[NC-336]

Would anyone use a 22 revolver as a carry in the car or keep as a extra gun for home defense.

[godsdog]

YES!!!

[CoRoMo]

Sure, but only as a backup to my daily carry.

As for home defense...

Every gun and every round of ammo would have to be spent before I'd reach for that .22 revolver.
At which point, that revolver ain't gonna solve the problems I'm up against.

[Sato Ord]

I have known several people who carry a .22 as a primary. Not my first choice, but I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one.

One friend of mine in Colorado carried a home made .22 short smooth bore, single shot that his father (could have been grandfather) made. He used it on a BG in a parking lot one night. Ended up putting the thing right into the muggers nostril as he pulled the trigger. He didn't mean to, it just worked out that way in the struggle.

The guy lived. However, a .22 short lodged in your sinus cavity will definitely ruin any further plans you have for the evening.

Not the ideal situation for someone trying to defend himself against a man with a knife, but it was better than getting stabbed.

[druber]

It all depends on shot placement with a .22. Shooting to main can pose a risk because of it's ricocheting capabilities, but shooting to kill can be rather easy. This is provided you train with it and aim for the head, like in stress training sessions. I saw on TV these people had a course and shot wad cutters (I don't think they were .22s, probably 9MMs) and wore Kevlar to simulate combat scenarios and such. The .22 doesn't have stopping power, so shooting a person in the head is the only way to get them to stop easily. You can try pumping all your ammunition into the person, but this wouldn't look very good in front of a court that may not understand much about firearms.

Now, home defense is a whole different ball game than just carrying. You can have a shotgun and do a much more superior job of stopping a person, and you don't even need a head shot.

[xstuntman]

Sure. I carry one to and from the truck and it's usually the go to gun in the house also since it's not in the safe. Of course its loaded with 40 grain hv solids in a 6.5 barrelled revolver. Mike

[twoclones]

Yep. 22 mag was my primary carry for several years.

[mgkdrgn]

22lr .... could work, but it will be marginal at best. But, it beats a sharp stick and yelling.

22 Magnum ... whole different kettle of fish.

[foghornl]

IF my "Single-Six" was what I had in hand when the Vigoro Strikes Mixmaster, I'll run what I brung.

Stoked with those CCI .22Mag rounds topped off with the Gold Dot style projectile, oh yeah, that will definitely leave a mark.

[searcher451]

A quick search would produce a story from a couple of years ago about a minister or reverend, as I recall it, who shot an intruder (fatally, I believe) with a Walther P22. It may not be an ideal caliber, but it's better than no gun at all.

[mcdonl]

I LOVE the .22 MAG round. Fun to shoot, and packs a whallop for a .22.

[woad_yurt]

Sometimes I keep an old .22 H&R stashed around, just in case. Nine Aguila Supermaximums are good to have within reach. It's not my primary gun but it's good to know it's there.

[sm]

Yes.

[tostada]

There's nothing wrong with using a .22 if you have to, but you have to realize that the manufacturer specs (and most .22 ballistics you see on the net) are tested with a rifle with a 22" barrel. They perform much worse out of a short barrel. So, when you look down at your CCI Stingers or Aguila Interceptors and say, "Wow! That's as much power as a .380!" you're fooling yourself.

For example, those Stingers say 1640 FPS on the box, but look at what they actually get:

1 1/8" revolver = 980 FPS -> 68 ftlbs

2" revolver (S&W 317) = 1080 FPS -> 83 ftlbs

3" revolver (S&W 317) = 1150 FPS -> 94 ftlbs

4" revolver = 1192 FPS -> 101 ftlbs

18" rifle = 1550 FPS -> 171 ftlbs

22" rifle = 1640 FPS -> 191 ftlbs

So just remember, that 3" revolver is getting half the muzzle energy, and those pocketable ones are even worse. You definitely need all the help you can, so get some premium ammo.

And I've heard people say that in short barrels the .22 WMR loses most of its advantage over .22 LR. Apparently most of the powder accomplishes little but shooting fire out the end of the barrel.

[Deus Machina]

If it's all you've got, it's what you'll use.

If I can help it, I'd want at least a .380.

If you really want a .22, I'd much prefer .22 Magnum, out of a barrel 3 inches or longer. I'd actually trust a .22WMR more than a .25ACP, and personally put it on par with some of the .32's, depending on the particular rounds of each.

[edrice]

I get a sense that .22 hollow points may be good on small game, but it seems to me that if you had to use .22 on BGs that you'd probably want to use solids and probably 40 grainers at that.

Any comment on that?

Ed

[mrt949]

yes my beretta 21a is my yard gun .mail. box .and trash day :uhoh:

[tostada]

if you had to use .22 on BGs that you'd probably want to use solids and probably 40 grainers at that.

The problem is just that .22 hollow points are not engineering marvels on par with real defensive JHP. A .22 hollow point is just a little lead bullet with a dent in the end, and they simply don't get much expansion. At reduced velocities out of a handgun, they get zero expansion.

I'm sure it would help to use Paco Kelly's Maxi-Scorp’n thingy, but regular hollow points aren't going to perform any differently than solid ones.

http://www.leverguns.com/store/acu-rzr.htm


I would definitely say a 40-grain hyper velocity like Velocitors and Interceptors is the way to go, but I don't think they're all that superior to the 32-grain Stingers.

[druber]

If you aiming at stopping, not killing, a bad guy it doesn't matter what you use. Shoot them in the legs so they have trouble moving, you can't rely on the knockdown power. If you are shooting to kill, again it doesn't matter as long as the bullet can penetrate the skull (the best way to get a fast kill).

[lvcat2004]

If you are in a self-defense situation, you should be shooting to kill. Shooting legs?? NO. Center mass, head if you are a good shot, but legs, please no. If you are not threatened enought that you don't feel like you need to shoot center mass or head, then you shouldn't be pulling the trigger in the first place. I personally would NEVER use 22LR for self defense. I have plenty of other calibers to rely on, and if I run out of ammo on other guns, then it's irrelevant whether I have 22LR or not, I have other issues at that point.

[tostada]

I'm sorry, but telling people to aim for the legs has to be some of the worst advice I've ever seen on a gun forum.

1) The legs are the hardest part of a person to hit, especially if the person is moving.

2) The place you are most likely to hit the person is in their thigh muscle. If it does hit bone, it'll be the strongest bone in the human body. Honestly, if I had to be shot, I would prefer to be shot in the thigh by a .22. As long as it misses your femoral artery you'll be fine.

3) You will likely be prosecuted because the shooting was not justified. You weren't that concerned with killing the attacker (or you would've shot them in the head or chest) so you probably didn't think your life was in danger.

4) You probably deserve to be prosecuted. You were intentionally aiming to maim the victim, cause them a slow death, or cripple them for life. The historical reasoning behind shooting people in the knees will certainly be brought up. Shooting someone in the legs makes it look like you just wanted to put them in a wheelchair.


Not only should you not shoot at people's legs, but if you do accidentally shoot someone in the leg you better stick to the story that you were aiming for their chest and missed.

[druber]

I guess I am a mean person then, because if I don't want to kill someone I'd shoot them in the legs. If I cripple them, bonus points. I want them to regret making me have to shoot them in the first place.

[SimpleIsGood229]

No, because I prefer 9mm and/or 12 gauge for SD/HD. Of course, I'd take one of my .22 LR's if that was all that was available.

[Deus Machina]

I guess I am a mean person then, because if I don't want to kill someone I'd shoot them in the legs.

Then you shouldn't be shooting them.

If you're in at a point that you have to shoot someone, their survival should be the last of your worries. You need them to stop, now, and the legs are the absolute worst place to get that result.

[tostada]

druber:

I'm not personally saying that I think you should always want to kill someone if you fire at them. That's open to some degree of debate. The fact is, however, that the way the legal system works you're better off killing someone than wounding them.

As for your statements, when you say you don't necessarily want to kill someone, but, "If I cripple them, bonus points," then yes, you are definitely a "mean person." You're the type of person who makes gun enthusiasts look like psychos.

[Sato Ord]

I guess I am a mean person then, because if I don't want to kill someone I'd shoot them in the legs. If I cripple them, bonus points. I want them to regret making me have to shoot them in the first place.

I'm not going to point out the asinine thought process that goes into such a statement, but it is rather self serving as well as foolish.

Let me point out that many people have been shot in the leg with larger calibers than a .22 and haven't even noticed due to the adrenalin running through their system.

My great grandfather was shot through the calf with a mini ball during the civil war while he was a currier. The ball passed between the fibula and tibia, and killed the horse he was riding. He got up and ran four miles and delivered his parcel to General Grant himself. When Grant found out he had run like that with a .50 caliber hole in his leg he promoted him sergeant on the spot. A copy of the promotion papers can still be found in the Library of Congress archives.

Not too long ago, my friend, the LT. Colonel in the Marines, was shot through the calf with am AK round. It hurt like hell and pissed him off. He killed the guy who shot him and several of the man's friends as well. Yeah, he got really cranky about it.

The point of both stories is that shooting to wound is not only hard to do, it is dangerous to the person doing it. If it is a situation that requires deadly force, then it requires deadly force. If it doesn't require deadly force the use of a fire arm is not called for and you should leave your weapon in the holster.

[revshooter]

If I'm to a point that I have to pull and fire a gun at someone then it's obvious that I feel my life is being threatened. With that in mine, I would be firing to kill. If my life is not threatened then I would take other measures other than firing a gun.