-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Is the .22LR enough bullet?
- Thread starter Captain Nemo
- Start date
It was once said; and debated, that death...
...could be caused with a "toothpick". That being said, I would take a .22 over a toothpick, and believe a .22 to be a good choice for a starter. This caliber pistol will impress a BG without intimidating it's shooter with recoil.
As with anything, you get what you pay for. This is true with the reliability of the pistol, and the ammo. I own a Ruger MK II that was built in 1982. With proper care this pistol will fire 250 - 300 rounds in a hour before a stove pipe. The magazine must be released to clear the stovepipe and the release is at the base of the grip which is awkward. Once released, pull the slide back to clear the spent shell, it will drop out. I had a Torus PT .22 and it was junk. I don't know about the other Rugar models as I'm fine with the one I have. boar out.
...could be caused with a "toothpick". That being said, I would take a .22 over a toothpick, and believe a .22 to be a good choice for a starter. This caliber pistol will impress a BG without intimidating it's shooter with recoil.
As with anything, you get what you pay for. This is true with the reliability of the pistol, and the ammo. I own a Ruger MK II that was built in 1982. With proper care this pistol will fire 250 - 300 rounds in a hour before a stove pipe. The magazine must be released to clear the stovepipe and the release is at the base of the grip which is awkward. Once released, pull the slide back to clear the spent shell, it will drop out. I had a Torus PT .22 and it was junk. I don't know about the other Rugar models as I'm fine with the one I have. boar out.
Outdoorsman1
Regular Member
Personal choice...
I would not carry a 22LR for self defense.
ETA: ... Unless had absoulutley no other choice...
Outdoorsman1
I would not carry a 22LR for self defense.
ETA: ... Unless had absoulutley no other choice...
Outdoorsman1
Last edited:
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
A .22Long Rifle is plenty good for self defense.... in the proper setting. Or, if you care about your neighbors, this one.
Last edited:
Pat Gardner
Regular Member
I was born with cerebral palsy on my right side, I'm 44 yrs old. i don't have the use of my right arm and i'm on a fixed income. i got a .22 cal revolver 9 shot when i was 13, which i will be ocing when mother nature decides it's spring instead of winter.. meaning it's cold here in idaho still. If i ever have to use my .22 cal revolver, which i hope i never have to, i'm sure i could slow down or even stop a bg if need be. plus a .22 cal is all i can afford.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
boar is right, but what he says is true of any caliber handgun, quality comes at a price. I have a Ruger scope mounted slab side. I have fired probably 4000 rounds through it. I do clean it after each shooting session but I have never had a jam, stovepipe or misfire with it. I also have an Iver Johnson trailsman that has been 100% reliable. I have a new style Whitney Wolverine that is junk, I have a 1963 model Whitney Wolverine that is excellent. I have a Bersa T23 that is OK with the right ammo. My go to .22's are a pair of High Standard sentinel revolvers(that is when and if my ordered Ruger LCR22) ever arrives. I have never had a stovepipe with either of them. No jams either. But as Boar implies, do your research and buy the best gun you can afford. A cheap gun is better than no gun even if you have to use it as a club.
As for the .22 as a self defense weapon. A smaller person that can shoot a .22 caliber handgun very well is a bigger threat to the bg than if he is shoolting a larger handgun with his eyes closed and teeth gritted, in spite of what the "experts" say.
Any bullet that can completely penetrate 4 inches of beef roast wrapped in 8 layers of denim at 300 yards is no "pip-squeak" in my estimation.
As for the .22 as a self defense weapon. A smaller person that can shoot a .22 caliber handgun very well is a bigger threat to the bg than if he is shoolting a larger handgun with his eyes closed and teeth gritted, in spite of what the "experts" say.
Any bullet that can completely penetrate 4 inches of beef roast wrapped in 8 layers of denim at 300 yards is no "pip-squeak" in my estimation.
Teej
Regular Member
Lurchiron
Regular Member
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
In general there are 6 types of people who will carry a .22 as their primary weapon for anti-personnel reasons:
1) Someone who only has a .22
2) Someone who can't handle anything more powerful than a .22
3) Someone who is extremely skilled and has the ability and confidence to always place the round where it will be effective.
4) Professionals involved in assassination, "wet work" or contract killings and who want a small, easily concealed and relatively quiet gun.
5) Those who would prefer something more powerful but have a need to carry a very small gun in deep concealment (trading firepower for concealment.)
6) Those who carry one simply because they can. This is, of course the worse reason for carrying a .22
Probably the majority of .22 carriers fall under #1 and #2. #'s 3,4, & 5 would be rare individuals. There are probably more #6 people than I care to think about. I realize some will say they carry a .22 because it is small and lightweight (and some of them are) but there are more powerful guns nowadays that are comparably small and light-- rendering the "small and light .22" argument difficult to justify.
1) Someone who only has a .22
2) Someone who can't handle anything more powerful than a .22
3) Someone who is extremely skilled and has the ability and confidence to always place the round where it will be effective.
4) Professionals involved in assassination, "wet work" or contract killings and who want a small, easily concealed and relatively quiet gun.
5) Those who would prefer something more powerful but have a need to carry a very small gun in deep concealment (trading firepower for concealment.)
6) Those who carry one simply because they can. This is, of course the worse reason for carrying a .22
Probably the majority of .22 carriers fall under #1 and #2. #'s 3,4, & 5 would be rare individuals. There are probably more #6 people than I care to think about. I realize some will say they carry a .22 because it is small and lightweight (and some of them are) but there are more powerful guns nowadays that are comparably small and light-- rendering the "small and light .22" argument difficult to justify.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Shotgun:
Sounds like 1 through 5 are positive reasons to carry a .22.
#6 is the worst reason for carrying any caliber firearm.
Heard a saying many years ago. "If you don't have water available and the only way you can put out the fire is to pee on it, then do it".
Sounds like 1 through 5 are positive reasons to carry a .22.
#6 is the worst reason for carrying any caliber firearm.
Heard a saying many years ago. "If you don't have water available and the only way you can put out the fire is to pee on it, then do it".
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Unless it is an electrical fire.
Jake8x7
Activist Member
I think the heart of the issue isn't whether or not .22 in any form is lethal...does it disable a criminal quickly enough? The smallest round I'd ever consider efficient enough for disabling is .380...and even then I'd be cringing my teeth. The fact of the matter is that 6 shots in the chest with .22 won't stop a BG nearly as often/quickly as 4-5 .38spl/9mm rounds placed in the same general area. I don't give a flying f**k whether or not I cause a BG fatal liver failure due to a tiny ass bullet if he's still ontop of my girlfriend with a knife...I care about him bleeding out to unconsciousness, oxygen lung obstruction, mobility obstruction due to muscle/joint damage, mobility obstruction due to possible spine/nerve damage, and the degree in which the load actually "blows an attacker back" (if at all).
The .22 in any form (please don't argue endlessly about .22 magnum) simply does not perform these tasks as quickly and effectively for the average American defense shooter. A .22 may always beat a baseball bat, but chances are it won't beat the criminal who AT LEAST has a .22 (probably a .25/.380/9mm, let alone 9mm+).
I personally dismiss these tiny mouse guns. The only people who benefit from carrying such a small caliber weapon are assassins and brandish-primary users. If you just want to wave it at the gangsters with the brass knuckles, then go to walmart and buy an air soft gun for 1/3 the price. Chances are it'll be more visible and you'll be able to replace it for less when the [insert any dense object here] wielding gang bangers high on cocaine/Oxycontin crack both your gun and your skull in half on the sidewalk.
If you're going to carry, make it AT LEAST.380 in some sort of HP load. Small quick rounds that over penetrate only lead to conscious drugged up BG's still standing and injured bystanders in walmart... both of which make the 2nd Amendment community look mighty silly.
TL;DR Get a single stack 9mm (or bigger) and be done with it
Jake8x7
The .22 in any form (please don't argue endlessly about .22 magnum) simply does not perform these tasks as quickly and effectively for the average American defense shooter. A .22 may always beat a baseball bat, but chances are it won't beat the criminal who AT LEAST has a .22 (probably a .25/.380/9mm, let alone 9mm+).
I personally dismiss these tiny mouse guns. The only people who benefit from carrying such a small caliber weapon are assassins and brandish-primary users. If you just want to wave it at the gangsters with the brass knuckles, then go to walmart and buy an air soft gun for 1/3 the price. Chances are it'll be more visible and you'll be able to replace it for less when the [insert any dense object here] wielding gang bangers high on cocaine/Oxycontin crack both your gun and your skull in half on the sidewalk.
If you're going to carry, make it AT LEAST.380 in some sort of HP load. Small quick rounds that over penetrate only lead to conscious drugged up BG's still standing and injured bystanders in walmart... both of which make the 2nd Amendment community look mighty silly.
TL;DR Get a single stack 9mm (or bigger) and be done with it
Jake8x7
Last edited:
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
My 70-ish exMiL carried a Beretta Bobcat in .22LR and knew that it was a belly-gun.
8x7 might be Jake's preferred round and 8 mm is large caliber but 8x7 is still underpowered.
Michigander
Regular Member
Assuming freakishly good shot placement, a higher velocity cartridge, and a barrel long enough to allow enough combustion to get that little bullet going fast enough to penetrate the skull reliably, then yes, it is enough. Anything less than all of that, and no, the 22 is not enough.
Yes any 22 may work through putting an attacker in fear, but if you're referring to a worst case scenario where you have seconds to kill or be killed, low velocity rounds and/or short barrels should be avoided at all costs with 22s.
The shorties may score a kill shot, but it won't help if a felon kills you then expires at the hospital the next day. This sort of outcome is much more possible with the baby Brownings and similar sized pocket 22 and 25 handguns. The velocity just isn't as there for going through bones AND vital organs, statistically speaking.
If you want a tiny baby browning sized package which is more capable than that, you either need more powder, such as with the 25 NAA, or need more lead and more powder, such as with the 32 or 380. And the same rules apply for these small rounds as with the big 22s, as in hit what your aiming at or expect failure.
Yes any 22 may work through putting an attacker in fear, but if you're referring to a worst case scenario where you have seconds to kill or be killed, low velocity rounds and/or short barrels should be avoided at all costs with 22s.
The shorties may score a kill shot, but it won't help if a felon kills you then expires at the hospital the next day. This sort of outcome is much more possible with the baby Brownings and similar sized pocket 22 and 25 handguns. The velocity just isn't as there for going through bones AND vital organs, statistically speaking.
If you want a tiny baby browning sized package which is more capable than that, you either need more powder, such as with the 25 NAA, or need more lead and more powder, such as with the 32 or 380. And the same rules apply for these small rounds as with the big 22s, as in hit what your aiming at or expect failure.
Last edited:
09jisaac
Regular Member
It seems that you didn't add any evidence to support this. Jake said it didn't matter if you KILLED the assailant if they still have the ability to continue the attack. The guy in your quote easily could have killed the woman if he had any weapon at all.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Seriously?
WTF.
The guy in my quote could have easily been a Space T-Rex piloting a giant meteor made of gold and armed with ICBMs raining terror down from the heavens too.
Fact is he wasn't. He is dead. Killed by a .22 which stopped the attack. She is alive. Saved by her .22.
End of story.
Let the caliber queens pontificate! I can do this all day.
Last edited:
09jisaac
Regular Member
I am talking in facts that YOU brought up so I am somehow stupid or crazy? If he would have been determined he easily could have killed/hurt the home owner, he had enough time and life left in him to do that. I am not saying that a .22 isn't enough to kill someone, it has proven time and again to be adequate. BUT what good is it going to do to kill someone who is trying to take your life if it happens AFTER they do. How about you google how many times people have been shot by a .22 and lived at least long enough to accomplish any deeds? You'll find a lot.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
And if Unicorns roamed the world we could live in peace and harmony. By drinking their magical blood.
You can play the shoulda, coulda, woulda all you want. It won't change the fact that people protect themselves with .22s. People die from .22s. It's funny elderly ladies have no trouble defending themselves with .22s but the sheepdogs can't.
09jisaac
Regular Member
Can you not have a grown up debate? If you are over the age of 12, please act like it. Do you understand how to debate? You make a response, I acknowledge it and make a rebuttal. Then you are suppose to make a logical response to either support your initial stance, to reduce or disprove mine or make a new stance in the light of things brought to your attention after your initial statement.
This childish game reflects poorly on you.
I never said that people don't protect themselves with a .22, I never said that .22 isn't capable of producing death. I merely asserted that many times the .22 does not immediately incapacitate the person and in that time the threat remains.
Last edited: