imported post
ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD:
i have SEEN, with my own two eyes, a mountain Lion treed and shot dead with a single .22 to the chest--shot form an old revolver. So- stopping power? Probably not, ability to do damage/cause death? Yes.
Except, the purpose of a defensive handgun is to stop, not to kill. The death of the target is an unfortunate side effect. There's no doubt that the .22 is lethal, in fact I've often seen it claimed that it is the deadliest round there is, in terms of deaths annually -- mostly because of its wide availability.
What the .22 won't normally do is stop an assailant quickly, unless you can get the bullet into the central nervous system. If you can reliably make head shots, even under great stress when you lose all find motor skills and even the ability to focus your eyes on your sights, then it's a good choice. If not, a more powerful round will allow you to make big enough holes in the thorax that the attacker will, hopefully, lose blood fast and black out.
9mm, .40 or .45 can all accomplish that much more effectively than a .22. Even a .380 or .38 special will make a 75% bigger diameter hole, even without any expansion.
If you do carry a .22, it's probably best to load it with ammunition that doesn't expand or fragment too much. The more it expands or breaks up, the shallower the penetration will be and the .22 doesn't have penetration to spare. I think a solid slug is probably the best choice. It'll give you no expansion at all, so the wound channel will only be 1/5th of an inch, but at least it'll penetrate deeply enough to get to the vitals. In contrast, the more powerful rounds can expand and still get deep enough, meaning they create a hole that is 3-4 times larger in total volume.
In terms of volume of damaged tissue, assuming equal shot placement, a single .40 or .45 is equal to about four .22s, and a singe 9mm about 3 .22s.
The other potential issue with the .22 is that it's a rimfire round, which is usually much less reliable than centerfire. So if you're going to carry a .22, it should probably be a revolver so that you can quickly get to the next round if you hit a dud. Unfortunately, revolvers have lower round capacity, which is bad when you need to hit your target multiple times.
IMO, a .22 is a hugely inferior self-defense weapon. It's much better than nothing, of course, especially since 95% of firearms self-defense incidents don't involve firing a shot. If you can defend yourself without shooting, then the caliber of the bullet is obviously irrelevant. So if it's all you can afford, or if you must conceal so deeply that a larger gun is infeasible, then I'd say carry a .22 revolver loaded with the hottest solid bullets you can find. .22 mag is better than .22 LR is better than .22 short, of course.
(so i decided to delete that post lol)
