What is the most deadly .22LR round?


PDA






storm shadow
May 9, 2007, 11:44 PM
I am relatively new to guns, so please be polite. :)

What is the most lethal and deadly .22LR cartridge on the market for personal defense in a concealed carry pocket pistol?

(Please spare me the sarcastic comments, wise-cracks and jabs about how wimpy the .22LR is for this role. I already know that.).

However, on the other side of the coin, keep in mind that an individual who practices virtually non-stop with a .22LR pocket pistol and can place his shots where he wants them (in the face, groin or hand for example), is going to be far more effective and yes, even lethal than someone who never practices with his 9mm and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Just my own opinion.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the most deadly .22LR round?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
May 9, 2007, 11:50 PM
I suppose if you are stuck with it, go with the fastest load you can find, CCI Stingers or something.

That said, a great pastry chef who spends months practicing whipping egg whites to perfect peaks with a brick would be better at wipping egg whites than someone who has never done it before trying with a wire whisk. But can you imagine if used a wire whisk instead? Woo boy, those would be some perfectly beaten egg whites.

Neo-Luddite
May 9, 2007, 11:52 PM
CCI Stinger is probably the best defensive .22 LR --not all guns will feed it well. Use only in modern guns. It is roughly a match for .380 ACP (target loads) for energy. If it feeds well in your pistol, it is a solid performer.

Best out of a .22 revolver (newer S/W would be best). It is a problem child is .22 auto pistols sometimes.

I can understand physical limitations might make one go for a .22, but it really is too light for defensive use except when nothing better is at hand or permitted for other reasons.

kingpin008
May 9, 2007, 11:57 PM
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or rude, but people who assert their ability to place shots in precise areas better than most because of extra practice...sound to me like they've got their heads in the sand.

The reason I say this, is because unless you have undertaken an amazingly varied and stringent training regimen, most practice you could ever do will not even come CLOSE to the type of chaos and stresses that you'd encounter in a violent encounter. Sure, you're a wicked shot with your .22 at the range, but what about at 1 AM in the dark, dodging an attacker?

Like I said, not trying to be sarcastic or mean, but it's the truth.

SoCalShooter
May 9, 2007, 11:58 PM
A .22LR to the head will usually be fatal. And practicing a lot with a weapon and increasing your accuracy can definetly affect the lethality of the user not the weapon.

Jorg Nysgerrig
May 10, 2007, 12:05 AM
It is roughly a match for .380 ACP (target loads) for energy

How do you figure? While it'll hit 1640 fps out of a rifle for 191 ft/lbs, it only clocks at about 750 fps (1 5/8" barrel) and 1000 fps (4" barrel) in a handgun for between 40 and 71 ft/lbs. Pretty much any .380 will have at least twice as much energy as the high end of a stinger out of a handgun.

The_Shootist
May 10, 2007, 12:40 AM
What about Aquila's Super Max 30 gr HP? Those (indeed so do the Stingers) feed well out of my Beretta Cheetah - which eats wide variety of 22 LR loads (surprisingly) without a hiccup.

44AMP
May 10, 2007, 12:53 AM
Perhaps it is because you are new to guns. It is a small thing, but words carry meanings beyond their dictionary definitions, and in a court they carry legal consequences as well.

Asking what is the most lethal bullet when talking self defense is considered bad form. In a court it is much worse. When we talk about self defense ammo, we use the term "effective".

Effective at stopping the attacker. Not killing them. Stopping them.

If an attacker dies as a result of being stopped, so be it. It is not a concern, as long as they are stopped. Most states laws are written so that you are only justified shooting someone if they must be stopped from harming you/others. You are allowed to use "deadly force" to stop. You are not authorised to "kill".

Lawyers, prosecutors, courts, and cops understand the word "kill" to imply a premeditated act. This can get you in all kinds of legal trouble if you ever have to shoot someone in self defense. Just as you train with your firearm, you should train the way you speak. One does not shoot to kill (that is murder), one shoots to STOP an attacker, that is self defense. One never shoots to wound. Saying you only meant to wound implies (to the law) that in your mind, deadly force was not justified. And if deadly force is not justified, then you are not, legally, allowed to shoot someone.

Sorry for the language lesson, but it is almost as important as your physical skills with a firearm. Train properly and your skills will protect you. Your choice of words, and the impression they create may be the difference between a decision of justified self defense and having to defend yourself again in a court of law. Seriously, think about it.

Now, as to your .22LR question, here goes;
I have chronographed a number of regular "High Velocity" ammo (40gr bullet) from several different 6" barrel .22 pistols, and they all get around 1250fps, allowing for the variation found in individual guns.

Stingers, Vipers, Yellowjackets, or other "hyper velocity" rounds are faster, and use lighter (usually 36gr) bullets. Out of a pocket pistol, you lose velocity, 35-50fps per inch of barrel. There is a lot of individual variation in the amount of loss, due to variables in the gun, and the particular ammo.

So, out of a pocket pistol, you could be down to 1000fps, or even less. NO .22LR has any excess of energy available for self defense use, and out of a pocket pistol, you are on the bottom of the available energy scale. Only precise shot placement is effective, and even then it may not work 100%.

When you are talking small game hunting, there is a significant difference in the effectiveness of the standard and Hyper velocity rounds. Against humans, the difference is not nearly as significant.

If, because of your circumstances, you must rely on a .22 pocket pistol for self defense, I would recommend using whatever ammo proves the most reliable functioning and accuracy in your gun. And relibility is more important than a small difference in group size. Whatever shoots to point of aim and feeds, fires, and ejects all the time (even if it does not produce the smallest groups) if what I would choose.

Hope this helps.

Neo-Luddite
May 10, 2007, 12:55 AM
JORG--

Please see the data table on the CCI/Blazer web site.

If I'm off base I'm sorry. You may have me on barrel length--I'm not sure on the test barrel specs they used for their data. My larger point being--

If you're hell bent on a .22 for defense, CCI is very solid in terms of reliability and relative power (for a .22)

That said, my bedroom gun is (most often) a .32 ACP 1903 Colt. I wouldn't swap it for a .22 pistol of any stripe. And, if I lived somewhere nasty (like I used to) I wouldn't have a .32 as a home defense weapon either:) .

As a primary carry pistol I have a .45 ACP and have no illusions that in a crisis I could do anything short of hitting the target in the torso. With training, in a crisis, --that's good.

glockman19
May 10, 2007, 12:58 AM
Perhaps it is because you are new to guns. It is a small thing, but words carry meanings beyond their dictionary definitions, and in a court they carry legal consequences as well.

Asking what is the most lethal bullet when talking self defense is considered bad form. In a court it is much worse. When we talk about self defense ammo, we use the term "effective".

I Agree, That said, I wouldn't trust my life on a .22lr round. A .38 is the smallest self defense round I'll count on.

heypete
May 10, 2007, 01:09 AM
Remember that velocity and muzzle energy are well and good, but momentum is also important -- a bullet having less momentum will be more easily stopped by whatever resists its motion (air, a target, a bad guy, etc.)

momentum = mass * velocity

Here's an example of a bunch of common ammo brands:
Aguila Super Max: 30gr * 1750 ft/sec: 52,500 gr*ft/sec
CCI Stinger: 32gr * 1640 ft/sec: 52,480 gr*ft/sec
CCI Velocitor: 40gr * 1435 ft/sec: 57,400 gr*ft/sec
CCI Mini-Mag: 40gr * 1235 ft/sec: 49,400 gr*ft/sec
CCI Subsonic: 40gr * 1050 ft/sec: 42,000 gr*ft/sec
Federal Game-Shok: 40gr * 1260 ft/sec: 50,400 gr*ft/sec
Federal Game-Shok: 38gr * 1260 ft/sec: 47,880 gr*ft/sec
Federal Game-Shok: 31gr * 1430 ft/sec: 44,330 gr*ft/sec
Federal American Eagle LRN: 40gr * 1260 ft/sec: 50,400 gr*ft/sec
Remington Thunderbolt: 40gr * 1255 ft/sec: 50,200 gr*ft/sec
Remington Cyclone: 36gr * 1280 ft/sec: 46,080 gr*ft/sec
Remington Yellow Jacket: 33gr * 1500 ft/sec: 49,500 gr*ft/sec
Winchester Super-X Power Point: 40gr * 1280 ft/sec: 51,200 gr*ft/sec
Winchester Dynapoints: 40gr * 1155 ft/sec: 46,200 gr*ft/sec

While many cartridges move faster than the CCI Velocitor, it seems that the Velocitor would pack the hardest punch on impact. Combined with an expanding bullet, reliable CCI priming, and good feeding in most guns, this seems to be the optimal choice.

Caveat: All the data was from MidwayUSA's Technical Specifications & Uses page for each item, except for the Aguila information which came from a PDF from their website. I do not know what the barrel lengths in each test was, or how the ammo would perform in a handgun -- it's possible that the Velocitor would have considerably less momentum when fired from a handgun due to the powder burn characteristics being optimized for rifle length barrels.

peterotte
May 10, 2007, 02:32 AM
I found CCI mini-mags to have more hitting power out of a 4 inch barreled revolver than another brand when fired against a steel drum. I would have thought that penetration is all that counts when using a 22 against a human sized attacker.

An expression comes to mind - a wee 22 pistol in the pocked is a heap better than a 45 in the safe.

I do think that practice and accuracy counts for more than power but what would deter an attacker more - a big hole in the barrel pointing at him or a small hole?

The other Pete

Oleg Volk
May 10, 2007, 02:55 AM
Mini-mag +V solids have good penetration and ignition reliability. That said, they are not very good defensive loads because they would not likely penetrate adequately.

LAK
May 10, 2007, 03:23 AM
Overall I would say the Remington Viper which features a truncated cone solid. I would place a much higher priority on penetration tan I would on exapnsion.

However, the preferred load must function reliably in your individual pistol, and be acceptably accurate. Very low ammo cost means you can run alot of ammo to establish reliability. Once selected, I would suggest buying a large number of bricks to ensure results consistant with your initial successes down the road.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Waywatcher
May 10, 2007, 04:15 AM
Not too long ago there were two break-ins within a couple weeks in the midwest that ended with a well placed .22 bullet.

Just for the nay-sayers :neener:

Cosmoline
May 10, 2007, 04:24 AM
All of them are deadly, but none of them will stop an attacker reliably. He may drop, or he may not know he's been shot till an hour later. They're simply not a good choice for self defense, at least not out of a handgun.

Rabbi
May 10, 2007, 04:45 AM
Farandir,

Release

gunsmith
May 10, 2007, 06:02 AM
To stop an attack, a pellet gun could be lethal in certain situations.

Perhaps it is because you are new to guns. It is a small thing, but words carry meanings beyond their dictionary definitions, and in a court they carry legal consequences as well.that is a certainty, a Prosecuter(SIC) could say you were researching the most lethal weapons on the internet before you killed the poor innocent child of 19 who only wanted your TV

Now, back on topic.
imo the most lethal .22 is the one that is stuck in your head and the doctor decides it needs to be removed:neener: Doctors kill far more people then people with guns do.

FYI I know two guys who after being shot at close range with .22LR's beat the heck out of the "gunman"

Plink
May 10, 2007, 06:10 AM
I can't tell you what's the absolute most effective, but I can tell you some that are the least effective for self defense. Stingers and their kind, along with the ones that split into 3 parts are about the worst defense rounds possible. I know the velocity addicts will disagree, but the fact is the Stinger and the other lightweight hyper velocity loads were designed to disrupt and dump their energy quickly in small game. They just don't penetrate well. There have been more than enough gelatin tests to prove that. Paper numbers are meaningless compared to tissue damage.

As for the best rounds, any of the high velocity full weight hollowpoints give a good combination of penetration and expansion and solids penetrate quite well. Velocitor looks very good in gelatin. CCI Mini-Mags are good performers also.

M92FS
May 10, 2007, 06:12 AM
quote by cosmoline : All of them are deadly, but none of them will stop an attacker reliably. He may drop, or he may not know he's been shot till an hour later. They're simply not a good choice for self defense, at least not out of a handgun.

+1 :)


although you may not like to hear it , but here goes : minumium caliber recommeded for SD by shooting instructors is .380 Auto for pistols and .38 Spl for wheel guns. :)

in a life and death situation , shot placements is important as well as stopping power.You will wanna make sure the BG stay down for good. I'm not asking you to pack a hand cannon for ccw , but at least carry a ccw that can stop a BG during a bad situation and not ended up in a bodybag. :(

during a shootout , aiming for the torso has the highest % of hits. just my 2 cents , I hope you won't mind. :)

Biker
May 10, 2007, 06:51 AM
IIRC, JE223 did some ballistic gellatin tests on some .22s. You might do a quick search.

Biker

RandyB
May 10, 2007, 07:17 AM
Remington Viper which has a truncated cone solid. I would opt for any solid as penetration to vital organs is more important that velocity or expansion. The bullet simply has to get there first and then if you get expansion thats a plus in my book.

1911Tuner
May 10, 2007, 07:37 AM
Outside of military actions, there have probably been more graves filled by the little .22 than any other single caliber, with the .38 Special following close behind. The issue isn't one of lethality, but rather of the round's ability to shut down an attacker as quickly as possible, with the least number of rounds fired...hopefully one.

A .44 Magnum revolver is perfectly capable of killing an adult male Grizzly Bear with one well-placed shot...but it may take some time for the big bruin to realize that he has, in fact, lost the fight. In the time that it takes him to die...which can be several minutes...if you're not able to stay out of his way, he's (also) perfectly capable of dishing out a world of hurt in your direction.

Ala Dan
May 10, 2007, 07:58 AM
In nearly 21 years as a LEO, I have seen more persons killed by the .22 LR
cartridge, than any other types. It didn't matter 'bout the type, or who the
manufactuer was; they did their job, as these people were STONE COLD DEAD. :uhoh: ;)

ravencon
May 10, 2007, 08:14 AM
In nearly 21 years as a LEO, I have seen more persons killed by the .22 LR
cartridge, than any other types. It didn't matter 'bout the type, or who the
manufactuer was; they did their job, as these people were STONE COLD DEAD.

Such anecdotal observations are hardly a convincing argument for using a .22LR for self-defense.

For example, 100 people are shot with .38 and 50 are killed.
1,000 are shot with a .22LR and 100 are killed. Twice as many are killed with .22s, does that mean you'd want to use a .22LR over a .38?

I doubt that in your 21 years in LE you carried a .22LR as your duty weapon.:)

JamisJockey
May 10, 2007, 08:17 AM
So the .22lr has killed plenty of people....so what? Were they able to press the attack after being shot? Did they realize they were shot?
Lethality means jack diddle squat. A round should give enough damage to the attacker that they realize they've been shot and don't want to or are unable to continue the attack.
That said, you must carry what you
A) have
B) are comfortable with.
If that means you carry a .22lr or a 10mm, you carry what you do.


My personal experience with .22lr auto pocket pistols is thier lack of reliability. If you're hell bent on carrying one, experiement with different loads until you find something that functions well in your gun. Carry that load.

crowsnest2002
May 10, 2007, 08:21 AM
The well aimed one.. :)

Geno
May 10, 2007, 08:26 AM
The one that strikes a vital organ. :neener:

I like Quik Shok MPB (Magnum Performance Ballistics) .22 LR Hyper-velocity

The projectile splits into 3 equally-sized pieces on impact.

Plink
May 10, 2007, 04:34 PM
I like Quik Shok MPB (Magnum Performance Ballistics) .22 LR Hyper-velocity

The projectile splits into 3 equally-sized pieces on impact.


And each 13.3 grain piece doesn't penetrate for squat. Ideal for rabbits and squirrels. The absolute worse round possible for defense against larger "critters".

mashaffer
May 10, 2007, 11:56 PM
I won't join the chorus of carping about weapons choice. I realize that sometimes you have to use what you have available (or can physically handle in some cases). For the most effective stop round I am looking for penetration (straight if possible) an a wide (relatively) meplat if possible. To that end I would use a standard weight lead solid and get Paco Kelly's (leverguns.com) accurizer tool which puts a slight cup point on it.

And be very specific about where you place the bullet.

mike

kerank
May 11, 2007, 12:18 AM
CCI Velocitor

storm shadow
May 11, 2007, 12:33 AM
I can't help but comment that our troops in Iraq are mostly shooting .22 caliber lead. Obviously the military thought .22 caliber was just as deadly as .30 caliber or they wouldn't have switched over to it over 50 years ago from .30 caliber.

They use their .22 centerfire cartridges in longer ranges (most combat takes place at ranges under 200 yards) and we use our .22 rimfire cartridges in shorter ranges (most self defense takes place in 7-10 yards.). So in theory, it's all about the same.

hankpac
May 11, 2007, 01:15 AM
I don't usually get involved in this sort of discussion, but since I ran a solo practice ER for 10 years, practiced emergency medicine for 20 years, and was a Rescue Paramedic for several years before that, and a Combat Medic in my youth, I have seen a couple of bullet wounds in my time. And have been in combat situations, both group and one on one.
First of all, anyone who says he can direct his shots to the target of choice, because of practice, has never ever been in a gun fight. Ever. Simply put, everything goes to hell in the first split seconds of a firefight. Secondly, the .22 Long rifle (40 -45 gr , 1500 fps at fastest) , vs the .223 (50-55 gr, 2700-3200 and up to 4000 fps) is no comparison. Speed and weight make a world of difference.
A .22 is not always instantly fatal: I had a case in which a young man put a .22 to his right ear, pulled the trigger, waited a couple of minutes, and when he didn't die, shot again. Same ear. He waited another half hour, then drove himself to the ER in Reno, some 30 minutes away. He then waited in the lobby, because in those days, if you could walk in, you waited your turn. It wasn't until about 10 minutes later that someone noticed the blood on his neck, that they walked him into the trauma area.
He survived.
On the other hand: the inherent weakness of the .32 has much been touted.
A man walked into a liquor store (sounds like a joke) pulled a pistol, and demanded the money. The clerk pulled a .32 Jennings, shot once into the chest. The robber was about 280 lbs. the bullet penetrated his shirt button, sternum, and ripped the Aorta and right Atrium. He was DRT.
A young man went shooting ground squirrels, and pulled his .22 rifle from the truck, by the muzzle. It went off, hittting him in the chest, and also passing through his liver. He lay in the field until found by a neighbor. Some incredible heroics saved him as well.
I once counted 7 .22 45 gr bullets inside a skull on an Xray. He was DRT also.
A single .45 ACP, 230 gr RN FMJ, entered the cheek, exited just under the skin after following the undersurface of the skull, and transecting the spine at the first/second intervertebral space. Shot from across the table after a drunken argument. You could feel the bullet, loose under the skin at autopsy.
No matter the caliber, It's always a mess inside.
Any questions?

Belgiboy
May 11, 2007, 01:17 AM
To answer storm shadows question: Since you want to rely on accuracy for your defense, you will have to go with a brand that first of all is accurate with the weapon you are using, and second of all is consistent. What i mean by that is that there should not be too much lot to lot variation. It is my experience that with the cheaper bricks of .22 ammo, it can be hit or miss. Different lots have markedly different shooting properties, although within the same lot they are remarkably consistent.
In my experience, you should go with the CCI Minimags which have proved the most consistent for me.

M92FS
May 11, 2007, 04:48 AM
quote by storm shadow : I can't help but comment that our troops in Iraq are mostly shooting .22 caliber lead. Obviously the military thought .22 caliber was just as deadly as .30 caliber or they wouldn't have switched over to it over 50 years ago from .30 caliber.

They use their .22 centerfire cartridges in longer ranges (most combat takes place at ranges under 200 yards) and we use our .22 rimfire cartridges in shorter ranges (most self defense takes place in 7-10 yards.). So in theory, it's all about the same.


it's not the same , do you know the difference in muzzle energy/velocity between a .22LR bullet and .223 Rem ?

average muzzle energy of .223 Rem FMJ 55 grain bullet : 1277 Ft-Lbs
avg. muzzle velocity of .223 Rem FMJ 55 grain bullet : 3225 FPS
rifle barrel length : not available.

avg. muzzle energy of .22LR high velocity/hyper velocity HP 40 grain bullet : 102 Ft-Lbs
avg. muzzle velocity of .22LR high velocity/hyper velocity HP 40 grain bullet : 1147 FPS
pistol barrel length : 6 inch

above ballistic charts taken from guns & ammo site and avg. calculation done by me.

I hope you understand what I trying to say here. .22LR is under power as a SD round. :)

Ala Dan
May 11, 2007, 07:28 AM
Greeting's ravencon My Friend-

Those were just my observations, I don't condone the practice of running
around with a .22LR caliber handgun used as a CCW piece for self defense.
Quite frankly, just the opposite as I prefer the age old .45 ACP over just
a'bout all the other self-defense handgun cartridges. For the record, you
are correct- I carried a West German SIG-SAUER .45 ACP~!

tostada
May 11, 2007, 10:21 AM
It's the same old thing. Tons of people say the .380 is the weakest acceptable defensive round, but those same people will eventually have to admit that all handguns are far from ideal and penetration of vital organs is what's important. The bottom line is that the hotter .22s have plenty velocity and penetration and almost as much muzzle energy as a .380.

It's hard to find anything comprehensive for .22 performance in short barrelled guns.

Velocitors are generally seen as the best, and testing seems to prove this:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=242299

...but I've seen some reports of them not performing all that well with shorter barrels:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=12106&page=2

So the Stinger might be better with a short barrel, but Stingers are a little longer than standard .22s, so you have to make very sure they are reliable with your gun if you're going to try them in an autoloader.

Jorg Nysgerrig
May 11, 2007, 12:17 PM
They use their .22 centerfire cartridges in longer ranges (most combat takes place at ranges under 200 yards) and we use our .22 rimfire cartridges in shorter ranges (most self defense takes place in 7-10 yards.). So in theory, it's all about the same.

No, because in theory, one would realize that the greater weight and velocity of the military 5.56 (.223) round compared to the .22LR results in different energies.

To add to M92FS's information, I'll use your comparison of long vs short ranges.

At 200 yards, the 55 gr. 5.56 will be travelling at arouned 2500fps and pack about 785 ft/lbs of energy.

A .22LR pocket pistol using fast ammo will, at the muzzle, perhaps reach 1000 fps and top out at about 71 ft/lbs.

So, even at 200 yards, the military's rounds are still going 2.5 times faster and hitting about 10 timess harder than your pocket pistol at the muzzle. Obviously, it is not "about the same". To further confound the issue, there are many folks who think that at that range the 5.56 is not effective.

The bottom line is that the hotter .22s have plenty velocity and penetration and almost as much muzzle energy as a .380.

Can you support this statement? I think I made it pretty clear in this post (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3380119&postcount=6) in this very thread the muzzle energy is no where near the same once you factor in barrel lengh. The post you linked doesn't mention velocities at all. Here is velocity information from NAA (http://www.naaminis.com/naaveloc.html) for their guns in .22 LR with barrel lengths from 1 1/4" to 4". This information is in line with 44AMP's post in this same thread and his experience with chronographing .22LR rounds from a 6" barrel. Please, tostada, explain to me how you reached the conclusion that a hotter .22 has the same muzzle energy as a .380 out of a pistol? If you want to go simply by penetration, they might seem adequate, but since a .380 can get the same penetration and expand, unlike the .22, the wound channel through the vitals is much large.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the .380 ballistics. But to claim a .22LR out of a pistol is almost the same as a .380 is just plain wrong. I simply think if you are limited to a small gun, you should maximize the bang/size ratio. .22LR pocket pistols tend to be as big as Kel-Tec's offerings and have substantially less bang going for them. But, there's always the guy who saw his father's brother's nephew's cousin's neighbor's former roommate take a deer at 300 meters with a .22LR that went through a grizzly bear and a panzer tank into the deer's eye and dropped him dead on the spot. That guy loves .22LR for everything. Me? I sure like burning up rounds like they are going out of style without breaking the bank. But when it comes to defense, you can bet there's something other than a .22LR nearby.

gandog56
May 11, 2007, 01:51 PM
What is the most deadly .22LR round?

The one that is the most accurately aimed.:D

Vern Humphrey
May 11, 2007, 03:34 PM
However, on the other side of the coin, keep in mind that an individual who practices virtually non-stop with a .22LR pocket pistol and can place his shots where he wants them (in the face, groin or hand for example), is going to be far more effective and yes, even lethal than someone who never practices with his 9mm and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Just my own opinion.

There are two things you should bear in mind -- the guy who carries a 9mm or .45 may practice just as much as the guy with the .22.

And, expect a 90-95% degradation in performance when under extreme stress. The odds are with the guy who just has to shoot for center-of-mass, not with the guy who has to hit the face, groin or hand .

Bearcat
May 11, 2007, 05:28 PM
The heavy Aguila SSS is about the best that I've seen, at least on small game testing.

For humans, a head shot with a .22 lr is pretty effective as it will penetrate into the skull, then ricochet around inside the brain case, scrambling the grey matter. Used by many professional assassins and government spooks.

wes
May 11, 2007, 06:28 PM
I guess the simplest way to put this is would you rather be hit by a semi truck going 15 mph or a scooter going 35 mph? It's all a matter of chance, but whats more likely to stop a person from walking to the hospital?
If it's only a matter of comfort with the .22, training and practice with a larger caliber is the cure.
If it's not possible to carry anything larger a 22 it's better than nothing i suppose.

sm
May 11, 2007, 08:00 PM
Plink wrote:
I can't tell you what's the absolute most effective, but I can tell you some that are the least effective for self defense. Stingers and their kind,

I agree.

I prefer Relibable Feeding first and foremost.
.40 grain LRN .22 Standard or High velocity.

Forget expansion, one need to get penetration.

I have seen .22 rim-fire cts being fired into someone,
I also spent some time working in the Main OR.

Fast draw and the fellow shot himself with Standard 40 gr LRN, which did penetrate the upper leg and enter bone. Not good.

.22 short, LRN , hit the heart. We did the organ harvest on this one.

.22 Stingers and the little petite lady was cussing up a storm, messed up her outfit.
Bounced off upper arm bone, another just make it through a paper bag of popcorn, and bullet just a wee bit under the skin.

I like the CCI .40 gr LRN, and Win X22LR, simply because these, across the board in a variety of guns, are
"reliable" and "accurate".
Maybe not THE most Accurate, still these went first bang [gotta have the bang] and then shot POA/POI from "pretty good" to "darn good" to "real darn nice".


NAA .22 mini, Beretta 21A are two smaller guns we shot a lot of .22 rds to test.

C-grunt
May 11, 2007, 09:08 PM
Storm Shadow...trust me on this one. The .22lr is NO WHERE near the 5.56. I saw plenty of bad guys shot with the 5.56 in the sand box and it will leave some really nasty wouns, especially if it hits bone.

But I once was in your shoes and the only handgun I had at the time was my P22. I went with CCI mini mag 40 grn because they were reliable and heavy. I want penetration in a little caliber.

22's kill a lot of people every year, probably more than any other cartridge. Its not because its super deadly or it bounces around in the body (which I dont believe in). Its because its used the most.

Thats like saying that a Mercedes Benz is 20 times safer than a Honda because a lot more people die in wrecks in Hondas. Thats because there are 20 Hondas for every Benz on the road (these numbers are made up to show a point).

konradh
May 11, 2007, 11:50 PM
It's all trade-offs. A 12-gauge shotgun is better than any pistol, but 5 or 6 quick hits from a .22 will take the fight out of most people.

A Kahr PM9 is my daily carry gun, but I would not feel unarmed with a .22 full of CCI Minimags.

I have carried .38s, .357s, 9mms, .357SIGs, .380s, .40s, .32s, and .22 magnums. At this time, for me, the most important considerations for selecting a carry gun are (a) how I will carry and conceal it and (b) how well I can shoot it. I carry a Keltec .32 when it is all I can conceal, so I ensure I am able to put a full magazine in a paper plate at ten paces very quickly.

I changed from .357SIG (SIG P239) to a Kahr P9 and then Kahr PM9 for daily carry. (I still have both Kahrs.) I found that the blast (noise) from the .357 and .40 caused me not to shoot as well as with the 9mm, and the Kahr is extremely accurate and easy to shoot, although the small version does rub a sore on my thumb after 200+ rounds. Using Cor-Bon 115 +P ammo, you get very close to .357SIG/.357 Magnum power.

If I happened not to have a larger pistol handy when a bad guy broke in my house, he would receive 20 rounds of Minimags in quick succession and I believe he would regret his decision. For someone with arthritis, limited hand strength, etc., .22s are great, and you can afford to practice a lot. (I shoot about 1,000 rounds of .22s a month. I love it.)

ArchAngelCD
May 12, 2007, 02:13 AM
storm shadow,
Many will choose the CCI Stinger but it's only a 32 gr bullet. I like the CCI Velocitor better because it's a 40 gr bullet but it still travels 1435 ft/sec. That's one of the fastest 40 gr .22 LR round on the market, if not the fastest. Velocitors are topped with Gold Dot bullets and CCI is a very reliable rimfire round.

LAK
May 12, 2007, 01:05 PM
Ten .22 slugs into the upper torso - whether they are all fairly concentrated center or dotted around the chest cavity are going to produce a similar amount of tissue damage to a single round of buckshot from a 20, 16 or 12 gauge. Having greater sectional density, a solid .22 slug will likely penetrate deeper than a round pellet of similar weight.

tostada
May 12, 2007, 01:53 PM
The post you linked doesn't mention velocities at all

You sure about that?

I've chrono'd the Stinger out of my 4" S&W 34 at 1225 fps and 1175 fps out of a 3.5" Walther P22. I just got some Velocitors ( 40 gr. Gold dot HP's ) and have not had a chance to chrono them but would guess them to do about 1050 fps out of the P22 based on CCI's velocity figures compared to the Stinger. Federal Lightnings and Remington Yellow Jackets do 1045 fps and 1047 fps respectively out of the P22.

This thread just got me off my duff to go and chronograph the CCI Velocitors and I got a real surprise. Out of my 3.5" P-22 and 5.5" Buckmark they are not too impressive. The P-22 averages 964 fps. (Fed champion 40 gr. solids avg. 948 fps) and out of the Buckmark they average 1003 fps ( Fed champions avg 1020 fps). My choice for maximizing the short barrel pistol would be the CCI Stinger after this bit of testing. The Stinger at 1175 fps and approx 100 ft lbs energy certainly exceeds the Velocitor with it's 964 fps and 84 ft lb. energy figures. I know I won't be buying any more Velocitors.

Now, I said hotter .22s have almost the muzzle energy of .380s. .22s do still have decent muzzle energy coming out of barrels around 5", but when you get down to the real snubbies, they do start to fall apart.

I'm no fan of the .380 ... I think it's just too much of a compromise. Where you can honestly say that premium 9mm +P is very close in performance to all kinds of good rounds like the .45 and .40, you simply can't say this about the .380 -- the .380 has less than half the energy of 9mm +P and other good ammo.

But the fact is that most people can look at .380 ballistics and tell you it's reasonable for defense, and .22s have killed plenty people and aren't far off, except for expansion, which is definitely a strong point of the .380 and a weak point of the .22 out of short barrels.

When the OP says "pocket pistol," does this mean he's talking about the NAA mini-revolvers? I personally think those are extremely silly and would generally rather have a keychain can of mace. But, if you're going to use a mini-revolver, you definitely want to go with the .22 magnum which is a much, much stronger round. I can't imagine wanting to use something weaker than the Black Widow .22 mag with a 2" barrel.

It would be very interesting to see .22 LR vs. .22 mag vs. .17 HMR gelatin testing with the NAA revolvers.

Obviously all handguns are a compromise, but the problem I see with legitimately trying to use one of those mini-revolvers is the fact that the Kel-Tec P-3AT is slightly shorter, slightly lighter, and holds 2 more rounds than the NAA Black Widow. The smaller NAA revolvers are a tiny bit smaller than the P-3AT, but they're still much thicker and would be more difficult to conceal and use in any situation I can think of.

The OP seems to be set on .22 LR. If you're going to use a .22, I really wouldn't want to use anything smaller than the S&W 317, hopefully the one with the 3" barrel.

If he's set on the .22 LR and also set on a NAA revolver, all I can suggest is use Stingers and hope the loud bang makes people run away. Those mini-revolvers do actually get some fire shooting out the end because the barrel is so short.

Vern Humphrey
May 12, 2007, 02:01 PM
Ten .22 slugs into the upper torso - whether they are all fairly concentrated center or dotted around the chest cavity are going to produce a similar amount of tissue damage to a single round of buckshot from a 20, 16 or 12 gauge. Having greater sectional density, a solid .22 slug will likely penetrate deeper than a round pellet of similar weight.

Yes, but you have to live long enough to get those ten hits. My own experience, which seems to be confirmed by accounts of police shootings, is that actual combat performance rarely reaches 5-10% of range performance -- so in a real encounter, it would take several reloads to get that many hits.

Jorg Nysgerrig
May 12, 2007, 03:54 PM
You sure about that?

Alright, you got me. The first thread you linked with the penetration tests had not velocities. The second thread, while having velocities, essentially confirmed what was posted by 44AMP and me.

Now, I said hotter .22s have almost the muzzle energy of .380s. .22s do still have decent muzzle energy coming out of barrels around 5"...

We may just have to disagree on this point. A .380 out of a short barrel ends up with about 175-190 ft/lbs of energy. To reach this, a 40 gr bullet needs to be travelling at around 1450 fps. The numbers just don't seem to be there. However, I'm not too enthused about dragging this out in the thread. If you do have some chrono results to the contrary, feel free to PM me.

But the fact is that most people can look at .380 ballistics and tell you it's reasonable for defense

Again, I'm not so sure about this statement. From my observations, the majority of people that have an opinion either consider it inadequate, or barely adequate with a large number of folks who are willing to trade effectiveness for the ability to carry when a larger gun wouldn't work.

Anyway, the rest of what you said about the choice of weapons was spot on. The OP is operating from a bad premise to begin with.

Plink
May 12, 2007, 06:02 PM
Ten .22 slugs into the upper torso - whether they are all fairly concentrated center or dotted around the chest cavity are going to produce a similar amount of tissue damage to a single round of buckshot

And while you're firing those ten rounds, the perp is firing ten rounds of his own. Scary thought. No thanks.

Vern Humphrey
May 12, 2007, 07:12 PM
And while you're firing those ten rounds, the perp is firing ten rounds of his own. Scary thought. No thanks.

Trading hits with a .22 for hits with a .45 is not a good business deal.

ArchAngelCD
May 12, 2007, 09:07 PM
Originally Poster By storm shadow:
What is the most lethal and deadly .22LR cartridge on the market for personal defense in a concealed carry pocket pistol?

(Please spare me the sarcastic comments, wise-cracks and jabs about how wimpy the .22LR is for this role. I already know that.)
Why do these threads always deteriorate into a .22 bash session even when the original poster asks us not to do that?

Why can't you people just answer the question?

People who have no self control and can't stick to what the thread author asked for bugs me to no end. If you can't comply with the authors requests just don't post. :fire:

Last week one of the Mods had to lock one of my threads because someone wouldn't stop arguing when told by the Mod to stop changing the caliber of the gun being recommended. I just don't get it!!! :(

Jorg Nysgerrig
May 12, 2007, 11:04 PM
People who have no self control and can't stick to what the thread author asked for bugs me to no end. If you can't comply with the authors requests just don't post.

Do think it is of valure to the poster to think that a .22 from a handgun at short distances is as effective as a .223 at longer distances? I'd like to think the fine folks on the board care enough about educating others then to let that go.

That's the same when someone compares the ballistics of a .22LR from a rifle with that a .380 handgun and draws the conclusion that a .22LR handgun will be as effective.

I think it is intellectually dishonest to answer questions in a vacuum. If someone asks, "Hey, I want to make a hole in my wall to run this wire. Should I use a this marble bookend or a crescent wrench to pound the nail through to make a whole?. And don't tell me to get another tool, I already have a marble book and crescent wrench.", the correct answer is still, "You really should find a drill for that."

The original poster is operating under the notion that if he pratices with a .22 enough, he will be able to more effectively dispatch an attacker than someone armed with a 9mm. Not only that, but as I mentioned above, later he says that a .22LR and a .223 are "about the same." Shall we allow someone who is admitting he is new to guns to operate under this delusion or shall we do our best to ensure he has the most complete information, both for and against his choices?

I would much rather than a thread provide accurate and complete information that benefits all who read rather than conforming to arbitrary guidelines that may result in someone coming away from the thread with incorrect or incomplete information.

Sure, this thread took a detour; but I think in the end that everyone, the original poster included, probably learned a little something more than they expected. On the other hand, the first reply could have just said, "Use Velocitors or Stingers." and the original poster would be walking around convinced that his handgun was as effective at SD ranges as a military marksman at 200 yards. Hell, even though I disagree with Tostada, he provided some interesting links and caused me to think a bit more about my position.

I suppose I think of a forum as a place for discussion and exploration of topics rather than an simply an answer service. Your mileage may vary.

terry264
May 12, 2007, 11:16 PM
I'd go with Velocitors or Quick Shok's myself, also both very accurate.

JWarren
May 13, 2007, 01:37 AM
Add me to the colum that would use a .22 if nothing else was available-- but would much prefer something with a tad more stopping power if my life and my loved ones were on the line.

While anedoctal evidence is not reliable, it has had impact on my confidence in certain firearms for certain purposes. I, personally, can think of two men who have taken a closely fired .22 to the head and lived. I can't say with one (may have been a glancing shot-- or dead on-- I don't know), but I know with absolute certainty that one was shot point blank and with a direct hit in the center of his forehead. I also know that the round in each case was a high velocity .22 Long Rifle Rimfire round. I have no idea on manufacturer or bullet style.

The bullet actually hit his skull and ran under his skin over his head and exited the rear of his head. I remember when it happened, and you can see plainly his scar.

However, I should point out that these two men were not all that evolved and very well may be some kind of throw-back to our Cro-magnon days of thick skulls.


Still, that leans me towards something that can deliver at least 100 grains of lead at a reasonable muzzle energy. But that's just me.


-- John

sm
May 13, 2007, 02:04 AM
Original Post and reasons for asking are none of my business.

Now if the original member chooses to PM me, and share fine.

Why do I feel this way?

Because I have assisted folks that the only firearm they could use was a .22 is why.

Preacherman is a respected member with credentials.
Doctors Orders after surgery, NO recoil. He had no other choice but .22 lr.

I too have assisted with folks limited by Doctors Orders to NOT shoot anything with recoil.

One lady, used to be a great Trap Shooter in her day.
Osteo so bad she had to quit driving. Doctor said if she shut the car door too hard, or shut her trunk too hard, she could break her back.
She stepped out of bed one morning, and broke her foot.

She uses Marlin 60s with 40 gr lrn. Win X22lr or CCI Mini Mags. She will hit a golf ball every time on a good day, a tennis ball on a bad day.

Just one example.

So I am in the minority around here when it comes to some guns and some calibers.

Then again all I can share are MY experiences and observations.
My experiences and observations DO include physically limited folks born with these limits, limits suffered from injury, accident, burns, from permanent to temporary.

One person broke both wrists , messed up both hands, and broke one arm falling on ice.
6' 3", and just stepped onto the porch to get the paper.

He could do not anything for himself.
Not even unzip his pants, brush his teeth, feed himself. His wife and kids, and friends and neighbors had to do for him.

In time, he could use a Marlin 60, weak handed. He really busted himself up good, more than one surgery.

So I am a little hesitant to fuss at some folks using the guns they choose to use, in the calibers they choose.
Like a .22 handgun.
None of my business, I respect privacy, and there just might be a real serious reason why a person asks the questions they do.

Anyone of us in the blink of an eye might find ourselves physically limited.

JWarren
May 13, 2007, 02:14 AM
well said, sm.

As I said in my post, I would gladly use a .22 if nothing else was available. To clarify, "not available" includes not a viable option as well.

Any means to defend ones self is to be preferred to being a victim.

And considering sm's post, it did occur to me that the two persons I cited would have been VERY unmotivated to continue any activites after their brush with possible death.


-- John

Jorg Nysgerrig
May 13, 2007, 02:56 AM
While I certainly appreciate your sentiment, sm, and would not begrudge someone using a particular firearm out of necessity, I'm not sure that applies to this poster. You see, I tend to check out the previous posts of new members before responding. In this case, the member at hand mentions having small hands and wrists, but is still seeking advice on which .38/.357 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=275846)to buy. This leads me, along with a couple of other things, to believe that his reasons not due to a physical limitation. However, I could be wrong.

Regardless, even is one is limited in choices, they should be aware of potential and the limitations of their situation if are relying on it for protection.

LarryS.
May 13, 2007, 02:58 AM
How about the one that enters the cranium through an ear, eye socket or the nasal canal and stays inside until it finishes its little dance?:evil:

Mannix
May 13, 2007, 03:29 AM
How about the one that enters the cranium through an ear, eye socket or the nasal canal and stays inside until it finishes its little dance?:evil:
+1 The most deadly 22lr round is the one that is shot accurately. I like CCI 40gr mini-mags for killing rabbits and squirrels, but a human is alot bigger, and I personally would NEVER trust my life to a .22 unless I had no other choices. A .22 just doesn't have enough power to stop someone dead in their tracks with anything but a head shot. A .22 is better than nothing, but a .45 would be alot better.

Bob R
May 13, 2007, 05:07 AM
Somebody thinks the .22 has a purpose, and has deployed it at times.

http://www.ruger1022.com/images/Israeli_ruger-3_250.jpg

http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/israeli_sniper.htm

bob

Jorg Nysgerrig
May 13, 2007, 05:40 AM
Somebody thinks the .22 has a purpose, and has deployed it at times.

You might want to note that they the purpose they deployed it for was as a "less-lethal" riot-control weapon to "take out the key protest leaders by shooting them in the legs." ;)

Of course, they found it to be "more lethal" than expected when you shot people in the chest with it.

LAK
May 14, 2007, 07:31 AM
VernYes, but you have to live long enough to get those ten hits. My own experience, which seems to be confirmed by accounts of police shootings, is that actual combat performance rarely reaches 5-10% of range performance -- so in a real encounter, it would take several reloads to get that many hits. .. ETC

I subscribe to the theory that actual performance is a matter of technique, drill, practice - and mindset. Not getting taken by surprize is probably fifty to seventy-five percent or more of the game. Subject history and my observation is that on average a great many people are significantly deficient in three or more of the qualifiers, and get taken completely by surprize perhaps fifty or more percent of the time. Thus the matter of a .22 or a 12 gauge becomes of far lesser significance in my opinion.

I do not subcribe to the myth of handgun "stopping power". I like something of the order of the 9x19mm matched with a service size pistol of excellent point, balance and fast handling qualities. Or a 3" to 4" medium frame .38 or 357 revolver. With such a combination I am about as confident as I can be with any handgun. I do place more importance on the point, balance, handling qualities of the piece coupled with speed and accuracy than I do with the actual bore size, bullet weight and cartridge.

And that said, I do not see a suitable .22 as a bad idea at all. The .22, whether pistol, revolver or rifle is easier to master for practical purposes than any other firearm. The pursuit of minute improvements in precision being ultimately the only real challenge remaining. To maximize it's effectiveness I shun the pocket pistols and tiny revolvers, something in the class of the S&W 34 4" or a 4" sport type pistol making better platforms for practical shooting.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

shooter1
May 14, 2007, 07:42 AM
The deadlest .22LR is the one that hits you in the eye.
str1

dao
May 14, 2007, 08:00 AM
For information about the lethality of .22lr in short barrel, you can look this page : http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/22lr/gel22lr.htm

If I would need to use this caliber for defense, I would stay with the traditional 40gr RNL. It give correct penetration. Don't expect big holes from this caliber.

Vern Humphrey
May 14, 2007, 10:01 AM
I subscribe to the theory that actual performance is a matter of technique, drill, practice - and mindset. Not getting taken by surprize is probably fifty to seventy-five percent or more of the game. Subject history and my observation is that on average a great many people are significantly deficient in three or more of the qualifiers, and get taken completely by surprize perhaps fifty or more percent of the time. Thus the matter of a .22 or a 12 gauge becomes of far lesser significance in my opinion.

The man who thinks he will get perfect performance in combat is going to die disappointed.

tostada
May 14, 2007, 04:27 PM
For information about the lethality of .22lr in short barrel, you can look this page : http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/22lr/gel22lr.htm

When you look at charts like that, you have to remember that a lot of the high-powered .22s like Stinger, Aguila Super Max and Quik Shok are not standard .22 case length. People even end up getting new barrels specifically for Stingers if they're going to shoot them a lot. That's why you see Velocitors recommended so much, because they're probably the most powerful standard .22 LR.

LAK
May 15, 2007, 05:41 AM
Vern,

There is no such thing as perfect in the temporal world. We should strive for it in order to come as close as we can.

"Combat performance" beyond the physical is psychological. Lacking the proper mindset; panic, leading to a state of physical and mental paralysis under the influence of fear, and it makes little or no difference whatsoever is at your disposal - be it a .22 or a 12.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Mannix
May 15, 2007, 05:56 AM
I agree that if you panic and freeze, it doesn't matter what you have, whether it's a .22 or a 12 gauge. If, however, you do not freeze up, there is a huge difference between a 22 and a 12 gauge. Not that a 22 is worthless, but a 12 gauge is alot more powerful. If you care to test it, my uncle's got some land in Texas with some hogs on it that would love to meet you.

Vern Humphrey
May 15, 2007, 09:38 AM
There is no such thing as perfect in the temporal world. We should strive for it in order to come as close as we can.

"Combat performance" beyond the physical is psychological. Lacking the proper mindset; panic, leading to a state of physical and mental paralysis under the influence of fear, and it makes little or no difference whatsoever is at your disposal - be it a .22 or a 12.

I've never killed a man with a handgun in civilian life (and only two in combat.) But my experience is, expect a great degradation in performace when the chips are down. It would be great if you could count on ten hits -- but odds are you'll only get one (if that), and that one will have to do the job.

That being the case, it doesn't make sense to handicap yourself.

tostada
May 16, 2007, 02:31 PM
Obviously the .22 isn't going to be as effective as a regular 9mm +P / .40 / .45 JHP will. Nobody's claiming it is (well, not many sane people are).

But if you look at the average guy who runs tens of thousands of rounds through his little .22 plinker with a cutsey little red dot, I'd bet he'd hit more than 1 for 10 "when the chips are down."

shooter1
May 16, 2007, 02:38 PM
But if you look at the average guy who runs tens of thousands of rounds through his little .22 plinker with a cutsey little red dot, I'd bet he'd hit more than 1 for 10 "when the chips are down."

Let's hope he's carrying his plinker with the "cutsey little red dot" when the chips are down!
str1

Vern Humphrey
May 16, 2007, 03:51 PM
Disasters often occur because people plan for them to occur.

The man who carries his plinker with the "cutsey little red dot" as a defensive weapon is planning to have a disaster.

LAK
May 18, 2007, 04:31 AM
VernThat being the case, it doesn't make sense to handicap yourself.
Handicaps come in many forms. If the arguement is that it is performance, in the sense of accurate and effective shooting, an easier to shoot firearm might argueably be the lesser handicap.

I have not had to kill anyone with a handgun; I have had a rifle pointed at my head by someone who took me by surprize at a distance of a few yards. I have also had a good number of near death and serious injury experiences of various types in various circumstances. Some very dynamic, others of a quieter and less strenuous nature, and my own opinion is that seriously impeded performance as a result of a lack of the proper mindset, panic and paralysis is not going to be remedied by using a bigger gun. And these factors along with having mastered the gun concerned along with shooting skills, drills etc are far more significant.

shooter1
May 18, 2007, 07:29 AM
I would think that anyone seriously comitted to self preservation would take the time and effort to become proficient with the most effective, pratical, carry weapon they could master. Along with the decision to carry, one should have come to grips with the possibility of having to use lethal force, and the consquences thereof.
str1

Vern Humphrey
May 18, 2007, 10:02 AM
Handicaps come in many forms. If the arguement is that it is performance, in the sense of accurate and effective shooting, an easier to shoot firearm might argueably be the lesser handicap.
If that's true, we ought to be able to find evidence for it.

The only "serious" use for the .22 LR is in assassinations (Mossad uses it.) But these are not self-defense cases, where the man with the .22 is attacked by someone else. These are cases where the agent takes his victim by surprise, shooting him through the head at contact range.

Beyond that, I cannot find any organization which expects its people to actually use a pistol in combat that chooses the .22 LR.

wes
May 18, 2007, 11:42 AM
If you look at some of storm shadows other posts youll find questions about all sorts of calibers and types of guns.
Suggestions wanted for my first revolver!
Views: 504 Posted By storm shadow
Suggestions wanted for my first revolver!

I am thinking of getting a Smith and Wesson revolver for my first handgun. I like the versatility of the .38/.357 lineup in that you can shoot .38, .38+p, and even .357 Magnum loads all through the...

so hopefully storm shadow isn't absolutely set on a 22 lr for SD

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the most deadly .22LR round?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!