Is the .22LR enough bullet?

[jdholmes]

I am completely disagreeing with what you are saying - not what you think I think you are saying.

Read the post I made previous to my last one...the study that you claim supports your theory actually completely debunks it and shows the .22 outperforming the .45 in all but a couple areas. It stopped the threat with less shots a higher percentage of the time than the .45 - especially when a torso or head shot.

So yes..I am disagreeing with what you are saying.

 

[SouthernBoy]

It boggles my mind that anyone would argue in favor of a .22LR as an effective man stopper in a self-defense handgun. I could state that if this were the case, police the nation over would be carrying .22's instead of 9mm's, .40S&W's, .45ACP's, and .357 Sig's in auto pistols... not to mention those still using revolvers, and the military forces of the country. As has been pointed out frequently, the most important factor in using deadly force is stopping the assailant's attack as quickly as possible.

I am not going to debate this issue with anyone as I see it as a personal choice. One picks what one believes will work best for them. And that is how it should be. No one is going to know how their chosen caliber/load is going to work until they actually have to use it and even then, they are only going to know how well it worked for that specific incident. Knowing this, it just makes sense to me to have as many of the cards stacked in your corner as you can.

For those who believe a .22LR is their best choice, I say go for it. You will find out if you took the right decision if you ever have to call upon it to save your hide. Of course, this can be said for any handgun caliber, but prudence would dictate you listen to those who have been there and done that. I have and I am not of a mind to play games with my life or the lives of my loved ones.

So if it is a .22LR for you, good luck. But don't try to tell others that a .22LR is just as good, or better, than the proven and popular SD calibers. I wish you well in your decision and hope you come out on top should you need to use it. However, I would suggest you give serious thought to your decision before you make what could become a very deadly mistake. But then again.... it IS your decision to take.

 

[09jisaac]

I am completely disagreeing with what you are saying - not what you think I think you are saying.

Read the post I made previous to my last one...the study that you claim supports your theory actually completely debunks it and shows the .22 outperforming the .45 in all but a couple areas. It stopped the threat with less shots a higher percentage of the time than the .45 - especially when a torso or head shot.

So yes..I am disagreeing with what you are saying.

Read the WHOLE study please. Notice the part where he says that he would NOT suggest a "mouse gun". In any study there is an accuracy factor, what the facts seem to show and the truth may be slightly at odds. What is the most common firearm? A .22 RIFLE? The study was grouped in calibers, not firearm type (long gun/handgun). It is possible that the .22 numbers show a greater stopping because most of the rounds could have been fired by a rifle.

Next you have to look at the bullet type. The .22 caliber may have greater stopping power than the 9mm but that does not mean that it has greater stopping power than a 9mm defensive round. The study takes into consideration every round that he studied even noting the high amount of full metal jacketed 9mm. Since .22 is cheap all around most of them already hollow points. This allows more energy to escape the projectile and enter the target.

Then you have to look at the accuracy of the study. The author notes that if, by chance, the threat would have been disabled in the 1st shot but two more hits were received in that timeframe the number was counted as three. So if I pump .45 rounds into a threat that would have been eliminated by the 1st all the rounds would have been factored. Not just the ones leading to the end of the treat. This can potentially become misleading information.

The .22 was marginally better at the round count than the 9mm, .357, .45 (all still well under the standard magazine).
BUT the .22 was severely lacking in threat incapacitation, compared to the rest.

Stopping the threat is the goal, so it is best to stop the threat on YOUR terms, not theirs.

 

[jdholmes]

I would suggest you read the whole study with eyes open. Averages are averages, buddy and that study shows the .22 stopping people with less rounds used than most of the other size rounds. You can't argue that. That indicates the .22 is an adequate defensive sidearm.

Anything else said, is opinion, including the authors opinion that he wouldn't recommend a "mouse gun". The graphs show the facts. The graphs show the .22 adequately stopping assailants with a higher percentage than the "bear guns" you are clinging so desperately to.

Is a .22 the best choice for every situation, every time? Can we make a blanket statement that it is a better gun than a larger "bear gun"? No...I don't think anyone is advocating that. But can it be at least as effective? And can it even be better performing than those weapons in some situations? Yes, and the facts support that.

I read the whole study, don't presume to think you are more well read than others it makes you look a fool.

As has been said by myself and others, it comes down to a personal choice but arguing that a .22 is not capable of being used for personal defense or even that it is inadequate is ridiculous and flies in the face of facts.

It can be used, it has been used and will continue to be used effectively by those that decide it is the best choice for their situation.

 

[09jisaac]

My point evades you.

 

[jdholmes]

And many believe the point evades you...

 

[HandyHamlet]

 

[DevinWKuska]

SNIP...It boggles my mind that anyone would argue in favor of a .22LR as an effective man stopper in a self-defense handgun. I could state that if this were the case, police the nation over would be carrying .22's instead of 9mm's, .40S&W's, .45ACP's, and .357 Sig's in auto pistols... not to mention those still using revolvers, and the military forces of the country. As has been pointed out frequently, the most important factor in using deadly force is stopping the assailant's attack as quickly as possible.


For those who believe a .22LR is their best choice, I say go for it. You will find out if you took the right decision if you ever have to call upon it to save your hide. Of course, this can be said for any handgun caliber, but prudence would dictate you listen to those who have been there and done that. I have and I am not of a mind to play games with my life or the lives of my loved ones.

So if it is a .22LR for you, good luck. But don't try to tell others that a .22LR is just as good, or better, than the proven and popular SD calibers. I wish you well in your decision and hope you come out on top should you need to use it. However, I would suggest you give serious thought to your decision before you make what could become a very deadly mistake. But then again.... it IS your decision to take.

I would ask you consider statistics http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
91.7%... wow sounds like the higher calibers your favor dont stack up. Again as was said before its all about PROFICIENCY. If you cant hit the broad side of a barn with a .50AE then its stopping power is completely useless. Btw the police do carry .22 caliber weapons(not .22lr) ever see a M4 sitting on a police car trunk as the car drives away

 

[SouthernBoy]

I would ask you consider statistics http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
91.7%... wow sounds like the higher calibers your favor dont stack up. Again as was said before its all about PROFICIENCY. If you cant hit the broad side of a barn with a .50AE then its stopping power is completely useless. Btw the police do carry .22 caliber weapons(not .22lr) ever see a M4 sitting on a police car trunk as the car drives away

We're not talking rifles chambered for 5.56. We're talking handguns chambered for .22LR. Read the posts. And BTW, I stand by my position on this one.

But you go ahead and venture forth with a .22LR handgun on your side. In fact, I hope you do. Perhaps you'll get lucky, but you know... as I said, I'm not about to make that mistake.

Frankly I could care less what others carry. That's strictly their business. But what does bug me a little is when someone tries to convince others, and some on these forums are new to firearms, that the .22LR is just as effective, and perhaps more so, than the well established SD handgun calibers. They are not doing others any favors with this.. nonsense. However as I said, I could give a crap what others choose to carry.

 

[jdholmes]

Seems more like you give a crap...at least enough to harp about it without giving any substantial facts to support your position.

From what I have seen in this thread there is more evidence to support the idea that a .22 can make a fine defensive arm than there is against it.

I was raised around firearms and would have no issue with carrying a .22...I certainly wouldn't feel I was making a mistake. Of course I know how to use it right, too. I like a 9mm, but it doesn't make me feel any more safe. I can promise you, give me either and I will stop the attacker adequately. That's the bottom line.

 

[09jisaac]

He is saying you can believe what you want to believe, he does not care what you believe. He is saying don't spread misinformation. We already have enough without you mucking it up more.

Facts? How about countless studies done by the FBI, other federal agencies, state agencies, city agencies that suggest that they should carry what they carry (9mm, .40, .357, .45, etc) and not a .22LR. Think about it, the ammunition manufactures can and will sale anything as the next "best" thing. But large agencies are less effected by this, as they do their own studies (or pay someone else to). Do you think that when the FBI made the 10mm lite they didn't test other rounds? They decided that the (equivalent to) the .40 met their criteria best, NOT the .22. How about other, large, agencies? Do you think that all of them just casually disregarded the .22 and tested other rounds? Probably not ALL of them. If one legitimate test proved that the .22 had as much stopping potential as other common rounds then other test would evaluate that claim. That is why most agencies do not use the .22LR.

You are making false promises. There are too many variables to guarantee that you can "stop the attacker adequately".

Most seem to think that it is best to compensate for these variables. What if the target was wearing thick clothes? The .22 can potentially fail to penetrate thick clothes with enough force to propel it into a vital organ. Then you literally have little more than a flesh wound. A rib even would disrupt the path of the projectile so severely that it may fail to hit vital organs even though shot placement was mostly correct.

What if you place a round in the chest cavity but fail to hit any vital organs? Then you are merely poking a quarter inch hole in someone. Do you know how long it could take a person to bleed to death with just a quarter inch hole if it fails to intersect a blood vessel/vital organ? The .45 would (over) double the chance that you clip a vital blood vessel. All it takes is a small tear in one to rupture it.

What if an attacker is behind cover? Would it not be best to have a round that would breech that cover and still have enough force to neutralize a threat? In my unscientific test three out of five .22s failed to penetrate the outer door panel of a vehicle. The 9mm had enough energy to rip right through it.

You cannot guarantee you will survive, or "adequately" end a defensive situation even if you have an M4 and fire support. So don't start this lie that you can do it with a handgun loaded with .22s in every situation.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Frankly I could care less what others carry.

And yet you blow hard with no fact to back up the proof posted here. That the .22LR is enough for self protection. At least for little old ladies with no training. Big Bad sheep dogs like you? Guess you're not good enough.

:lol:

Facts?

Yes please. Facts or ST*U.

What if... What if... What if...

It's like Groundhog Day only in real life.

 

[jdholmes]

Oh, I didn't realize we were talking about a full scale firefight with a random militia group...

Look, the fact you are willing to waste your rounds shooting through a car door with no real clear view of the target says enough about you.

That was a whole heck of a lot of speculation again from you...

One legitimate study? So now the study that we shown is not legitimate? Ok...

Foolish posturing.

 

[09jisaac]

The please, hamlet, enlighten us on why you carry a firearm. Is it not because of the "what if's? "

FBI

This seems to say that lighter bullets are not as effective because their lack of penetration through barriers, and the (usual) lack frontal area to damage tissue.

You presented facts on cases where the .22LR failed to incapacitate a threat, but then I am not rational when I point that out? The facts are already here. I am discussing what it means to us. You can stop calling for facts. You have gave facts to support my stance, others have supplied facts and I have supplied facts. If you don't understand that .22LR is not the best at stopping a threat (simply, without constraints that you apply), then you never will.

 

[09jisaac]

Oh, I didn't realize we were talking about a full scale firefight with a random militia group...

Look, the fact you are willing to waste your rounds shooting through a car door with no real clear view of the target says enough about you.

That was a whole heck of a lot of speculation again from you...

One legitimate study? So now the study that we shown is not legitimate? Ok...

Foolish posturing.

Did I ever suggest that anyone would be fighting a group, let alone a militia? No. You added that to shame my argument. It was not being discussed but if it was the .22 would still be inadequate in my opinion.

Who ever said I didn't have a clear view of the target? Car doors have the ability to be cover. Cover that is utilized in some (not rare) cases. It would not be waste to shoot a 9mm through a car door into an assailant. But it would be a waste to fire a CCI mini-mag at it. Cars/glass/ect aren't the only barriers commonly found in a defensive shoot. Clothing seems to be a big factor. At one point in time "gangsters" were wearing thick clothes in the hope that it would stop .32 rounds. I do think that modern winter clothes and work wear can change significantly change the trajectory of a .22LR (as with all other rounds to lesser of a degree).

Next you will say that the head should be the target. Men/women who have more training and skill than both you and I miss more often than they hit in defensive situations. Which one of us is foolish to believe that our range accuracy will transfer over to our adrenaline induced state accuracy?

Most of us carry a gun to be ready if a situation arises. You all are planning, partly, for the worst, that you hope that never comes up. I am too. The difference is I am willing to say that not all rounds are created equally. That is why there are different rounds for different things. Is there any "defensive rounds" for the .22LR? Take a wild guess why they are not highly sot after for defensive purposes.

Test. My word was "test". Do I need to define the difference? The study that was presented was not a test. It is hard to debate anything with you because you seem to fail at grasping even the words I use. Let alone what I am trying to say with them.

I fail to see how it is foolish to say that you want the ability to incapacitate a threat the highest percent of the time.

 

[marshaul]

This discussion has been retarded for a whole page now.

Tomorrow, I'm going to carry my .22 all day, just to spite this idiotic debate.

And I'll tell you what: nobody better put me in imminent fear for my life. They ain't gonna walk away from what I can do with it.

 

[newbie]

.22lR for stoping power...

If anyone of you think that a .22LR is not enough power to stop a man in his tracks. I will help you turn yourself into a believer in these short simple steps.

First things you should know about me. I'm vary handy and crafty now that you know that your in good faith for the device I will give instructions for you to see the .22LR has stoping power.

Steps
1. Build a platform out of wood any type as long as it can hold a shop vice.

2. Yup you guessed it bolt your vice down. Almost done

3. Get some pullys (any size can be made to work) build a stick on the back of the platform attach pully.

4. Put 22LR firearm in vice attach string to trigger

5.put string around pully

Now you should be able to walk back at least 20-25 feet.(About the distance you would pull your firearm on a personal threat)

6. Now that you got your string going well load the 22.LR firearm


7. Call 911!!! VARY IMPORTANT DO NOT SKIP THIS PART!!!

8. Say your prayers and hope you ignorance to a small caliber firearm is correct

9. Last step pull the string.

(I take no responsibility for anyone willing to do this. This is simple instructions on how to kill yourself without putting a gun to your head)

Now if you live threw that shot from that itty bitty caliber gunshot wound let me know how fast it stopped you.

 

[newbie]

I also want to add that I don't want to get involved in any type of ******* match with anyone. I simply stated that IMO that a .22LR is enough bullet to stop a person.

Fun,cheap dime a dozen bullets that's enough said about the .22

 

[HandyHamlet]

Now I'm gonna buy that Beretta because after this massive waste of time I now realize just how cool .22s are.

The please, hamlet, enlighten us on why you carry a firearm. Is it not because of the "what if's? "

No thanks, as demonstrated here you could never in a million bazillion years wrap your head around the whys. Plus it is none of your business. And I believe my name is capitalized if you don't mind.

You presented facts on cases where the .22LR failed to incapacitate a threat, but then I am not rational when I point that out?

No you are not rational. And in fact you now resort to lies. Where is the rational act in that? Just in the first three cases I personally posted the first threat was stopped, fled, then died. The second was crazy on drugs (your personal favorite) and was stopped with one shot to the chest. From the lowly.22. The threat was stopped. The attack was stopped. Example number three, although a rifle, it was still a .22. The attack was stopped. The threat was stopped. And the threat was killed with one shot.

It is there for the world to see yet you keep insisting on making bizarre claims to the contrary. That they don't say what they actually say.
That is not the rational act. I am not a Doctor but I have seen one on TV. So this is my personal non-doctor professional opinion:

Buy a .22, loosen those grundies, take a deeeeeeee-eeeeeeep breath. And go shoot some cans or water jugs. The internet is not your thing.


:banana:

 

[newbie]

Takes back to memoirs of my childhood thinking about shooting cans with my old .22 rifle.

Off topic I shot my old mopeds (first thing I ever drove) motor 2 times and it still ran! BEAST of a moped lol

Now I wish I never got rid of it. Traded it for a set of tires for my first car