 rounds straight and will be my match gun Sunday.
The Nelson short recoiled the first three rounds, then went 78 straight.

Contrary to a post above, it is possible to get these heavy .22s TOO clean and the case bind to the chamber and drag on extraction.
I follow an old target shooter's recommendation of a drop of oil on the top round of at least the first magazine. It usually works but did not this time on the Nelson. HV ammo might have overcome the drag but I didn't want to hammer the Nelson with it.

If I were to keep a .22 for defense, I would clean it and then shoot a couple of magazines to "condition" the barrel. That Smith Compact does not get cleaned as often as the big guns ant it seems to thrive on a bit of soot.

Revolvers. My K22 is at least as dependent on good ammo as the autos. Chambers are snug and cartridges must be individually thumb seated for good ignition. And, contrary to the autos, its chambers must be brushed regularly. The Charter seems a bit more forgiving.

 

[kenny53]

Gorfildel
I have a MK II with 5 ten round magazines. On my nightstand every night is a M&P 45 with 17 rounds of 185 gr +p hollow points. But if I was to use my MK II I
would fill it with CCI Stingers. I don't think it matters what Ruger MK you use, they are going to work, just use the best ammo you can.

 

[Mal H]

"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?

As you can see, there is a quote feature. Click on the bottom right icon (looks like a quill and a sheet of paper). That will take you to the Quick Reply box at the bottom. There you need to check off the Option "Quote message in reply?". The quote will not be shown (a bug in my opinion), but it will be in the post you submit after pressing the "Post Quick Reply" button.

[I will delete this post after you acknowledge seeing it since it is off topic for this thread.]

 

[stinkeypete]

what if I told you that Antifa threatened the town I live in last week?

I would like to see the press release on that assertion because it seems extraordinary to me.

 

[Spats McGee]

....My wife likes light recoil, and I have a wrist injury that makes shooting my Ruger LCR and .357 Mag painful.....

Have you tried one of the .38 reduced recoil loads? Something like this: https://www.federalpremium.com/hand...fense-hydra-shok-low-recoil/11-PD38HS3+H.html

 

[GarandTd]

I have a mkIII 22-45 target that I am very fond of. It is quite accurate, but does experience failures occasionally. I have a 2moa red dot mounted on the included rail. The tactical versions may suit your purposes better.

Some ammo is better than others, but even the best has failures.

Another post mentioned the S&W M&P22c. I also have this pistol. It is accurate enough for defensive use and, while not failure free, is pretty reliable.

I personally wouldn't choose 22lr for self defense, but to each, their own. Good luck.

 

[wild cat mccane]

As a professional in data, I take issue with someone saying they've "studied the data." Ie, there isn't real data. It's all anecdotal information.

All Ruger IV are the same. That's the answer to the "which" of the question. All are functionally the same with different barrels that matter not at all.

 

[zoo]

This has probably been said a billion times before on gun forums. If I really did have to use a .22 for self defense, I'd prefer a ten round revolver over a ten round semi auto.

I guess I would simply have to suck it up and take a dump in my pants should I then have to reload.

 

[Mike38]

I would not focus on head shots at all. Center of mass only. There aren't too many people that will continue an attack after they are the recipients of 10 rounds of .22 LR in about 5 seconds.

 

[rodfac]

An exhaustive study proved the .22LR as effective as anything for defense in terms of the critical metric of # of shots to disable an intruder.

We differ on that point of view...as WCMcCane pointed out, there is no "data" in the supplied link, just anecdotal snippets.

Were I you, I'd follow the example of 100,000+ LEO professionals in this country who daily depend on a more appropriate caliber choice. Relying on "head shots" while under stress defending your home and family is fantasy. Best regards, Rod

 

[ghbucky]

I'm going to just weigh in that .22LR ammo is the last thing I would ever want to depend on to defend my family with.

The only .22LR I own is a S&W K frame six shooter. And I don't shoot it often because it is a PITA to load after about 3 cylinders (the gunk from .22 makes the cylinders so tight its hard to force the rounds in).

I've had good reliability in general when I've shot with it, but one box of Remington misfired probably one out of three rounds. Remington ended up replacing it. But you'll never know if the rounds you've loaded will fire until you fire them.

And I would most definitely go with a revolver for exactly that reason. Auto loader .22s are nightmares when they mis-feed. Under stress... no thank you sir!

If I was determined to use .22 for home defense, I think I'd go with multiple, accessible revolvers. Forget reloading.. throw the empty at them and grab the next one.

[edit] Here's another caliber option that would actually be a much better HD gun: an AR .223. You are still working with a .22 round with very little recoil, but you have much more reliable ammo and feeding options with 30 round mags (assuming they are legal for you)