Rimfires for self defense

Rimfire self defense choices
We have a new series of Swartklip Rimfire cartridges that has come out. It consists of the following:

35 gr. Spitzer Low Drag Bullet, MV1410 fps. - A sharp pointed bullet, looks as if developed for hunting.

38 gr. Super Hollow Point Bullet, MV 1340 fps

45 gr. Solid Heavyweight Bullet, Mv1225 fps

39 gr. Sabre Tip Bullet, MV 1340 fps - Bullet supposedly tumbles on impact to efficiently transfer energy inside target.

The rimfires would be fired from a snubby, so reliabilty is not an option.


What is your opinion? Go for the fast hollow point, the fast heavyweight for the maximum penetration, or the bullet that is supposed to tumble (but doesn't do it in a soap bar test)? Keep in mind that these bullets won't perform that good from a snubby, in tests with a Walther TPH all averaged in the 900's fps.

I don't think it matters. The only way a .22 is going to be a completely reliable defensive round is if you are good enough to shoot the bad guy in the eye every time. If you can do that, any ammo will do.

Those 35grain pointies MIGHT penetrate skullbone on a frontal shot. 'Bout all you can ask...

Regardless of ammo, I would never choose a rimfire for self defence.
The only reason I would use one, is IF it was the only thing I had available.

Doubt that you'd get good penetration with such light bullets.

Any decently thick clothing would defeat these rounds, as would layers of fat or muscle on a BG.

Doubt you'd get the stated velocities from a snubby gun.

Doubt you'd get much expansion from such a small bullet launched from a snubby.

Any expansion you might get still wouldn't match the penetration or expansion from a .380, 9mm, .45ACP, etc.

I use to carry a 22lr revolver as a selfdefense gun. I know of a little old lady that stopped her attacker in his tracks with a 22short. In her words "He dropped like a swatted fly". And if I remember correctly she shot him in the chest with one shot.

Sure, it's possible that a .22 can do the trick. The question, though, is whether you can depend on the .22 to do the trick. I really don't think you can.

Better a .22 caliber rim fire than nothing, but my preference is the .357 magnum.

Since you asked, only a person with a death wish would depend on a .22 rimfire of any style for self defence.

Now of course a .22 is better than no gun at all, maybe, but it is NOT a self defence round.

Others may disagree, but no serious, knowlegable person carries one for that purpose, if other saner choices are available.

Talked to a (highly trained) guy last year that was forced to empty his HP22 (9 rounds) into his hyped-up step-son's torso using stingers. Said it slowed his step son down but it was the loss of blood that finally did the trick. His stepson lived and he had to sleep on the sofa a couple weeks, no charges were filed against him. The guy doesn't recommend 22's for self-defence. He moved-up to the P32, maybe we will get a performance report later this year.:)

I dont think it would be ideal unless you were to be attacked by little people. It is very deadly thou, I had an uncle killed years ago with a single 22 long round, my son inlaws partner took 9 rounds from a Buckmark (or Ruger Std) during a traffic stop and while he was wearing a ballistic vest he took a couple in the thigh and groin and one in the head. It didnt kill him but he was down for months and has not been able to return to active duty in the last few years. They had some pretty wild penetration, if I remember one that hit his groin bounced from the pelvis and passed thru his body to rest under his shoulder blade or close. The one in his thigh came out thru his hip, and the one in the head damaged his vision bad enough that he still has trouble seeing. They finally killed the BG but only after he had killed a police K9. I would ditch the snubby if I was planning on a 22 and go with a Buckmark, Ruger or SIG Trailside and practice alot. There is a guy at the range I shoot at that can ventilate a fist size area at 7 yards in mere seconds with a Ruger 22/45. It appears the last brass is in the air before the first brass hits the ground.
Gerald

Rimfires for self defense

Not unless I couldn't get anything else above a .32 ACP.


It's your butt.:scrutiny:

Jeff Cooper once said you are ready for self defense with a .22 when you can hit a tennis ball from anywhere on the court. Which means you have to shoot to kill, per Craigz.

Reliability not an option with a snubby? But who among us has not had a misfire with a .22 rimfire? The priming compound is not always evenly distributed around the rim of a round made by the billion at low cost. Maybe Swartklip is better than brands I have shot. Maybe if I ran a brick through the gun without failure, I would feel better about it.

Rimfires require a harder firing pin strike than centerfires. A .22 revolver like my K22 has a heavier DA than the corresponding .38; no help to a caliber that depends on accuracy for effectiveness.

Stitch him up with a magazine full from an auto? Might be the answer, but better be sure of the feed reliability as well as ignition. You are asking the gun to handle a rimmed case with a lead or thinly plated bullet.

Better than nothing, but easy to do better still.

I dont think I have ever had a misfire on CCI Mini Mags (at least not that I remember) but have never bought the ammo by the brick that I didnt get very tired of having to throw away about 10% for misfires. The Remington Thunderbolt? has been the worst offender for me but none of the ammo bricks seemed immune from the problem Jim Watson brings up. As Jim says be very sure of your ammo.
Gerald

I think that if one has to use a .22 for defense, the answer is to use an auto like the classic Colt Woodsman or the Ruger. I'd probably choose Winchester's Dynapoint or Power Point, for expansion with deep penetration.

If I had to carry a "mousegun", it'd be a Beretta .25. The ammo would feed better in a small auto, and is better sealed. For it's size, the gun is very reliable.

Lone Star
P.S. What does "Swartklip" mean? Black cliff? My Afrikaans is very limited. (But I can pronounce, "Charlize Theron (Tronn)" just fine.;))

My primary 'always' is a 22LR; it's back-up 'always' (always with me, too) is a 22LR.
I don't live in Chicago any more.

I'm thinking of stepping up to a pair of KelTec P-32's.

:neener:

I don't think it matters. The only way a .22 is going to be a completely reliable defensive round is if you are good enough to shoot the bad guy in the eye every time. If you can do that, any ammo will do.

You can believe that statement or believe your own eyes as to a real life event.

I suggest you take another look at the newsreel footage of the President Reagan assassination attempt. You will see not one but 4 very big and powerful men go down as if hit by lightning when hit with the lowly .22 rimfire and they dear Cratz were not hit in the eye.

Bullets impart a lot of shock and do a lot of damage no matter what caliber we are speaking of. Penetration is the key not caliber and the solid .22 rimfire would be my first choice not lightweight hollowpoints.

Don't let anyone kid you, the .22 will do the job and as in the Reagan assassination attempt the shootings were very dramatic. All of these big powerful men would have died if they had not had immediete and advanced medical attention. Brady himself would have died instantly if he had been hit with a solid bullet instead of an expanding one.

Seeing is believing and the results are there for all too see.

I think the .22LR is a good offensive round when the intended victim has no idea he/she is about to be shot. Getting shot while caught completely off guard is devastating.

As for defense, I think it is a poor choice. When a person is keyed up and determined to kill, people have been known to absorb multiple rounds of larger caliber.

So you're going to base your whole defense strategy on a 20 second piece of news footage from 20 years ago? It looks to me like those men were taking cover, except maybe for Brady, who was hit just over the eyebrow and suffered brain damage. There have unquestionably been more people killed by .22s than any other caliber, but there have been just as many that have bounced off of the skull as have penetrated. What you what in a defense weapon is something that will take them out of the fight immediately. That is by no means certain with any handgun caliber, and especially not with a .22.

The question that keeps arising in my mind is, "Why?"

I can understand using a .22 for self-defense if you were attacked by someone while backpacking or squirrel hunting, and that's all you had. But why would you deliberately handicap yourself by ALWAYS carrying ONLY a .22?

I'm no gorilla, and I've never had a problem CCWing a full-size M1911, in any weather.

I think that there are two schools of thought. There are those who think that the big calibers like the .45 are death ray machines and are willing to put up with carrying big, hard to conceal, unconfortable to carry weapons.

And there are those that believe that bullet placement is the key as long as there is adequate penetration. Very small handguns and guns of smaller caliber are comfortable to carry and recoil less than short barrel big bore handguns.

I have found that people who stick with carrying handguns often start out with the big bore blasters but after becoming tired of putting up with the discomfort and hassle of trying to keep them concealed often either quit carrying them altogether or gravitate to the very small concealable handgun for everyday carry.

I happen to be of the penetration school of thought and because handguns are basically aenemic weapons no matter what the caliber I lean toward the smaller handgun of smaller bore diameter.

For every war story of the famous .45 there is an equal story of smaller calibers like the 9mm, 30 Mauser and 30 Tokerov doing just as well.

I recall on incident were Communist Chinese troops wiped out quite a few Nationalist Chinese machine gun nests during their civil war and the battle was over in a few minutes and the Communists were all armed with the .30 Mauser broomhandle's using military fmj bullets not the lastest wiz bag expanding magic style bullets shot out of big bore pistols. You see no one told them the .30 Mauser wasn't any good so they went ahead and used them and they worked very well indeed.

Now if they had used the 1911 45acp everyone whould have said "I told you so" but since they used the supposedly worthless smaller caliber and did very well with it , the story is either discounted as not being true or simply with a wave of the hand claimed to be nothing more than a fluke or abberation.

And so the big bore boys sing the praises of the .45 when it does well and look the other way when it doesn't and when the .30 Luger drops a gigantic steer deader than hell with one shot it is claimed as only a fluke and not given the credit that it is due.

By the way I am currently seeking some more info through research on the one shot kill with the .30 luger when used on the steer. Another poster on another thread stated the same info that I remember reading quite a few years ago and that was that the Steer was shot through the heart not the head with the 30 Luger.

As far as the .22 is concerned I have no problems with the small bullet diameter but I warn those that carry them to use quality ammo not the garbage you buy at the discount store. I have experienced a high rate of misfires with discount ammo but have had no problems with the higher quality .22 rimfire ammo.

"There are those who think that the big calibers like the .45 are death ray machines and are willing to put up with carrying big, hard to conceal, unconfortable to carry weapons."

No one that I know thinks a .45 is a death ray machine. But almost everyone agrees that it is more effective when the chips are down than a .22.

I've carried a full-size M1911 for about 40 years now, in all sorts of weather, and don't even notice it. It isn't hard to conceal, it isn't uncomfortable.

Good bullet placement is obviously essential, but I can shoot my .45 as well as any .22. In fact, I often shoot matches where any caliber can be used. Shooters with .45s do about as well as anyone.

In the 70's I worked with some Mossad operatives(in an office!) and they told me that they used only Winchester copperplated High speed 40 grain solid point in their Berretta Jaguars , although one guy did have a Walther PPK. Reliability was the issue and they said Hollow points didn't have enough penetration.I've always heeded their experienced advice!:cool:

I have found that people who stick with carrying handguns often start out with the big bore blasters but after becoming tired of putting up with the discomfort and hassle of trying to keep them concealed often either quit carrying them altogether or gravitate to the very small concealable handgun for everyday carry.

So, uh, you know a lot of folks with CCW permits up there in Ohio, then?

:scrutiny:

I've used an "uncomfortable" "big bore blaster" every day for seventeen years now. I'll let you know when it gets too "uncomfortable"... :rolleyes:


_______
"A pistol is supposed to be comforting, not comfortable." -Clint Smith

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have found that people who stick with carrying handguns often start out with the big bore blasters but after becoming tired of putting up with the discomfort and hassle of trying to keep them concealed often either quit carrying them altogether or gravitate to the very small concealable handgun for everyday carry.

------------------------------------------------------------------

After 7+ years of teaching Texas CHL courses, I'm inclined to be in agreement with much of that statement. During the first year or two of the program, the Beretta 92s, 1911s, Glocks, ect. were used in abundance for the "demonstration of proficiency."

But ... by the time renewals started coming due 2 and 4 years later, it was interesting to note the number of people who actually "carried" had gone out and purchased a Kahr, Kel-tec, snubbie, etc. ... :D

Statistically, only around 1% of the adult population here has the license. And my best guess from discussions with license holders in classes, is that roughly 50% of them only carry in their vehicles. So ... that leaves only maybe 1/2 of 1% who carry on their person. And, again, from discussions with in classes and around the range, about 50% of those are only "some of the time". Fortunately, of those who do carry .22s, it is usually only as a BUG.

IMHO, I'm inclined to think that we "die-hards" that often hang out at forums like this are. in reality, real EXCEPTIONS to "the norm" if indeed doing full-time packing of the 1911s and larger ...

But, on the primary topic of this thread, the load that I'm most comfortable with after testing several in Beretta 21A, is the relatively new CCI Velocitor. 40 grain Gold Dot bullet with (rifle) fps of 1400+. No malfunctions to date in 21A. Tho more testing pending when time, so far so good with Aquila 60 grain SSS (950 rifle fps). Gonna try loading the mag with every other one and see how it runs in rapid fire ... IIRC, last time, from low-ready, it took about 1.7 seconds to empty with 8 of 8 Velocitors in 9" picnic plate at 3 yards. Not exactly what I would care to be the "stopper" for ... ;)

I really like this article, and I recommend it as a read for all the .22 fans here.

http://greent.com/40Page/ammo/45/45-advoc.htm

Like I said earlier, a small caliber could absolutely do the job. But why take the risk when there's a more reliable option available?

I think a 9mm/45 is much better than a rim fire but when its pushing triple digit temps and I have to stay dressed for business I wont carry if its going to be uncomfortable. I dont see it as a major issue, I try to use the weapon between my ears first, stay aware and move away from any threat that should arise. Before I will even pull my firearm I will have run out of all other options and be cornered with a life threatning situation. Robbery aint enough, I dont carry over a C note on me, credit cards can be canceled, watch is a $300 Zeno and I'm not too impressed with my current pick up. My life and wedding ring are about all I am really concerned about.
Gerald

Yep, that article worth readin' for sure.

Circumstances here in the last few weeks are such that it appears new Kahr PM9 will replace Beretta 21A in BUG role.
Then maybe if Gaston's new super-duper proprietary 45 shakes out to be the dream machine asserted, then maybe another look. In the meantime, his Model 36 in ACP will still do for me ... It though is often perceived as too "bulky" and is relegated to "truck only" carry in favor of an ultra-light j-frame ...

As others have said, in some circumstances - like upcoming 100 degree days on and off a tractor - there is definitely a place for guns like the almost-forgettable NAA .22 rimfires. :)

I disagree with the "famous" Clint Smith that a handgun should be comforting and not comfortable, surely a handgun should be comforting AND comfortable, what it should not be is an excessive compromise, i.e. so small that it is under-powered just so it is the MOST comfortable.

To suggest that the gentleman from Ohio is blowing hot air about his knowledge of other individual's CCW choices just because he happens to live in a restrictive state is a little presumptive. I live in Maryland but have knowledge of people's carry preferences in other states.

Newton

So, uh, you know a lot of folks with CCW permits up there in Ohio, then?

Your damn right, figgure it out for yourself. chuckle.

One thing we've overlooked is the poster's location. He's in South Africa and probably does not have legal access to other handguns and calibers.

FWIW, I'd test extensively with your TPH to determine reliability. That would be my first criteria, then look at penetration.

The rimfire isn't my primary weapon, the question was which cartridge would be the best! I don't doubt it that a .45 is better than a .22 etc etc....

And incidently, the only time I was shot was with a .22LR SV lead nose, and that was a OSS...

This makes me think of a post that WildAlaska put on a similar thread a while back, and it stuck with me. In response to snickers that he may get when people see his NAA 22 revolver...Most likely misquoted, but something along the lines of:

"Most people snicker, but when I offer to shoot them in the face with it, they always decline."

Many people have said it before, and I will reiterate..a 22 in tha face is better than a 45 in the wall behind them.

placement.

arinvolvo, pertaining to the recurring "challenge."Most likely misquoted, but something along the lines of:
"Most people snicker, but when I offer to shoot them in the face with it, they always decline."

Be assured, this is not aimed at YOU, sir, but - - - -
It is about time to mention that it is contrary to THR policy to advocate illegal acts. We see people "calling out" each other, in effect offering to shoot anyone who disagrees with a caliber choice. Enough.

Such posts will begin disappearing with no public comment.

This deletion will further extend to posts which smirkingly boast of other illegal practices as well. It is one thing to tacitly hint about a little light-running civil disobedience. It is another to allow the casual visitor to THR to think that this is a hotbed of sedition and disobedience to enacted statutes.

By all means, espouse whatever firearm or caliber you wish. Indicate disfavor with existing laws, and work to change them. But, please, don't behave like irresponsible scofflaws on this board.

Thank you.
Johnny Guest

Based on my experience with .22, I would suggest something like Mini Mag +V or another 40-grain bullet with flat, wide meplat. I've seen .22 slugs stopped by a small stip of vynil, so penetration would be key.

The problem with .22 handguns is that they have two of three qualities but not all three:

either they are light and reliable (revolvers) but have a heavy trigger pull or they are less reliable but have a light pull and light weight (autoloaders).

If I had to carry a .22, it would have at least a 3" barrel. In revolvers, S&W317 kit gun would be good IF you can deal with heavy trigger pull (3" barrel, 8 shots), in autoloaders, Ruger mk2 wouldn't be bad provided it was kept clean, ammo was top-notch and rotated regularly. Practice fast reloads. Either way, it would be an unimpressive stopper. The main benefit would be cheap and easy practice and ability to shoot fast. I can fire ten .22s in the same time it takes me to fire 2-3 centerfire rounds, with same accuracy.

I've long been a fan of using a .22 and shooting fast but I've come to the conclusion that it is a sub-optimal solution at best.

I'm glad that Oleg and some others have started to get this thread back on topic. It seems that the gentleman was not asking if a .22 was up to snuff. He was asking what the best .22 would be. Also for a .22 it makes a lot of sense to stick to revolvers, as the reliability of rimfires is not always very good. With a revolver there is the advantage of just pulling the trigger again if the primer doesn't fire.

Jeff

Johnny...I realize the importance of keeping illegal actions and topics off this board...However, I dont think that OFFERING to shoot someone is illegal.

And I am sure that WildAlaska did not mean it in a menacing manner...but more in a tongue in cheek, food for thought sort of way.

I will never gripe about free speech on a board such as this, as I am aware that this board is private property, and not a democracy...I MAY however gripe about over-reaction to witty or obviously tongue in cheek commentary.

However, point has been taken.

I love all the ominous prognostications about the person who would carry a .22 for his/her primary defensive weapon...

Such as "Only a person with a death wish..."

Jesus, don't make me laugh, please.

I carried a .22 primarily for nearly 4 years.

Why?

Because I did.

Was I out playing in traffic at night wearing all black, so as to benefit my death wish?

Nope.

Was I lazy about my choice of self-defense weapons? Another chortle fest. If I were lazy about it, I wouldn't have carried it nearly 24x7.

Why DID I carry a .22?

Because the gun I chose, a Taurus PT-22, was, and remains, absolutely 100% flawlessly reliable after over 2,000 rounds of Winchester Wildcat.

And, as I've mentioned here before, several times, over the past 20 years I've had FAR more primer failures in FACTORY CENTERFIRE ammunition, from top of the line makers, than I have had rimfire ammo.

In under 2 seconds (that's timed) I can pull my Taurus PT-22 from a pocket holster and put 8 shots into the size of a fist at 6 feet.

Is the .22 the UBERBEST BAR NONE TOP PRIMO NUMBER ONE most effective personal protection device?

Nope.

But then again, neither is a .380, .357, .40, .45, etc.

When it comes right down to it, a handgun stinks as a personal protection device if you don't have the education, attitude, practice, mindset, and situational awareness that is mandatory for maintaining your health and well being.

And even if you DO have all that? The handgun is still a pretty crappy defensive weapon.

Far too many people seem to think just because they're carrying a gun in caliber XXX their **** doesn't stink. Unfortunately, they seldom think beyond the gun that they own, and if push truly came to shove, would be about as likely to end up as a statistic as ending up a hero.

In short, don't look down your noses at the person who, in your lordly opinion, seems to be underarmed.

He or she just may be able to teach you a thing or two about staying alive.

Oh, and for what it's worth?

A .22 will bounce off a human skull.

But then again so will a .45.

But a .22 at close range is also fully capable of penetrating both sides of a human skull.

Think about that.

I think you're missing the point of their objections to .22 as a defensive round. It's true that shot placement is very important, but once you've placed that shot you have got to be able to count on the ballistics of the bullets being reliably effective enough to cause rapid incapacitation. Simply put, the .45 does that better than the .22. Yeah, no handgun is a good manstopper, so why limit yourself further? You should carry as much as you reasonably can.

Did you read the link I provided? You really should, if you haven't yet.

http://greent.com/40Page/ammo/45/45-advoc.htm

You should like it. The first line is, "the .45 ACP is not a very powerful cartridge."

Thanks for saying that Mike, it needed saying. I wish someone would explain why its their business what I carry, and why they know better whats right for me when the only thing they know about me is in these words. I dont carry all of the time and dont see much need to carry all the time, I dont get nervous when I cant carry, dont consider myself particularly lazy for carrying a small gun, dont ask their advice and dont want their advice.
Gerald

Mobsters have carried out hits with a .22. You aim right, anything will do.:uhoh:

Mike, being a newcomer to bullet sizes and the power behind them my question is...why would the .22 pass entirely through the skull when the .45 wouldnt? Is it a velocity issue?

Just trying to learn all I can:D

"I think you're missing the point of their objections to .22 as a defensive round."

Let's see...

Generally the objections are, in relative order...

1. The .22s a pussy round, suitable only for exceptionally old wimmin and foo foo pansy boys! You a pansy boy? Are you? Huh?

2. There's a 22 trillion trillion trillion percent chance that a .22 will malfunction because it's a rimmed cartridge, or misfire because it's a rimfire cartridge.

3. Ya can't thump yer chest and hoot like a horny gibbon when you're carrying a .22! Need a .45 for that! WOOOOOOOOOO! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

4. The .22 won't penetrate a folded over piece of tissue paper. How in the hell do you expect it to penetrate a human?

You get the idea.

Now, on to this...

"so why limit yourself further?"

Hey, you're carrying an 8 shot .45? What the hell are you thinking? What if you're surrounded by 14 of the roughest, toughest gang members who ever lived? Why aren't you carrying a 9mm with 15 rounds?

Why are you limiting yourself?

Or for that matter, why are you limiting yourself with a puny, sickly .45 ACP when you could be carrying a a .454 Casul, or better yet, a .50 Desert Eagle, a round with some REAL punch?

Are you that unconcerned and cavalier about your safety and security that you'd go out with such a wimpy, ineffectual round?

We've already heard that dress and climate are simply NO EXCUSE! when it comes to picking and carrying a defensive firearm?

So what's YOUR excuse? Huh? Why are you limiting yourself?

OK, you get the idea. Enough of the funny stuff.

The most salient point is obviously something that you've missed, Geech, but which other's have repeatedly tried to convey in many different ways.

The size of the gun isn't what makes the man dangerous.

The size of the man is what makes the gun dangerous.

If you're ever confronted by someone who's carrying one of these puny little mouse guns, it would pay to remember that.

As for your link?

Yep, I read it. I've been reading that sort of stuff for 30 years. I used to publish it, to.

Anyone who wants to speak definitively along these lines needs to remember this...

The size of the gun isn't what makes the man dangerous.

The size of the man is what makes the gun dangerous.

KpEng,

First of all, you have to absolutely abandon the idea that are absolutes when talking about firearms.

Among those absolutes are "The .45 is the best.... the .22 is the worst..."

Funny stuff like that.

Now, on to your question.

Is it possible for a .22 to penetrate completely through a human skull?

Yes. I've seen the results of it.

Is it likely, or certain, to do so? No. Most of the time a .22 shot to the skull will stay in the skull.

A .45 is also quite capable of fully penetrating a human skull. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I've seen some very interesting pictures of that, too.

The critical factors probably fall along the line of initial velocity, energy expended when penetrating the skull (which is extremely tough), angle at which the bullet strikes and penetrates and at which angle it strikes the back of the skull, etc.

"I wish someone would explain why its their business what I carry, and why they know better whats right for me when the only thing they know about me is in these words."

Hum...

Good question.

Probably the same reason that they thing we give a damn what they think? :evil:

Whatever, Irwin. When you're willing to discuss this seriously, I'll be here.

Like I said Mossad in 70's used to rid the world of terrorist vermin in various places by a few .22 Win Copperplated 40grainers out of issue Berretta Jaguars with threaded 6" barrels. These guns weighed about 20 oz. and have an open slide design like a Mod 92 but are single action with a cross bolt safety. They are very thin and conceal well.They are supposed to be extremely reliable,They had 2 extra 8 round mags and went for eye and ear holes at 15 feet or less. Nobody ever survived- nobody!:banghead:

You don't think I'm discussing this seriously, Geech? Just because I'm attempting to inject some humor into it?

Also, I've asked you the same thing you've asked me.

Why are you limiting yourself? There are more powerful options out there.

As others have stated, dress and climate are absolute no bar to picking a defensive handgun.

Yet, it would appear that the most pervasive argument that's handed out in this sort of situation essentially consists of "Me got 4 5! Me toughest hombre around!"

Essentially it's the theory that having a .45 imparts some sort of magical invincibility. Essentially, that's the theory that the gun makes the man, and not the other way around. Dangerous, dangerous way to think. One that can easily get you killed.

Quite frankly, I carry a handgun for one reason, and one reason alone.

It's to give me the opportunity to get out of Dodge, and if necessary, to cover my escape.

It's not to blow that evil thug bastard out of his socks.

I don't carry any wonderous, magical illusions about the ability of a handgun to stop a determined attacker.

I look at a handgun as essentially being about the same thing as a can of pepper spray.

It's a deterrent that will hopefully allow you to put distance between you and your assailant.

If you stick around to see how effective a stopper your handgun is, you're a bigger fool than the person who decided that you were target potential in the first place.

No offence, Irwin, but you need to develop some critical reading skills.

What were your major points? Why not carry more?

You should carry as much as you reasonably can.*

What was another point? .45 not being magic?

Yeah, no handgun is a good manstopper*

Seems like the rest of your posts were just filled with crap you injected into the discussion yourself. If you weren't so concerned with trying to look intelligent, you made have noticed what my post was really about. As it is, you haven't really addressed the substance of my argument yet. Like I said, if you want to discuss this seriously, I'll still be here.

*Both excerpts from my earlier post.

Lone Star,

Swartklip means Black Stone.


So with all this flaming I gather the best choice would not be a HP, but a solid.......

Lot of drama for a simple question ;)

Lots of drama for a simple question, thats the truth. Probab;y solids will handle more problems, but any quality ammo will be better than nothing.
Gerald

"You should carry as much as you reasonably can."

Wow, Geech, you finally click onto something.

REASONABLENESS.

Who's to say what's REASONABLE for me?

Who's to say what's REASONABLE for you?

Why isn't a .50 DE REASONABLE for you?

Could it be that what makes the .50 DE UNREASONABLE for you might also make the .45 UNREASONABLE for me, or some of the other posters here?

Or are you, and others, so enamored with the .45 and your own opinion that you've lost sight of the fact that your needs, requirements, and restrictions don't necessarily meet my needs, requirements, and restrictions?

If you care to keep this above a personal level, which you're tipping over to in your last message, that's great.

If you want to become petty and childish and start with name calling, that's fine, too.

But the question remains. Why do you limit yourself with a .45 where there are larger, more powerful options available that should, by all accounts, be even more effective?

Your argument seems to be less "carry what you can reasonably carry" and more "carry what I say you should carry. If it's right for me, it must be right for you."

That doesn't seem to be much of an argument, just a blind adherence to the theory that bigger is necessarily better just because it's... bigger?

But I'm certainly not going to question an individual's quest for longevity (go back to the deathwish quote), as others have here and in other threads, if he/she chooses to carry a .22 or other small caliber weapon.

Did I have a death wish because I carried a .22 for several years and had COMPLETE faith in it, and my abilities with it?

Have I lost about half of that death wish because I now generally carry a .38 Spl.?

Does that death wish come back when I decide that, for whatever reason, the .38 is inappropriate and the .22 is better suited to a particular situation?

Does my death wish go most of the way away, but not quite, when I carry a .32 ACP?

How about those times when I occasionally strap on my .41 Magnum? Much more powerful than the .45 ACP. In that situation, who has the death wish? Me? Or the person armed with the weak .45?

But you still haven't addressed the concept that it's the person behind the gun, not the gun itself, that is the critical factor here, and I'm truly beginning to wonder if you don't fall into the "Me got .45, me invincible" camp.

Mike, go easy on Geech, he's a newbie and knows not to whom he's speaking...:D

Once again, Mike, you have filled my mouth with your own words, and demolished straw man after straw man. I'm done with you, you obviously cannot argue reasonably.

:rolleyes:

Hey Children- fight nice! ;)

When I was in RVN I "acquired" a 4" .38 w/ 158 gr. RNL (all I could find). A dog that set off a land mine had to be destroyed, so instead of using an M14 I shot it in the back of the head w/ the .38- it got up and staggered away! A shot to the spine dropped it. The next day I "acquired" a .45 and hardball (all I could carry). When I got home I carried a M1911 .45 w/HP 24/7 for 10 YEARS. (I had learned that you really should have a gun handy, and what can happen if you don't. I also learned no handgun is as effective as an M14, but the handgun is on your hip and the rifle is in the Jeep.)

When I pinned on a badge, I carried a 4" .357 (revolvers only!) and Win. 145 gr. Silvertip; issue, no choice. Off duty was an SP101, same ammo, same reason. When we could go to autos, I wanted a 9mm+P; but, no choice. Back to the M1911, ammo was .45 Win. ST; issue, no choice. BUG was a DA .38 BJT derringer (now American Derringer) in an Alessi ankle holster. (If someone comes up to the door of your cruiser it is easier to draw the ankle gun than your weapon from a SS III; try it sometime.) Off duty was the .45, or a PPK/S in .380.
Now the LE weapons are all locked up in the safe. I went from the PPK/S to a snub .38 M36, to a 3" M37, to a FEG SMC-380, to a NAA .22. (See the trend to smaller/ lighter?) Now EDC 24/7 is a KT .32. That is MY CHOICE, and no, I don't have a death wish.

Maybe our .22 carrier has no choice, maybe that is ;
all he can afford, all he can conceal,
all he can handle, all his local law allows,
all he can carry, all his family can handle,
maybe he likes it.

Yes, it is better than nothing, and a (fill-in-the-blank) is better. Yet, it is predictable that almost everyone will suggest;
a larger gun (a DE v. a .22? how would you carry THAT concealed? Every day?)
an auto (can you really hide that .22 target pistol? Where, next to the DE?)
a larger caliber (see "all" the reasons above).

The exact same thing happened with the thread about the ".38 snub v. the .380" last week- "you GOTTA carry a 9mm, a .357, a .45, etc., BECAUSE THAT IS MY CHOICE". (I think they missed the DE.)

To paraphrase Massad Ayoob; you need Mental Awareness and Preparedness, Tactics, and Skill with the Equipment. Notice the equipment is last.

Sorry G., I gotta go with Mike Iwrin on this one.
Mike, you should write more.

A friend who is a peace officer made the comment "it would be a faulty assumption to think a guy with a 22 cant kill you grave yard dead before you could blink"
Gerald

http://www.a-human-right.com/22vs45-2_s.jpg

I use a 22LR as my 'always' ONLY because I can guarantee you it's 'always' with me.
Always.

My PT22 back-up 'always' is always hanging around because it's small and reliable.

I often add a big manly gun (or two) to my wardrobe, but THAT choice is more affectation than necessity unless I'm visiting certain locations.
I really don't live in Chicago anymore.

As for the 'correct' choice for 22 ammo, consider ONLY reliability first.
Then consider a lead HP.............

To paraphrase Massad Ayoob; you need Mental Awareness and Preparedness, Tactics, and Skill with the Equipment. Notice the equipment is last. Um, not to nitpick but equipment isn't last, "skill with the Equipment" is last. It seems that the equipment itself is down the list a bit further to simply assumed that one has something, anything, that is what they consider to be at least the minimally acceptable equipment. Anyway, that's what it says to me- everything else is most important, what you have is just the tool that you need everything else to be able use effectively.

Personally, I would prefer more than a .22lr but I don't think it is useless. My personal defense caliber preference is 9mm. It is cheap to practice, it has minimal recoil for quick follow up shots, it is accurate and it is powerful enough for most self defense needs. However, for some people they may well consider the .45acp to be the bare minimum- fine, for them it is then since they won't have peace of mind with anything else (kinda screws up their confidence in their equipment which is a very important aspect as well). For others they may find less than 9mm power to be more than acceptable (as do I, it is just that I prefer 9mm and find it close to the ideal combination of factors). Some people may have trouble concealing even an MK9 under certain circumstances (who am I to say what someone else can carry comfortably enough to consistentely carry) and others may have health reasons to have trouble with the recoil of anything more. Others may simply have a .22lr that is far more reliable than their other guns, or far more accurate, or they don't have anything else, or...

Heck, I can even see a few situations in which I may see myself carrying a .22lr when moving to a CCW state. Certainly I will probably have one in a backup role, as well as other likely backups as well. I may go w/ a .22lr snub with 9 shots- a snub is hard to master and usually uncomfortably to practice with, especially in the lighter more easily carried ultra-lights and a .22 may be a partial answer(I'll probably get one to train with and it may be my only snub for a while when in a CCW situation- then I may go w/ another higher caliber snub again later, or I may decide not to).

Anyway, the point (as it has been for others here) is to choose what works best for you. If it is .22lr for whatever reason, it may not be the ideal choice but what is ideal really. There are so many considerations, especially if you are going to carry, that you must make the determination yourself. A .22lr can certainly do the job. And in answer to the original question- I think I would go solid point and relatively heavy to maxamize penatration as much as possible (though also you must choose ammo that is reliable in your gun as your first ammo choice criteria).

Sorry, I got tired of reading everyone's post about halfway through the second page, so If I state anything someone else says, consider it my seconding that opinion.

First of all, I am a professional marksman and have been shooting the .22LR for 11 years. While not a long time compared to some of the geezers around here, I notice that alot fo them complain about the rimfire's primer problems... Lemme disspell some of teh bull crap about that.

Sure, the dirt cheap, no name ammo has these problems.. However, even though REM Thunderbolt is on the low end of the ammo price range, most Failure to Fires are actually the firing pin of teh gun, not the ammo. I know this because sport pistols anyways have a balancing act between trigger weight and firing pin strength. However, Ruger MkII, for example, has always had enough punch to fire just about any .22LR you can throw at it. Same with a P22 I own. THus, the key to reliable operation firing lays not in the bullet but in the firing pin spring... it is key to maintain these!

Also, some guns are particular about feeding. You just have to see... FMJ normally works in most guns but JHP and lead-nose have stove-piping problems and tend to be more brand-name suspectable...

THus, my ammo recommendations go as follows.
TAKE NOTHING BUT HI-VELOCITY AMMO...
there is really no point in taking subsonic ammo since you really wouldn't want to be trying 50yard shots like we do in competition. All the stuff you posted seems fast enough though.

Beware of light rounds... I really wouldn't take anything under 40gr if I could help it... Though the pointed 35gr might be interesting... Probably want to alternate... 45gr solid, 35gr Low Drag, 45gr, 35gr... etc... I do something similar with my P22, alternating between 40gr FMJ (REM Thunderbolts) and 38gr JHP (WIN brass jacketed Hi-Vel) in a ten round clip... I suggest leading off with the heavier round...

For an auto
Practice ACCURATE rapid fire... three or five round bursts, depending on clip size... you want the burst to divide into the clip capacity evenly... makes counting easier.

For a revolver
Well, accuracy is of even bigger importance.. Rapid delivery is slower so accuracy must take up teh slack

Now, when I say accuracy, I'm not talking about bull's eyes or any of that bull crap... I'm talking vital zones... face is good, so is the upper torso, from about halfway up teh rib cage and inboard of the shoulders. You have the tops of the lungs, the heart, the major veins and arteries, the throat, the spine, etc.... Be able to hit these rapidly and consistently...

Other than that, carry atleast two reloads...

Good luck... and sorry that not everyone can read you post and just answer you question...

Chaim

I thought your self defence weapon of choice is a S&W Ladysmith loaded with .38 Special +P, I guess you've switched your allegiances ;)

Newton

Right on Oleg!

http://home.nyc.rr.com/graystar/guns/mini.jpg

Unfortunately I can't carry anymore now that I live in NYC. :(

Craigz reminds us, about the Regan shooting: "So you're going to base your whole defense strategy on a 20 second piece of news footage from 20 years ago? It looks to me like those men were taking cover, except maybe for Brady, who was hit just over the eyebrow and suffered brain damage."

....and I say, final proof that a .22 is useless. Brady has been a millstone around everyone's neck ever since. We would be better off with him dead. A more powerful hand gun would have done that.:cuss:

Pragmatic but in poor taste. Mr.Brady isn't responsible for the actions of the opportunistic harpy who happend to be his wife.

I'm just offended at Oleg's choice of a "comparison gun" in his poster...

(It's not like my V-10 is that hard to tote! ;) :neener: )

Like in street racing as a kid. "Ya run what ya brung".

I don't usually carry a 22 for defensive purposes. But I have in the past when there was nothing else available to me. And I was happy to have had it available at the time.

Chaim

I thought your self defence weapon of choice is a S&W Ladysmith loaded with .38 Special +P, I guess you've switched your allegiances Newton,

You are both right and have a good memory, that is what I usually use for HD, and something similar will be my primary CCW if/when I'm in a CCW state. However, caliber only I do prefer 9mm to .38 or .38+P for defensive use (a little more power, no more recoil). Actually, for general use, not only SD, I prefer 9mm because you can get dirt cheap practice rounds (even cheaper than .38spl) and very effective defensive rounds for it. For fun only I prefer .357mag though. Of course, as per my above post, I don't see .22lr as being unusable for defense and it is even possible I might go to a snub in .22lr (at least occasionally) as a back-up gun.

First rule: have a gun.

I have used a 22lr handgun to "stop an immediate threat", more than once. Not as comforting as something bigger...comforting in the fact threat stopped.

If you dont think a .22 is effective for self defense, let me...

O wait cant say more than that, someone might take me seriously, gotta get my tongue out of cheek:neener:

By the way love Olegs poster...that little baby is in my pocket every day...and Cratz, when I go to NYC sonn, Ill be just like you...I wont carry it;)

Chaim: I kinda agree, with an explanation. On Ayoob's quote: You tie Skill and Equipment together, and obviously you should be skilled with your weapon(s) of choice. I split them because I thought you should also apply the other traits (Mental Awareness and Preparedness, Tactics) skillfully. If you could, you might avoid the need for the weapon. If you are well trained (skillful) the exact weapon wouldn't matter. If we gave (choose your favorite gun-guru) a .22 instead of what he likes to carry he could probably still do a credible job of self defense. You used to carry a .38, and now a 9mm, and I would guess that you are good (skilled) with either should the situation degrade to the point of actual use. So I guess I meant it would be good to be cross-trained (skilled) with many weapons, and not just firearms. So I place equipment at the end of the string (last resort).
My concern, on this and many other posts, is the large number of posters that come out of the woodwork not just to inform that perhaps a .38, or a 9, or 10, or a forty-something might be better than a .22, but have the attitude that IF YOU DON'T CARRY (my favorite gun) YOU'RE GONNA DIE. I don't think so.
As an Army Officer and LEO I carried a .45, and thought it a good choice at the time. After I took off the badge I thought a .38 or .380 sufficient for a new lifestyle (I don't have to place myself in harm's way anymore- if harm comes to me I have confidence). When I don't carry a gun I carry a KT.32. ;)
You, my friend, hit the nail on the head when you said "Anyway, the point (as it has been for others here) is to choose what works best for you". Personal decisions should be, well.......... personal. Stay safe. English John

I agree you should choose what works for you -- but bear in mind a self-defense gun is like a parachute. There's really only one way to know if it works for you -- and finding out that it doesn't do the job is more than a little embarassing.

Hmmmmm.....Rimfire for self Defense?

I'm thinking .56 Rimfire Spencer.

Them little .44 Henry Rimfires just don't have the snort to suit me.

http://armsofhistory.hypermart.net/L610A.jpg