yet again, another discussion on best gun to carry?
No gun is better than the other, if all variables are the same, and you miss cause your a poor aim. All manufacturers have good and bad apples in every batch they make. Find one that fits you and your life style. Practice makes perfect.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
When I shoot .22, I go for Federal, or ...can't remember the other name...I stay away from Remington Gold.
I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...
I shot shot close to 100000 rounds of 22rf from dozens of differant pistols and rifles
malfuntions are common with 22rf ammo.
Misfires are not uncommon due to poor primeing in the case. I seen hundreds of 22 ammo misfires on frist fireing pin strike only to turn the case and have it fire on the 2nd strike. I also had them not fire at all. I brought one batch of 22 cheap Aquila brand a couple thousand that I had over 50% nonfireing rounds so much for saving money.
Other malfuntions are common also, I most likely have ten 22rfs in the house right now, ammo cause failures happen in them all.
If I was going to carry a 22 cal round it would be the FN 5.7 a center fire round because it is a center fire.
Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics firstname.lastname@example.org
Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do
One cannot argue strongly against the premise that the relative lack of recoil between the venerable .22LR round (compared to the larger centerfire calibers) will keep you on-target for second and subsequent shots will little to no recovery time. However, the need for multiple strikes on an armed aggressor is reduced with each increase in caliber. When I was stationed in Anchorage Alaska, there was a moose killed some distance behind the Base Hospital with a .22LR... it was reported that the moose had been shot over 300 times (probably by a group of kids). This should have been a well-placed, one-shot kill with any appropriate large game caliber - .284Win or greater. During my life (up to this point, anyway) I have read of numerous instances where aggressors - after being shot multiple times with .32 and .38 caliber handguns - still killed the defender. Ineffective calibers... or poor marksmanship? Who knows.
Yes, the .22LR is the choice of most covert intelligence agencies and their agents who are involved in "wet-work" - Mossad, CIA and MI-5 (Russia's FSB seems to prefer the 9x18 Mak). However, the .22LR is not chosen for it's stopping power, but rather for it's virtually non-existent report when suppressed, and it's accuracy in the hands of an extremely well-trained operative. The slide of a suppressed .22LR, moving forward into battery, is as noisy as the report when fired.
There is also little discussion regarding the fact that superior marksmanship is the key to satisfactory performance of any caliber handgun. Within it's effective range, and in the hands of an expert, a .22LR can be more deadly than a .45acp in the hands of the average citizen. My assumption here is that the "average citizen" is - unlike those of us in this forum - relatively unfamiliar with handguns, and practice (if indulged in at all) is undertaken infrequently. A miss with a .45 is somewhat less effective than a hit with a .22.
There is no doubt that a shotgun - especially a 12 gauge - is the best choice for close range self-defense. But, a shotgun of any gauge is a bit unwieldy to lug around all day, and is highly conspicuous. The .380 (aka: 9mm Kurz/9mm Short) - even with today's significantly improved ammunition - would be at the bottom of my personal list for self-defense. I can, and do, shoot the .45acp accurately at S/D distances, but my personal preference is for the 9x19mm +P Luger round. And, IMHO, that's the bottom line... the "best gun for S/D" is whatever caliber handgun you are comfortable carrying and shooting. Pax...
One of the issues that is not mentioned is the mere logistics of the attacks and how that affected the outcomes. I'm not arguing for any caliber. I personally believe the best caliber is the one you carry and are proficient at. .17 caliber or .500 S&W, doesn't matter to me. If you have it carry it.
What I mean in particular to logistics is this. The term incapacitate includes but is not limited to the attacker actually BEING incapacitated. The report includes all cases where the attacker simply stopped the attack after a single shot. One does not have to be "knocked down" to stop. To clarify, if a person attacks my wife and she shoots once, into the air, and the guy stops and runs away, that still counts according to his definition. More often it probably meant actually putting the attacker down, but the fact still remains that the attacker did not have to be shot to stop.
Now consider this logic. More often, whether due to "machoism" or what ever, men are less likely to carry a .22 in self defense. Not blank statement, just less likely. AND the corollary being that women are more likely to carry smaller calibers in defense. In general, women are attacked more due to a perceived lack of resistance than anything. Not saying women are attacked more than men, though that may be the case. Saying that when an attacker singles out a woman over a man, it is likely due to the perception that they are more vulnerable. That mindset of criminal is not expecting a firearm to be in the equation and is likely not a "motivated" attacker. Again, not across the board, just in terms of probabilities. Which means you are set up for a more than likely scenario where a woman who is perceived to be no threat is attacked by an individual who is not prepared to deal with weapons. At the first shot, the attacker is spooked and bugs out. Hence, he falls into the "incapacitated" category on that study.
That would easily explain the huge disparity between the numbers of how many attackers were never stopped. For the .22 the failure to stop percentage was 30%. For the 9mm the failure percent was 13%.
My point is this. A .22 is more likely to stop an unmotivated attacker. But then anything will stop an unmotivated attacker. However, a .22 is not likely to stop a motivated attacker. Where the larger calibers are.
It's difficult to draw the conclusion then that .22 is "better" than a .45. It's actually a lot easier to draw the conclusion that ANYTHING is better than nothing.
FORGOT: Look at the % of hits that were fatal values and you will see that generally all of the handgun calibers are in the 25% to 35% range across the board. Which means that they are essentially the same. Seems to me again, if you have it carry it and for heaven's sake practice practice practice.
Last edited by mobiushky; 09-12-2012 at 02:20 PM.
I originally carried a Sterling 380 for a backup, kinda tells how old I am. I carried it in a ankle holster, until in fight with a suspect it came out and was laying on the ground. Fortunately I had him in cuffs when we both noticed it. I replaced the 380 with a sterling 22 in my handcuff case for the backup. I never had to use the backup so I cannot say if it was effective on a person. But I had used a .22 to drop cows in a stall when they were trying to fight and it being unsafe to use the stun device. All the cows were one shot stops.
No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.
Last edited by Lasjayhawk; 09-14-2012 at 12:28 AM.
I agree. It's been said for a long time, "You simply cannot miss fast enough."
It appears to be a bit of a spoof video folks, we shouldn't lend much weight to it.
Example: 2:20 in - When an attacker is hit with any round, blood starts squirting out of them, they'll feel tremendous pain and will normally surrender.
Many police officers will tell you that this isn't the reality.
If you read the parameters of the study you'll quickly find some important flaws that lead to skewed data and biases. One of the important biases that occurs with such a study is where those cases were taken from and whether or not an equal amount of cases could be identified for proper comparisons for results like incapacitation based upon caliber. For example: If you have 213 cases in the 22lr category and 1121 in the 9mm category it's already skewed data, compound that with the fact that LE does not carry 22lr and you have even more skewed data. I'm going to applaud this person for conducting his own study on the matter regardless of the biased results. A larger Nation-wide case study of this nature might be in order. As with any research, even if it isn't accurate, it's biased, skewed, or flawed in any way it still points the way to new directions to explore.
Last edited by REALteach4u; 09-18-2012 at 10:28 AM.
In the LEO confrontation, the attacker is almost guaranteed to be motivated. If the attacker doesn't get away or render the LEO incapacitated, they are going to jail. An unmotivated attacker is not going to take on a LEO just for kicks. At that point the situation has likely escalated to the point that the attacker has no alternative by to fight. IE, once you attack a LEO, you better beat 'em. Recall the story a few years back of the guy who was stopped in a funeral procession and proceeded to attack the cop? He took 5 shots (1 - .40S&W, 4-.45ACP) and kept beating the cop. It was a final 6th shot to the temple that put him down. That was a motivated attacker.
In the citizen case, the attacker has much more incentive to get away (flight) if they are faced with resistance than to try to stay and fight it out. So in the case of a citizen, you are more likely to meet an unmotivated attacker. Someone who is just looking to score a buck or something with as little risk as possible. How many muggings/purse snatchings would be thwarted by the presence of an armed "victim" who brought a gun to a knife fight?
Granted that is not an absolute blanket scenario. Having a tweaker break into your house means you're probably going up against a motivated attacker. And in that case, not a whole lot of anything is gonna stop them. It's just a statistical chance. Most of us will never encounter an attacker. And those who do are most likely to face an unmotivated attacker. And the few who do actually face a motivated attacker are probably going to find that it take a whole lot more to stop them than you think no matter what the weapon you choose.
Last edited by mobiushky; 09-18-2012 at 02:31 PM.