.22lr, effective round for self defense

Rim fire rounds are unreliable compared to modern center fire ammo. I wouldn't choose it for a self-defense round with the plethora of other center fire rounds available on the market. If you are worried about followup shots and recoil, get a five-seven with sub sonic rounds.

 

you're arguing a point with me I'm not arguing.

this is your statement which is incorrect..........

 

Prove your assertion that physics does not apply to guns.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics

physics does apply to guns, you're just misunderstanding it.

 

I think what they are trying to say is that the felt recoil is the same force that is exerted on the object being shot with the projectile. With semi-autos, some energy is absorbed by the slide moving back and forth, recoil spring, and flex in polymer pistols, but the same amount of energy used to propel the bullet forward will be the same amount of energy exerted on the gun.

This of a gun going off in near zero-gravity. The bullet would go forward, the gun backwards. Stopping power is a myth because there are only three ways to stop a living creature.

1. Causing a bleed out - most common because of holes being punched in the target

2. Psychological stop - convincing the thing that you are shooting to stop what it is doing

3. Neurological stop - the bullet hitting something vitally important like the spinal column, brain stem, or brain matter (though hitting some unimportant brain matter won't stop a target immediately). Some people include neurological shock to this part too.

 

There you go. Also, once the bullet leaves the barrel, it will have less power the farther from the barrel it gets compared to the felt power the shooter feels.

BTW, bullets are "slowed down" by the wound cavity but still only produce as much force minus the loss from the barrel to the perp as the shooter feels. Handgun bullets do not knock someone down.

 

That is true but there is a difference firearm requirements when we compare home defense, law enforcement and the military.

Home defense relates to a situation were the maximum range necessary is probably 20' or less. The firearm and/or ammunition should also be of the kind so that it is normally contained by the walls of the home.

Law enforcement has a much greater range requirement for a handgun. We could assume a maximum range of perhaps 100 yards for a police officier with a handgun and they would generally switch to a rifle for longer ranges. Law enforcement would typically requre a larger caliber hand gun than someone defending the inside of their home.

The military usually addresses ranges of about 20 yards for urban combat and up to 500 yard during open country combat. Their preferred firearm is a rifle but a rifle isn't a very good firearm in very confined situation such as inside a home. A pistol or pistol grip weapon without a stock getting in the way (e.g. my Mossberg shotgun) is far superior at very close ranges in a confined space.

 

Not all handguns are created equal, neither is ammunition.

A .22 with a simple lead slug will only do so much damage. A .357 or .44 with good hollow points will destroy a man.

Really depends on the caliber and the slug, not so much the weapon.

Contrary to what wyly might say, "size does matter". But so does the round in question. A full metal jacket will almost always do less damage than a hollow point because expansion is greatly reduced, as well as bullet fragmentation within the body.

 

People use a .22 for home defence mainly because they are cheap and easy to shoot. My dad had a nice .357 revolver, but kept a .loaded 22 single action cowboy gun in his nightstand. I think he did this because he only wanted to scare off, and not hurt an intruder too badly. Maybe he didn't think he could fire the better gun as well---but he never explained his actions.

I would use a .22 if that's all I had,
were too poor to have anything else
was too much of a weakling to withstand the recoil of anything greater
or was an over-educated idiot touting the merits of a inferior product.

 

The true relevance of the whole conversation.....justified use of deadly force is just that...Justified no matter what weapon is used, right down to the baseball bat eh? Liabilities from not being responsible for using whatever type of force are the same. Use what makes you happy responsibly and all is good.

 

I just saw this thread and I'm not going to waste my time reading every page. A .380 is pretty weak for a self defense gun. Tribes in Africa kill deer with .22's but it's a perfect shot at VERY close range. No policeman in the world would want a .22 to bet his life on. And as far as the sound scaring off a would be intruder, I can cough louder than a .22 if it's in an enclosed area lol. Honestly 90% of the time in a self defense situation, they are unarmed or you shoot first and often, the .22 would be enough but the other 10% of the time you are dead. Five .22 shots to someone hopped up on meth probably wouldn't even slow them down much, he'd run off with your t.v. laughing.

 

Quick chat with my father............knockdown power is inverse of ballistic coeficient(sp), the higher the ballistic coeficient..most generally the lower the knockdown power. Knockdown power is how much energy the bullet "unloads" on the target on the way through it, and quite literally knocks the target back and down.

But...bullets with really high velocity will actually gain knockdown power(uncharacteristically) because of the shock wave that is around the bullet.

 

You sir, have never felt the power of a .464, .480 or .500. That will put a rhino on it ass.

 

Clearly either novelty rounds or hunting rounds but rarely carry rounds. I am talking about normal carry rounds.

 

It would be my opinion that most individuals aren't really looking at the intent of "self-defense" and the tactical situation.

First and foremost the purpose of self-defense is not to kill a possible attackers. The purpose is to prevent a possible attack. Actually killing someone is the "last" resort and rarely warranted.

We compare different hand guns and assumptions are made that are just that, assumptions. A well place .22 caliber round is superior to a .357 round that misses if the point is to kill the intruder but that shouldn't really be the goal of self-defense. Once again deterring the attack is better than having to stop the attack once it begins. Both a .22 and a .357 can stop and kill an intruder and both really need to be equally accurate.

The tactical situation is also important. In reveiwing the "tactical" situation in my home the maximum possible range was less than about 20 feet and the most likely situation (i.e. I'm in bed and hear an intruder) would limit the range to about 10 feet (from my bed to the doorway). I don't need a long range firearm at less than 20 feet.

We also need to consider the safety of others. Do we really want a high powered firearm that could accidently kill a neighbor asleep in their bed next door? Yes, selecting the correct ammunition might prevent this but it is certainly something requiring serious consideration. A .357 with a standard round will tear though all of my walls as well as the walls of my neighbor's house. Not a good choice IMO although I own one. It's not my weapon of choice for home defense.

Can a .22 deter an attacker? Yes. Can it kill an attacker? Yes. Is it my weapon of choice? No. Then agian neither is my Colt .357 magnum.

 

According to my father and his FFL(she's a former armed security guard her whole life who is married to a former police officer/armed guard) in a self defense situation where you are shooting, killing is always the point. If you aren't trying to kill them, the situation doesn't need shooting in the first place. Let's say you catch what appears to be a thief in your house and you pull a gun on them. You tell them to get on the ground while telling your spouse to call 911. If the perp tries to run, you don't shoot, you let them run away. If they attack you, you shoot to wound them, and when you let your guard down thinking it's safe, they pull out their gun you never saw and blast you in the face. That's why police want a big round that can kill on contact, because these types of things do happen. Or after you maim them the police show up, and they take you to court to sue you. I'm not advocating shooting someone because they will sue you later, the point is that you need to be prepared about all things that can happen. There was a guy in Utah who was being burglarized and he chased the thief out of his house, down the street, and shot him. Police took the guy to jail immediately because he wasn't in eminent danger.

Aiming with a .22 and a .357 is not the same, and does not produce the same effect at all. Saying that a .22 can kill a person is like saying, lightning can strike you when you walk outside. Technically true, but no indication of how likely it really is so pretty misleading. If I shoot you dead center in the shoulder with a .22 or with a .357 when you are robbing my house, you are holding your arm to the side and rendering that arm useless from a .22. The .357 possibly disconnects your arm from your body, shatters bone, and leaves you bleeding to death if you don't get immediate attention.

You are completely right about assessing your home and becoming familiar with how an attack might happen and being prepared for different situations. The FFL I mentioned earlier, has a gun in every room and her and her husband have walked through different scenarios should an attack happen. That's a hell of a way to spend their time, but they were both threatened by criminals when they arrested or aided in thieir arrest throughout their whole lives.

 

And if you testify to wanting to kill them, you will be facing a world of trouble. My goal in self defense is to stop them, not wound them or kill them, but to stop them from harming me or others.

The stats are showing that the .22 is as likely to kill as the .357. The difference is that the .357 fails to incapacitate less often. As I've said, I don't care if the attacker is dead. I just care that they can no longer attack.

 

Honestly this is like me pulling up stats if I could find them stating that being T-boned by a hatchback is more lethal than being T-boned by a semi in a car wreck. I don't doubt there is a study claiming what you are saying, but something got misinterpreted, miscalculated, or is misunderstood along the way. I've witnessed jackrabbits, coyotes, and large game being shot with many different calibers and it just doesn't hold up to what I have witnessed or to what reloading books have to say.

 

Here's the link:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

It shows that the percent of shots fatal were identical between both .22 and .357. That said, it also shows that the .22 had a failure to incapacitate rate of 31%, while the .357 had a failure to incapacitate rate of 9%. To me, that's a no-brainer decision--the .357 is the only one of the two I'd trust with my life. .380 and above had a failure rate of 17% or below. .32 and below had a failure rate of from 31-40%. I think part of it is that the .22 may be just as likely to cause death, just not instant death.

 

As much as it the author has read a lot about knockdown power, and he has, his article is not a scientific study, and it is "An ALTERNATE Look at Handgun Stopping Power" just as his name suggests. Like economics there are too many variables in play at once to be really precise.

 

I don't disagree with this. If I am forced to shoot then I would shoot to kill. There is no question about this. At the same time I simply point out that this is the last resort in self defense. I would far rather be able to convince the person to flee than even face a physical confrontation which is why I personally selected a 12 gauge pump shotgun. If an intruder is merely walking down the hall towards my bedroom and I camber a round there is a 99% chance that they will know that sound and will immediately leave. My .357 is a revolver and the intruder would actually have to see it to know that they shouldn't advance any farther. I'd rather not let them get that close if I can avoid it. I'd rather have them leave from the hallway as opposed to my bedroom doorway because they represent much less of a threat to me and I want to reduce the threat I'm subjected to.

If they walk to the bedroom door then they would be illuminated by a very bright LED light that I have on my 12 gauge (there to avoid and accidental shooting) and hopefully they will "freeze" when I tell them to. If they continue to advance I would shot them and it would never be to wound them. If they didn't freeze but turned to run I would not shoot them in the back.

In my personal situation if they surrendered I would not have them lay down on the floor. I have a hall bathroom with no exits except to the hall and that's were I would have them go and close the door while I called police and waited for police to arrive. They would be told that if they open the door I will shoot them and once again it wouldn't be to wound. Once agian I want to keep the threat at the least possible level whenever possible.

Yes, an intruder might be more intimidated by a .357 than by a .22 but logically they should be afraid of both as they can be killed by either one. I would point out one fact that I believe has been previously mentioned. I don't own a .22 but I do own a .25 (which is actually inferior to a .22 in some respects) and a ,357 maginum. In a normal home intrusion we must assume it can or probably will be in the dark. In both cases I need to be able to "point shoot" as opposed to "aim and shoot" and the accuracy of the shooter is not the same. My .25 has far less recoil than my .357 so I can re-acquire the target much faster even though I'm not aiming but instead pointing the firearm. I can empty all 9 rounds in my .25 semi-automatic faster than I can empty the 6 rounds in my .357 so I have more opportunities to hit a vital organ in the intruder. Neither firearm would stop and kill an intruder if a vital organ isn't hit. It might disable them and, then again, if they are determined it might not.

Of course as I've said I didn't select either my .357 or my .25 but instead selected a 12 gauge shot gun. It doesn't have a lot of spread at only 10 feet but it's much more than either the .357 or the .25 and I'm very likely to stop and kill the intruder with a single shot. Of note a laser sight doesn't work very well at night in the dark because it only highlights a point and while an illumination light on the firearm would help (both in shooting as well as avoiding shooting someone that isn't an intruder) I'd still be point shooting as opposed to aiming and shooting. Given all possible situation my 12 gauge was the best choice for me. It beats out both small and large caliber handguns on all counts. As I also mentioned I believe a rifle is the worst possible choice for home defense regardless of caliber.

 

A person in selecting a personal defense firearm for their home needs to take into account all of the variables and then choose what is best for them. The choice should not be based exclusively on any single criteria. What we do know is that a person with a firearm has a much greater potential for defending themself if they are well trained and have selected the best possible firearm for any potential threat. Undertanding the potential situations and being well trained are as important, if not more important, than the firearm selected.

 

but really if you're shot with a .22 are you really in a mood to get shot again? I'm guessing that 99.99% of those who are shot/wounded just want to get away at that point...of course someone will bring up "what if the guys of meth and won't stop, you need a bigger gun", and just how often does that happen? probably more likely to get hit by lightning 5 times in your lifetime...

if I was a bad guy just seeing a gun is enough to deter me I'm not going bother trying to determine the caliber of that what's pointed at me, I'm not going to be able to dodge anything that comes out of a barrel...

words of wisdom my Tae Kwon Do (9th black belt)imparted to bunch of novices one of whom asked a stupid question on defense from someone with a hand gun...

"What do you do if someone points a gun at you?"

"Give him all your money he has a gun! This is not Hollywood he will kill you! You watch too many movies."

 

I would not carry a 22 unless it was all I had but you cannot discount it as a self defense round.

 

I agree that the more information the better for making an informed decision. That guy's article kind of doesn't apply though. It's not an integral piece of information, it's more like if you got 100 articles written on knockdown power they would all agree on a certain point of view and this would be the only one disagreeing with the rest. It's more anecdotal and hypothetical, to provide discussion and entertainment for those who are very interested in the nuances of firearm ballistics.

There are plenty of self defense videos on youtube discussing many of these concepts by professionals