[Ed]

Hello, first off I know that a .45 will have a higher stopping power than a .22. My question is that everyone talks bad about a .22, .25, and 32 for self defense. Sitting here, I think if someone shot me with any of those I'd probably be unhappy. Is the reason they are not considered good due to the fact that if you were wearing heavy clothes it might not penetrate? I know plenty of people have died from these rounds. I'll carry my .45 but want to know the reasons people don't like these. I know any gun is better than no gun. Is it that it takes really good shot placement to kill someone? And I say that because again, I feel like I wouldn't have to be dead to reconsider what I was doing if I was shot with anything.

[hillbilly]

.22s are lethal. Absolutely lethal. Only the bad guy you shoot will bleed to death internally about 20 minutes after he beats you to death with a chunk of two-by-four.

Consider the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt.

John Hinckley Jr. shot four people at point blank range with a .22 and no one died. Even a neck wound and a stomach shot did not prove fatal.

Brady was hit in the head and lived.

Reagan was hit in the chest, and no one knew he was hit until he coughed up blood in the back of the limo and he was still able to walk into the hospital under his own power. Yeah, it was for propaganda photo op, but he was still able to do it.

The problem with .25s is that they have a slightly larger bullet than a .22, only it moves more slowly. There are several documented cases of .25s bouncing off skulls at point-blank range.

.32s are better, but still not nearly as good as .380s.

These little pistols are lethal. They are not toys.

Only if some adrenaline-charged guy is attacking me with an axe, I want to hit him with something with a lot more oomph than a .22.

But if for whatever reason a .22 is the biggest, most powerful defense piece you can carry, it sure beats a rock or a stick.

hillbilly

[C.R.Sam]

In a defensive situation you want to stop the bad guy as soon as possible.
Keeps them from doin you in after they been shot.
Bigger guns do a better job of stopping, usually.
Like Askins senior said...carry as much gun as you can handle.

If you are limited in gun capability due to size etc...little one better than none...usually.

Example here couple years ago...
First party shoots second party with .25
Second party takes umbrage and shoots first party with .45.
Both dead.

Sam

[10-Ring]

When I first got my 25, I started calling it my false sense of security. I hope I'll never have to find out how effective any of my guns are in a defensive situation.

[critter]

Col Jeff Cooper says something like this: If you are ever forced to shoot anybody with a .25 acp-----and they find out about it----they will really be mad!

[David4516]

I think of the .380 as the smallest caliber that is still "serious". Of course any gun in the pocket is worth 2 in the safe, but I've heard storys about .25s bouncing off the bad guy. My dad says that you use a .25 to soften up the other guy for the fist fight that will follow :p

Of course, there are times when a small gun is the only gun you can carry, and in that kind of situation the .32 ACP looks like a pretty good round to me, at least compared to .25 ACP or .22 LR...

[Sunray]

A 25 ACP will go right clean through a 2 x 4 at 100 yards. A Silvertipp .25 ACP will do lots of damage as it goes through too. Cooper has always rattled on about the .45 ACP's stopping power. It's not a great as he would make you think. 60% as I recall. About the same or a bit less than a 9mm. NO pistol round will give you a 100% gauranteed one shot stop.

[JH22]

(Forgive my newbie-ness...)

Ok, you've got a .22 in a self defense situation with a 10 round magazine. You know a .22 doesn't have much "stopping" power. So you decide 10 rounds are better than 1, and keep on firing until the gun is empty. (Or maybe you shoot 8, keeping 2 in reserve.)

What happens in this situation?

J.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Uhm... if you hit him with all 10 rounds? He'll bleed out faster I'd think, but you'd still have little or no 'stopping power'.

But as has been stated, a .22 is better than harsh language or a pointed stick.

I also think I'd practice alot and try for upper torso shots.

Nice to see another Cali member; how's the weather in SJ?

[Sean Smith]

Well, you can use the last two rounds on yourself. :D

[Boats]

Having a little stable of low caliber Berettas, I think I'd almost rather use this:

http://www.knifecenter.com/knifecenter/bnchmd/images/bm806d2.jpg

[4v50 Gary]

I noticed one deputy practicing with a Browning Buckmark. I went up to the rangemaster and asked him, "Is he qualifying to be the Department hitman or is it an off-duty gig?" ;)

[Camel]

Shot placement is what counts. A .22 in the brain will do more damage than a .50BMG in the foot. Although a .50BMG to the brain would stop just about anything living.

[coldshot03/04]

Shoot for the head.

[Flashpoint]

Although a .50BMG to the brain would stop just about anything living.

A .50BMG would pretty much remove the head wouldn't it? If the .22 is so bad then why do you always get the picture of Hitmen using them, you know like the movie Assasins?

[Geech]

As people mentioned, flashpoint, it's not that it can't kill, it's that it's not likely to cause rapid incapacitation.

[rugerfreak]

Relatively-----which would be the better .22 stopping round from say a mini Beretta--or something along those lines.

1. a CCI Stinger
2. a solid point standard load---Fed--Win--Rem--CCI
3. a hollow point standard load----CCI mini mag---Rem golden bullet--or thereabouts
4. a trunacated cone bullet---assuming it functions in the gun

Been looking at those little pistols lately---low price and seemingly well made.

[Flashpoint]

As people mentioned, flashpoint, it's not that it can't kill, it's that it's not likely to cause rapid incapacitation.

Yea, I guess when your victim doesn't know who shot them it doesn' t matter if they die immediatly or 30 minutes later. Not being an assasin I never gave it much thought :p. Makes sense to me.

[Henry Bowman]

hillbilly (I prefer Appalachian-American) -
That little shot to Brady's head completely liquified his wife's brain!

[Stinkyshoe]

Henry said :"hillbilly (I prefer Appalachian-American) "


LMAO!! Good one!! I needed that! :p :D


Kinda like us Bohunks(Bohemian descendants) are Northwestern-Europeon Americans. :):D

[Stinkyshoe]

I would have to say that a 22 in hand is a lot better than the 44 mag Desert Eagle stuck under your pillow. I know a guy who knows a guy who has always shot deer with a 22 pistol. For years he did this, and last year he got his first deer with a rifle(he got a permit this time)although I think he has since died. This is certainly not legal or agreed with by me. I don't believe leaving a wounded animal to die is worth the risk. I don't believe hunting without a permit is worth the huge fines that will follow. Having said that, it just goes to show that shot placement is key to stopping a BG. Most of us would prefer a high power gun when we meet "Johnny the felon zooped up on drugs", but there must be a balance of a gun that is comfortable to carry all the time you need to, with adaquate stopping power. I don't know much about handguns though, so as far as what gun/caliber is the best...I have no clue. I suspect that like David said, anything 380 or greater would probably do it, although I would stop if someone shot me with a paintball gun or airsoft(ouchy!):)

[Kentucky Rifle]

How many shots did it take to hit that 2X4 that was 100 yards away? :) Just kidding. I shot a 2X4 with my Beretta Jetfire .25ACP in my garage. The bullet did indeed, go straight through. It was a Fiocchi FMJ.

KR

[gau5]

From Coopers Commentaries:


It has long been our dogma that stopping power is an essential element of the defensive triad, and this remains true as ever. However, the purpose of defensive combat is to stop one's adversary, and a 22 rimfire hit in the tear duct will stop any fight of which we have knowledge. Thus we do not push the 22 pistol as a defensive sidearm, but we do insist that perfect placement with the 22 is decisive. There is a place for the miniature 22 pistol, as long as it is well crafted and easy to use. It appears that most defensive confrontations are terminated solely by the display of a firearm. This cannot be proven, but the mass of street experience suggests that it is true. Nobody wants to get shot with any sort of pistol, which brings us around to the first principle of gun fighting, which is "Have a gun!"


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

On the subject of wheel guns, I tend to fancy the feather-weight 22 introduced last year by Smith & Wesson. At risk of sounding loony, I maintain that the 22 long rifle is a considerably more practical cartridge than the 38 Special, or for that matter almost any other handgun cartridge. The advantage of the 22 is that you will shoot it a lot, and thus learn to hit what you are shooting at. While stopping power is certainly an essential of a sidearm intended primarily for defensive use, we must remember that a 22 in a tear duct tends to stop more decisively than a 9 in the wish-bone. Of course to use a 22 in a combat mode, the shooter must be well trained and in total charge of his nerves, and that may be too much to expect. However, as we have often taught, more than half of handgun confrontations are successfully concluded by the appearance of a handgun, rather than the shooting of one. Nobody wants to get shot with anything, and most people cannot tell one handgun from another. The 1911 still constitutes the defensive handgun of choice, and the more sea stories we get back from the wars, the more this point is proven. But in the big picture it is attitude that wins fights. Naturally we want the right equipment, but what we need is the right attitude.


What about the 22 for self-defense? We do not recommend it, but we certainly do not disregard it. In the first place, most defensive situations are solved by the presence of a gun, rather than by shooting. Nobody wants to get shot with anything, and a goblin confronted with a 22 is just as much affected as if he were looking into a larger muzzle. Secondly, defensive situations are short-range situations - arm's length, across the kitchen table, across the bedroom. At these distances, a cool hand can hit a ping pong ball with his first shot every time. If the defender confines his targets to the eye sockets, his 22 should certainly suffice to stop the fight. A good 22 is small and handy, and its ammunition is cheap, affording more practice than a center-fire. A good grade of pocket 22, fitted with a good trigger, has much to recommend it for house defense - especially when the man of the house is not at home.

[hillbilly]

Appalachian American?

Well, that would discriminate against us Ozark Americans. And afterall, we're the ones who are more hillbilly than thou......

You Appalachian folks are just hillbilly wanna-bes.

Wouldn't "pig squealers" be more appropriate for Applachian Americans? How about "Ned Beaty-o-philes?"

pickin' and a grinnin'

hillbilly

[rolltide]

Somebody here said the 45 was a 60% stopper. The 230gr hydrashock is a 96% stopper. The best 9mm are 91% stopper. As for the small calibers mentioned in the initial post, the 22 and the 25 are in the low 20% range of one shot stops. The 32 on the other hand is a 67% one shot stopper. By comparison the 380 is a 71% OSS and the 38 Special snub nose is a 67% OSS with the best loads in those calibers.

The 32 is in the size range of a 22 or 25, but it is in the same stopping power range as the 380 and 38 Special snub nose. I carry a NAA 32 Guardian almost everyday. I would rather have a 357 or a 45 and I own several guns in those calibers, but I can't carry them most of the time. I can put my NAA 32 in my front pocket and up to 40 rounds in 10 round mags in my back pocket. It goes with me everyday like my wallet and my keys.


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
J.A. Zimmerman says (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/4800/): Say a round has a one shot stop percentage of 75%:

1. If sixteen people were shot with one of these rounds and a solid torso hit, twelve of them would be stopped, 4 would not be stopped.

2. If you shoot those remaining 4 with a second shot with the same round, 3 out of 4 (75%) of them will be stopped.

3. This means that 15 out of 16 people (94%) would be stopped with a double tap of a 75% one shot stopper.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

These numbers seem a little on the conservative side to me since they assume no cumulative effect of the shots. That is to say, if the first shot does not stop a person, it is ignored altogether and a second shot is only factored in at its original one shot stop percentage.

If you accept this logic (which seems very reasonable to me), I ran the figures for one shot stop percentage(OSS) vs double tap percentage(DT) vs triple tap percentage(TT). This would assume solid torso hits with all rounds fired.

For instance if a round is a 90% OSS then it will stop 99% of people with a double tap and 99.9% with a triple tap.

OSS......DT.......TT
90%......99%......99.9%
80%......96%......99.2%
70%......91%......97.3%
60%......84%......93.6%
50%......75%......87.5%

I believe this Zimmerman guy may be on to something.

This makes my NAA 32ACP:
OSS=67%.....DT=89.11%.....TT=96.41%
Given that I can carry it 100% of the time without anyone even knowing that it is there (even with 4 extra mags in my back pocket) and without interrupting my daily life in the least, I think it is a pretty smart choice for my lifestyle anyway.

In light of these numbers, it would take 2 shots from a 32ACP to do what a compact 9MM would do with 1 shot and 3 shots from a 32ACP to do what a compact 9MM would do with 2 shots. I can live with that.

Roll Tide

[Ky Larry]

Shot placement is all that really matters. The Israeli's use a .22 bullet behind the ear. Seems to work. Remember that fellow named Bull who was building a super cannon for Iraq? Somebody put a .22 behind his ear.One shot did the job. I remember growing up on a farm we used a .22 pistol to dispatch hogs for butchering. It never took more than 1 shot between the eyes.

[Preacherman]

Rolltide, the HUGE problem with Marshall & Sanow's figures is that they discard so many shootings that don't fit their criteria. This is not a criticism of these gentlemen: they publish openly what their criteria are, and we are free to use their methods or not, as we wish. I applaud them for their openness.

However, their methodology specifically EXCLUDES any shooting where more than one bullet hit the target. This makes judging their "one-shot stop" percentages very difficult. For example: let's say we have 100 shootings "for the record" with cartridge X. In 72 cases, the shooter (being trained to shoot until the threat has been stopped) hit the target with more than one shot - perhaps up to a dozen or so. These 72 cases are thus DISCARDED from their database as being outside the boundaries they have set up. Of the remaining 28 cases, they find that (say) 25 were situations where one shot was fired and was sufficient to stop the BG. They don't consider that many of these may have been head shots at a range of a few feet, or that the "stop" (which they define as the cessation of the assault) might have been in progress BEFORE the shot was fired (i.e. BG sees gun, decides to stop, turn and run away, and is shot after he's stopped, but before he's been able to turn and run). They simply state that for cartridge X, the "one-shot stop" results are 90%. In reality, if we include the 72 cases where more than one shot was used, the "one-shot stop" percentage for all 100 cases should be 25%: but this is not clear from the figures, as we are never told how many cases resulted in stops, but were excluded from the database because more than one shot was fired.

I read Marshall & Sanow's data with interest, and it's one factor that I take into consideration when selecting defensive loads: but it's not the statistical "bullseye" that many assume it to be...

[rolltide]

Preacherman,
You raise very valid points. I had considered them already and basically agree that these numbers cannot be rigidly applied as to exact percent of people who will stop when hit with a specified round. However, none of their detractors have done any real life research which refutes these numbers, they only surmise, suppose, and guess about what was and was not included and why. Marshall/Sanow provide us the best glimpse of real life results we have, and while their numbers may not yeild an absolute scale of a bullets performance in all cases, they do yeild a very good comparitive study as to how bullets stack up in real life compared to other bullets when judged by identical criteria. I think that is mainly what they intended to do and that is mainly the way I look at their data. That is also the main intention of my post here. My main point is not that the best load in 45ACP will abosolutely stop 96 out of 100 attackers every time. My main point is that the 45ACP will stop 4 to 5 times as many as the 22 or 25, and that the 32 will stop roughly the same percentage as the 380 or the 38 special out of a snub nose. I should have been a little more clear about that.

In my opinion if you must have 100% one shot stops, you better use a shotgun properly loaded or a rifle properly loaded and well placed shots. Every handgun is a multiple shot proposition as far as I'm concerned regardless what the one shot stop percentage is (that is why I carry a magazine fed gun with 7 rounds in it and a minimum of 16 rounds in my pocket with ammo that has proved 100% reliable in my gun by my own experience.) I do agree with KY Larry that a 22 behind the ear at point blank range may also be a 100% stopper. The only problem is getting a determined and armed adversary to stand by and let you put a gun to his ear.

Roll Tide