Is the .22LR enough bullet?

[marshaul]

I mean no personal attack against you, but I think things are different between where we live. In Daytona beach almost every grey-area goon who works a steady food service job and most likely does other things on the side, from my personal experience, more than likely carry one of the following: an old 80s-90s .25 beretta tomcat-style gun, a steel frame .380 that's maybe 10 years old (most often I've seen this), a snub nose 5 shooter .38spl, or less often a mid size 9mm. I don't recall ever seeing a .22 carry piece out of the 15-20 guns that have surfaced when they have a gun conversation.

No I can't prove to you that this is the case where you live, but after seeing friends of friends in their mid 20s always procuring the tools listed above whenever the conversation arises, I personally feel that almost every home invader BG has a firearm that's .25+, especially in a state where people buy and sell all sorts of guns via private sale craigslist style websites/gun shows/the old fashioned illegal way. Maybe where you live they all only have knives, razors, and hammers/bats. If that's the case, then I agree with you. A .22 is "enough bullet" against a blunt/bladed instrument from a long enough range.

I can't say much about it, but a family member in law enforcement was shot at a little while ago in an apparent suicide-by-cop call to a house. Point of the story, no cops were hurt but the perp had a .40 glock.

70 years ago in London, the police only carried billy clubs. Now, they carry bullet proof vests and pepperspray/tazors/sometimes guns. .22 Isn't "enough bullet" if the other guy has a 9mm. What is adequate can change over time.

As for me, I'll stick to .38+p/9mm+

Jake8x7

You don't need a bigger gun to win in a gunfight.

In fact, the size of the gun is almost completely irrelevant to the simple fact that, in a gunfight, you really really want to shoot the BG before he shoots you.

By your logic I'm astounded that you don't carry .50 AE. Then again, since you "personally feel" that all BGs carry .25-9mm (based on what your friends carry, who I take it are BGs?), I could see it if you carried 40 S&W @ 10mm projectile diameter. But 9mm? How will you ever survive!?!

He isn't going to care that his gun's a .380 or whatever once he's got a .22 slug in his face. You also aren't going to care that you carry 9mm +P+ if the BG shoots you in the face with a .22.

And who gives a crap what goons in Daytona Beach carry? Bully for them.

I know some dudes who own a few .22s. Because of this, I personally feel that every home invader carries a .22. :banana:


I feel obliged to reiterate my previous point:

Your problem is assuming that adequacy is binary.

In reality, adequacy exists on a continuous spectrum, from worse to better.

Keep in mind, there is no finite limit to this continuum. It is infinitely fuzzy at the extremes.

It starts with unarmed, "inadequate" but used to the desired effect by many through history, and ends with, I dunno, a tactical nuke, "adequate" but unrealistic and still not offering any sort of mathematical certainty.

Somewhere in this spectrum lie the .22 and, for instance, the .40 S&W or the 9mm.

If one were to draw such a continuum, it might look like this:



Plenty of people carry 9mm. As you can clearly see it's still in the purple. Maybe they'd care to hear your valuable opinion.

 

[Xulld]

I found this video very well informed. Its 9mm vs .45, but the factors that are dealt with are applicable to any round.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA36NYLqns&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD3FD19A112C2F87F

Penetration, and shot placement are king. Overall energy and diameter are secondary(but very useful).

 

[Jake8x7]

You don't need a bigger gun to win in a gunfight.

In fact, the size of the gun is almost completely irrelevant to the simple fact that, in a gunfight, you really really want to shoot the BG before he shoots you.

By your logic I'm astounded that you don't carry .50 AE. Then again, since you "personally feel" that all BGs carry .25-9mm (based on what your friends carry, who I take it are BGs?), I could see it if you carried 40 S&W @ 10mm projectile diameter. But 9mm? How will you ever survive!?!

He isn't going to care that his gun's a .380 or whatever once he's got a .22 slug in his face. You also aren't going to care that you carry 9mm +P+ if the BG shoots you in the face with a .22.

And who gives a crap what goons in Daytona Beach carry? Bully for them.

I know some dudes who own a few .22s. Because of this, I personally feel that every home invader carries a .22. :banana:


I feel obliged to reiterate my previous point:

Sigh. Of course I completely agree with you that it's who shoots first, but that's the entire point. Almost always we use our tools as reactionary defensive tools, whereas the criminals assert their force first. So, running along with that logic, we need not only the same firepower, but MORE because our rounds aren't fired first.

As to your comment about .50 AE, yes, I would carry .50 AE...if it met the requirements I have for any 9mm/.38 I carry:

1. Reasonably concealable (FL is relatively anti-OC statute wise)
2. Reasonably lightweight
3. Reliability
4. Adequate capacity (for me that's 5+ rounds, but this is subjective)
5. Well priced firearm and ammo (if you can't afford to practice, you don't practice, thus you can't shoot for crap)
6. Load strength vs. accuracy and rate of fire

Unfortunately, .50AE only passes 1 of the 6 listed above (in my opinion)

But back to your point. Yes .22 (or any smaller round, such a .177 squirrel rounds from a pellet rifle) that's able to kill someone will be more vastly more effective than any other round if the smaller round is fired first. But if I start shooting at you with a .22 and I've hit you twice in the chest before you fire, don't you think .38/.380/9mm has much more of a chance to incap the attacker before you die?

Jake8x7

 

[Jake8x7]

I found this video very well informed. Its 9mm vs .45, but the factors that are dealt with are applicable to any round.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA36NYLqns&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD3FD19A112C2F87F

Penetration, and shot placement are king. Overall energy and diameter are secondary(but very useful).

I completely agree with this guy's video 100%. 9mm vs. 45 have marginal differences that all meet FBI standards....unlike .22 vs 9mm

Jake8x7

 

[Xulld]

I completely agree with this guy's video 100%. 9mm vs. 45 have marginal differences that all meet FBI standards....unlike .22 vs 9mm

Jake8x7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_jEfcszqcQ
Color me impressed.

I believe he also does the same test with a pistol for comparison purposes.

Edit: yup, here is that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2PSddmxGtI&feature=relmfu

^^ in this test the 22LR out performed the .380

Then there is this vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUM1r_444CY
Which takes the round out to 400 yards.


Overall I am impressed with modern ammo for the 22LR, I personally carry a 9mm when I need a deep conceal, a .45, or, .44 when in the woods, but hey I never knew .22LR could be so good.

 

[HandyHamlet]

After reading the article, you'll see how the suspect RAN AWAY after he was shot. He didn't even collapse until he was in the yard. A gangbanger on meth would have stabbed her a few times before he collapsed.
Jake8x7

Yes. And a Tyrannosaurus Rex would have eaten the WHOLE neighborhood. Gangbangers, meth, poodles and all. Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

According to the logic of a few posters in this thread, if I can find a single legitimate source accounting for an event where someone shot a grizzly bear with a .22lr and killed it, then the .22 is an adequate round for self-defense against bears.

Too bad there are multiple sources posted. Nice try with the disingenuous post though. You do know this thing is on right? People can read the linked and quoted stories posted here?

Uhh...I thought the whole point of carrying was to defend ourselves with enough force to incapacitate the most common threats?

Well, little old ladies use a .22 to defend themselves. You can't protect yourself with a .22. So who is the inadequate one? Also, please enlighten us. What exactly IS the "most common" threat?

9mm beats .22 in SD if the user of the tool is able to fire the rounds with the same (or negligible difference) rate of fire and accuracy.
Unless you're 70+ years old or disabled, there is ZERO reason why this should not be the case.
If you don't fall in either of the two exceptions listed above, and you still can't handle the 9mm round, you don't belong in the firearms community. Get some more trigger time.

Prove me wrong. Please, try to prove me wrong.

Jake8x7

Big "if" there hero. How nice of you to declare yourself supreme ruler and deity of self defense, little old ladies, old men, the handicapped, women and anyone else who can't handle a 9mm. Newsflash. Not all are as skilled a warrior as you obviously are. Not all are as physically capable as you are, killer. Hardly think that just because they are not pristine examples of humanity they forfeit their right to defend themselves though. Despite your Godly opinion.

 

[Red Dawg]

The OP asked if the 22LR is a capable bullet. Jake, that is the question. We have answered, from KNOWLEDGE, and posted vids, and studies, stating/proving that the 22 is adequate, in the right hands, and under the right circumstances. This is a "gun guy" forum. I'm willing to bet, that almost every single person that has answered that yes, the 22 LR is adequate, actually carries something bigger every day. We are letting people that don't know a whole lot about guns read, and learn about things here. In almost everything in life, size does matter. Sometimes all I can carry is a little pocket pistol becasue of where I am, and what I'm doing. It's adequate, but not optimal. Adequate is the question, not optimal. Like Marshaul said, if you wanna have the biggest gun, then 454/.50/20 gauge...You get the point. And yes, any gun can become a handgun with the right permits to change the barrel...

 

[Aknazer]

1) Any [operable] gun is better than no gun
2) Most perps flee at the simple sight of a "victim" with a weapon
3) Even more flee after getting shot/shot at
4) With proper shot placement even a .22LR can 1-shot kill someone
5) There's a multitude of reasons for why one can't carry a larger weapon (weak hands, arthritus, etc)
6) All that said I would carry something larger than a .22LR if I had the choice. But we don't always have that choice.

 

[45acpForMe]

stop the madness

 

[Jake8x7]

Yes. And a Tyrannosaurus Rex would have eaten the WHOLE neighborhood. Gangbangers, meth, poodles and all. Shoulda, coulda, woulda.



Too bad there are multiple sources posted. Nice try with the disingenuous post though. You do know this thing is on right? People can read the linked and quoted stories posted here?



Well, little old ladies use a .22 to defend themselves. You can't protect yourself with a .22. So who is the inadequate one? Also, please enlighten us. What exactly IS the "most common" threat?



Big "if" there hero. How nice of you to declare yourself supreme ruler and deity of self defense, little old ladies, old men, the handicapped, women and anyone else who can't handle a 9mm. Newsflash. Not all are as skilled a warrior as you obviously are. Not all are as physically capable as you are, killer. Hardly think that just because they are not pristine examples of humanity they forfeit their right to defend themselves though. Despite your Godly opinion.

Maybe I was a little too forward, but I think my point still stands with some virtue. How hard is it to handle a .380 or .32 or .25 to shoot at 5-10yards? By no means am I some "supreme killer", hence why I don't carry a .45 (I'm not skilled/strong enough to make having the large caliber in a small light frame worth having). But seriously, I just might make a topic as to why air soft guns are adequate for self-defense. Since making the BGs run away is seen as an "effective caliber" in this community, I don't see why it shouldn't receive decent support.

Jake8x7

 

[HandyHamlet]

Since making the BGs run away is seen as an "effective caliber" in this community,
Jake8x7

Your words. But since you bring it up. In the classes I have taken we are taught to shoot to stop the threat. If the bad guys run away isn't the threat over? I guess the difference in our opinions may be based on training, or lack there of? Mine does not require a specific body count. Only that I die of old age. Preferably while never having to draw a firearm in self protection.

Here's another real life example for you to ignore completely.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Robbery-in-Milwaukee-stopped-by-armed-citizen

So, by your, um, logic... a 9mm is not an effective caliber for self protection because in this instance the two bad guys ran away. And were not exploded into piles of meat on impact.

 

[09jisaac]

No, hamlet, by our logic the 9mm is a more effective caliber because, with ammo designed for SD, it has a higher chance of stopping threats than a .22 does if all things are equal or similar (shot placement, follow up shots, etc). This is very simple logic with no mention of dinosaurs or other childish ways to debate.

YOU were not the only one taught to use a firearm to stop the threat only. So what happens when your chosen weapon fails to stop the threat? That is not the point in time to be deciding if the .22LR was enough. Unless you have particular set of refined skills the .22LR is not the ideal caliber. Notice that "ideal" can be defined as "a standard perfection" so it is NOT dependent on other constraints. It does not matter that the .22LR is the most some can use, that does not make the .22LR an ideal caliber for SD.

 

[marshaul]

Maybe I was a little too forward, but I think my point still stands with some virtue. How hard is it to handle a .380 or .32 or .25 to shoot at 5-10yards? By no means am I some "supreme killer", hence why I don't carry a .45 (I'm not skilled/strong enough to make having the large caliber in a small light frame worth having). But seriously, I just might make a topic as to why air soft guns are adequate for self-defense. Since making the BGs run away is seen as an "effective caliber" in this community, I don't see why it shouldn't receive decent support.

Jake8x7

Tell me, why is a .25 adequate when a .22 is not? Considering, you know, that with good ammo the .22 will easily deliver more energy into the target.

If it's just those .03", tell me again why you're not carrying a .40.

And what is all this nonsense about a "small light frame"? For the life of me I can't fathom who decided those were desirable qualities in a primary defensive handgun, unless you live in Florida or Texas. Is this a concealed carry forum all of a sudden? Since you're such a size queen I'm astonished that you'd do yourself the disservice to "adequacy" of carrying a "small, light-framed" pistol.

 

[marshaul]

No, hamlet, by our logic the 9mm is a more effective caliber because, with ammo designed for SD, it has a higher chance of stopping threats than a .22 does if all things are equal or similar (shot placement, follow up shots, etc). This is very simple logic with no mention of dinosaurs or other childish ways to debate.

YOU were not the only one taught to use a firearm to stop the threat only. So what happens when your chosen weapon fails to stop the threat? That is not the point in time to be deciding if the .22LR was enough. Unless you have particular set of refined skills the .22LR is not the ideal caliber. Notice that "ideal" can be defined as "a standard perfection" so it is NOT dependent on other constraints. It does not matter that the .22LR is the most some can use, that does not make the .22LR an ideal caliber for SD.

Again with the assumption that "ideal" or "adequate" exist as binary concepts.

See my continuum above.

Seriously, if .22 isn't "ideal" or "adequate", then neither is 9mm, which has failed to stop threats even with premium defensive ammo and is not the largest or most effective caliber readily available or mastered.

Frankly I think I'd carry a PMR-30 with some of Hornady's new .22 WMR defensive ammo before I'd carry most 9mms.

 

[Levi]

A .22LR is more effective than my .50 NERF.

 

[HandyHamlet]

No, hamlet, by our logic the 9mm is a more effective caliber because, with ammo designed for SD, it has a higher chance of stopping threats than a .22 does if all things are equal or similar (shot placement, follow up shots, etc).

Prove it.

And show us all those times when "all things are equal or similar" in real life.

This is very simple logic with no mention of dinosaurs or other childish ways to debate.

Ahhh grasshopper. It is you who continually brings up the dinosaur by saying wildly childish things. And refusing to back anything up with fact.

YOU were not the only one taught to use a firearm to stop the threat only.

Yes, I'm sure most who have trained are familiar with the concept. Yet you two insist on ignoring it by claiming an effective round can only be gaged by a steaming pile of gore left at the end of an encounter. Still... insisting.

So what happens when your chosen weapon fails to stop the threat?

Wait. You don't have your crystal ball? I use mine to ensure I only engage in altercations where the multitude of uncontrollable factors are 1000% in my favor. Are you saying you don't? Pretty stupid.

That is not the point in time to be deciding if the .22LR was enough.

yawn.

Unless you have particular set of refined skills...

Like pointing and pulling a trigger.

...the .22LR is not the ideal caliber.

... FOR YOU... and in YOUR OPINION.

Notice that "ideal" can be defined as "a standard perfection" so it is NOT dependent on other constraints.

English please? If something is "idea" it can be defined as something and therefore it is dependent on some constraints. Just not other constraints?

So what is the standard of perfection that makes a caliber ideal for SD? Before you said it was a round that will kill 100% of the time every time. Now you have backtracked. Is the standard of perfection now at... Lets say 75% of the time the bad guy is dead every time?

It does not matter that the .22LR is the most some can use, that does not make the .22LR an ideal caliber for SD.

For you in your opinion. For all those still alive because of their .22s, well I guess they might think otherwise. How does one determine the ideal caliber 100% of the time every time for everyone? Still waiting for the magic answer....

 

[09jisaac]

So what is the standard of perfection that makes a caliber ideal for SD? Before you said it was a round that will kill 100% of the time every time. Now you have backtracked. Is the standard of perfection now at... Lets say 75% of the time the bad guy is dead every time?

You know that was not what I said. I feel speak very plain english. No one else has a problem understanding what I am saying. Those that disagree still understand what I am saying. You are the only one that does not. Honor and honesty escape you. I have never deliberately chopped your sentences up to change the meaning of it. It would be grand if you do me the same courtesy.


(Now he is going to break that last sentence into me saying "It would be grand if you do me..." and say the last part doesn't make sense)

In no post in this discussion have you make a point with maturity or integrity.

 

[jdholmes]

I think the biggest problem with these discussions, and they come up a lot, is that many people believe because something is ideal for them that their ideal becomes an absolute.

Ideals are not absolute, they are relative to many variable factors. Those variable factors are also subject to change. In other words a persons ideal today may not be ideal to their tomorrow...their circumstances may cause changes which affect the ideal.

The fact that this debate rages on with no end should be an indicator that there is merit to both outlooks. For some people a .22 is an ideal solution...no matter what way you try to argue it, that fact which is based on their particular situation and variables, will not change.

 

[Xulld]

I think the biggest problem with these discussions, and they come up a lot, is that many people believe because something is ideal for them that their ideal becomes an absolute.

Ideals are not absolute, they are relative to many variable factors.

The fact that this debate rages on with no end should be an indicator that there is merit to both outlooks. For some people a .22 is an ideal solution...no matter what way you try to argue it, that fact which is based on their particular situation and variables, will not change.

Excellent point. That is why in these kinds of discussions I try to only present facts, not value assessments. I find it is more useful to the needs of a wide audience that way.

 

[MainelyGlock]

I think the biggest problem with these discussions, and they come up a lot, is that many people believe because something is ideal for them that their ideal becomes an absolute.

Ideals are not absolute, they are relative to many variable factors. Those variable factors are also subject to change. In other words a persons ideal today may not be ideal to their tomorrow...their circumstances may cause changes which affect the ideal.

The fact that this debate rages on with no end should be an indicator that there is merit to both outlooks. For some people a .22 is an ideal solution...no matter what way you try to argue it, that fact which is based on their particular situation and variables, will not change.

Well said. No one seems to be able to find common ground here, but it is interesting to stand back and watch both sides of the spectrum.