Shooter973
Member
If you ever do get in a gun fight you'll never wish you had a smaller caliber gun...bigger is just better.....
Reality vs Fantasy: the case for .22 Carry
- Thread starter slicer22
- Start date
- Status
exavid
Member
I often carry my LCP .380 but would hope if the need came I'd be carrying my .45 for the occasion. If for nothing else the .45 makes a better club.
JRH6856
Member
Oh, I'm sorry, were you asking a question? I just re-read your original post and found no questions which you didn't answer yourself. I didn't realize you were seeking answers as you seemed more intent on providing them.
skeptical_in_Ohio
Member
Hi all-
Please note that I concur with those who believe that .380 ACP is the minimal SD round. If I were to pursue CCW that's what I'd be using - if not bigger. Lucky for me that HD is my only real concern, and the risk there is fairly low at this time (we're blessed to live in a pretty safe place).
The only situation of which I'm aware (there are likely others) that could even plausibly be considered as suggesting otherwise is that once upon a time Mr. John Hinkley got off six shots with a .22 revolver (a Rohm) in something like 2 seconds that did serious damage to a presidential press secretary, a secret service agent a police officer and a sitting President, despite the presence of a very well-trained personal security force, and that apparently Mr. Hinckley would have difficulty hitting the inside of a barn.
This said, regardless of the outcome in that case, what little I know suggests that bigger caliber generally means more damage to the attacker, ceteras paribus. Luckily Mr. Hinckley went for the .22, albeit with those funky "Devastator" rounds (whomever knows about those, they'd be interesting to hear about even just for curiosity).
Please note that I concur with those who believe that .380 ACP is the minimal SD round. If I were to pursue CCW that's what I'd be using - if not bigger. Lucky for me that HD is my only real concern, and the risk there is fairly low at this time (we're blessed to live in a pretty safe place).
The only situation of which I'm aware (there are likely others) that could even plausibly be considered as suggesting otherwise is that once upon a time Mr. John Hinkley got off six shots with a .22 revolver (a Rohm) in something like 2 seconds that did serious damage to a presidential press secretary, a secret service agent a police officer and a sitting President, despite the presence of a very well-trained personal security force, and that apparently Mr. Hinckley would have difficulty hitting the inside of a barn.
This said, regardless of the outcome in that case, what little I know suggests that bigger caliber generally means more damage to the attacker, ceteras paribus. Luckily Mr. Hinckley went for the .22, albeit with those funky "Devastator" rounds (whomever knows about those, they'd be interesting to hear about even just for curiosity).
Last edited:
Reasons not to carry a .22lr include but are not limited to:
Failure to feed
Failure to fire
Failure to extract
I have had way more problems with .22lr than with centerfire ammo. Just the fact that .22lr is not as reliable as centerfire is reason enough for me. The only case rupture and squib I ever had was with .22lr.
So even if I thought the .22lr had adequate terminal ballistics (it doesn't) it would lose out based on reliability.
Failure to feed
Failure to fire
Failure to extract
I have had way more problems with .22lr than with centerfire ammo. Just the fact that .22lr is not as reliable as centerfire is reason enough for me. The only case rupture and squib I ever had was with .22lr.
So even if I thought the .22lr had adequate terminal ballistics (it doesn't) it would lose out based on reliability.
*NOVA*
Member
Seriously Slicer you need thicker skin - you took a position and labeled it smart man's carry. Then you say YOU ARE HERE TO LEARN?
I find the longer you stay on these forums, you'll notice the sincerest folks giving the best advice have many many posts-they have been sharing this knowledge for a long time for anyone who will listen.
So don't take it personnaly and listen to them like you appear to be doing now - - try the .380 caliber - there are several choices in micro size handguns.
22 rimfire has its place - for small game, plinking, target practice, etc. Use the right tool for the job.
I find the longer you stay on these forums, you'll notice the sincerest folks giving the best advice have many many posts-they have been sharing this knowledge for a long time for anyone who will listen.
So don't take it personnaly and listen to them like you appear to be doing now - - try the .380 caliber - there are several choices in micro size handguns.
22 rimfire has its place - for small game, plinking, target practice, etc. Use the right tool for the job.
i shoot a LOT of .22s.....and by a lot, i mean easily over 10,000 rounds a year....
and i dont buy the ".22s are less reliable" argument at all.......
with any half decent .22.......in a half decent, and clean pistol......i have found reliability to be on par with any centerfire round.
i honestly do not remember the last time i had a failure to fire with a .22...
failure to feed is on par with any centerfire.....
and i think the only times i have had a Failure to extract was with heavily lubed ammo......but thus far, with any copper plated or non lubed ammo, ive never had a problem....
it really is amazing how many problems you can elevate when you buy half decent ammo....and clean your gun regularly.
JRH6856
Member
amd6547
Member
I have plenty of carry options, and my regular CCW is a Glock 26.
But, I would not feel underarmed with a good quality 22lr loaded with decent proven ammo. I have carried such myself.
But, I would not feel underarmed with a good quality 22lr loaded with decent proven ammo. I have carried such myself.
Marlin60Man
Member
I don't know... I like .22 LR, it's all I have, and out of a rifle barrel I think it's plenty lethal--my model 60s hold 15 and 18 respectively and I'd grab them before anythign else in my house... I'm confident they would do the job, but I'd still rather get something else someday. So I would trust the cartridge out of the right gun to defend my life.
On the other hand, even out of 5" barrels it starts to get a little iffy, and in a 3-4" pocket gun I wouldn't really want to rely on it for much more than shooting across the room. People have been killing others for generations with pocket guns that probably have less ballistic energy than modern .22 LR cartridges, but even historically those low-powered contraptions ( things like ring pistols, derringer pocket-pistols, etc. ) didn't really work out so great.
It just makes more sense to get something like a .380 or a .38 special. I've seen pocket-sized guns in both calibers that are available for the same or even less than some of the same offerings I've seen in .22 LR. I mean, I've seen a very nice Kel Tec .380 for $200-$250. Then look at the Ruger SP-101... The .22 LR version costs like what, $500 right now? I'm pretty sure I saw the .357 version available for $300-$400 on Bud's, and I think there's even a .38 special only version for even less.
Plus I don't really think you've considered that a lot of people that want to carry have to live and work in high-crime areas. Take for example areas with high gang activity, if you ever did need to defend yourself against a criminal in this area, how likely is it that they would be a gang member? These are people that have probably been shot at and have experience shooting back, so I'm not really sure the whole "deterrence" thing is going to get them to crack under the pressure. Gun fights might be a Hollywood favorite, but have you ever heard the phrase, "Art imitates life imitates art". Just because Hollywood exaggerates it doesn't mean it doesn't haven't its basis in real life.
Plus, the whole idea of pointing a pistol at someone... You can't just pull a gun out on someone and not expect consequences. They'll likely call the cops on you, and if you run into the wrong person they might just draw their gun on you and shoot. Since when did it become a good idea to pull it without intending to use it? Even if they're not a criminal, what if they just have their own gun and think that you are the criminal and shoot you? Why escalate the situation right off the bat?
I don't really think you put much thought into it. Ninja warriors and rapiers?
On the other hand, even out of 5" barrels it starts to get a little iffy, and in a 3-4" pocket gun I wouldn't really want to rely on it for much more than shooting across the room. People have been killing others for generations with pocket guns that probably have less ballistic energy than modern .22 LR cartridges, but even historically those low-powered contraptions ( things like ring pistols, derringer pocket-pistols, etc. ) didn't really work out so great.
It just makes more sense to get something like a .380 or a .38 special. I've seen pocket-sized guns in both calibers that are available for the same or even less than some of the same offerings I've seen in .22 LR. I mean, I've seen a very nice Kel Tec .380 for $200-$250. Then look at the Ruger SP-101... The .22 LR version costs like what, $500 right now? I'm pretty sure I saw the .357 version available for $300-$400 on Bud's, and I think there's even a .38 special only version for even less.
Plus I don't really think you've considered that a lot of people that want to carry have to live and work in high-crime areas. Take for example areas with high gang activity, if you ever did need to defend yourself against a criminal in this area, how likely is it that they would be a gang member? These are people that have probably been shot at and have experience shooting back, so I'm not really sure the whole "deterrence" thing is going to get them to crack under the pressure. Gun fights might be a Hollywood favorite, but have you ever heard the phrase, "Art imitates life imitates art". Just because Hollywood exaggerates it doesn't mean it doesn't haven't its basis in real life.
Plus, the whole idea of pointing a pistol at someone... You can't just pull a gun out on someone and not expect consequences. They'll likely call the cops on you, and if you run into the wrong person they might just draw their gun on you and shoot. Since when did it become a good idea to pull it without intending to use it? Even if they're not a criminal, what if they just have their own gun and think that you are the criminal and shoot you? Why escalate the situation right off the bat?
I don't really think you put much thought into it. Ninja warriors and rapiers?
Derry 1946
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 516
There was a recent story about an octogenarian homeowner who dispatched a robber in mid-home-invasion by shooting the thief right through the front door and into (through?) the criminal's abdomen. I respectfully submit that this is one application in which .45 proved more use than .22 would likely have been.
You know the thick white coats chefs wear? On March 25, 2008, New Orleans chef Paul Prudhomme, while cooking outdoors for the Zurich Classic golf tournament, felt a sting on his arm, shook out his sleeve, and out fell a .22 bullet. Chef Prudhomme kept cooking. Fortunately, Chef Prudhomme is not considered a mad attacker (unless you're a redfish). This is only to suggest that a heavy leather coat may significantly reduce the effectiveness of the .22.
The use of a firearm on the streets, in any caliber, is a very serious matter. The prevailing wisdom, as best I understand it, is that it is generally highly inadvisable to draw one's weapon unless the need to use it presently exists, in response to a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm. The notion that a smaller caliber somehow empowers one to draw the firearm purely as a deterrent is, in my opinion, misplaced. I wish you success in the quest for knowledge and responsible self-protection.
You know the thick white coats chefs wear? On March 25, 2008, New Orleans chef Paul Prudhomme, while cooking outdoors for the Zurich Classic golf tournament, felt a sting on his arm, shook out his sleeve, and out fell a .22 bullet. Chef Prudhomme kept cooking. Fortunately, Chef Prudhomme is not considered a mad attacker (unless you're a redfish). This is only to suggest that a heavy leather coat may significantly reduce the effectiveness of the .22.
The use of a firearm on the streets, in any caliber, is a very serious matter. The prevailing wisdom, as best I understand it, is that it is generally highly inadvisable to draw one's weapon unless the need to use it presently exists, in response to a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm. The notion that a smaller caliber somehow empowers one to draw the firearm purely as a deterrent is, in my opinion, misplaced. I wish you success in the quest for knowledge and responsible self-protection.
I don't advocate .22LR for self defense. That said, if one actually looks at the statistics surrounding successful self-defense uses of firearms, it's surprising to see how rarely the attacker is seriously wounded. In about 80 out of 100 successful self-defense gun uses, the gun isn't even fired. In another 12, or so, out of 100 cases, the attacker is hit but not seriously injured.
That means that caliber only really has a chance to make a difference in something like 8% successful self-defense gun uses out of 100.
And, even if you end up in that 8%, a .22LR obviously isn't totally useless even though we all know it's clearly not a powerhouse caliber. A .22LR in the pocket wouldn't doom the defender to certain failure, but it plainly wouldn't do as much for him as one of the common self-defense calibers could.
Basically, it's not a great idea to discount what happens that 8% of the time and that's why I don't carry a .22LR and why I don't advocate it for others unless that's all they can manage. But it's not really possible to argue convincingly from a factual basis that a person who carries a gun that has more deterrent value than destructive power is choosing a statistically unwise strategy.
That means that caliber only really has a chance to make a difference in something like 8% successful self-defense gun uses out of 100.
And, even if you end up in that 8%, a .22LR obviously isn't totally useless even though we all know it's clearly not a powerhouse caliber. A .22LR in the pocket wouldn't doom the defender to certain failure, but it plainly wouldn't do as much for him as one of the common self-defense calibers could.
Basically, it's not a great idea to discount what happens that 8% of the time and that's why I don't carry a .22LR and why I don't advocate it for others unless that's all they can manage. But it's not really possible to argue convincingly from a factual basis that a person who carries a gun that has more deterrent value than destructive power is choosing a statistically unwise strategy.
Give that the chef didn't hear the report, it likely is more indicative of the fact that the .22LR's penetrative ability is much attenuated at extremely long ranges.
Last edited:
coolluke01
Member
Depending on the .22 cal handgun. Some of the little NAA and the like, I would rather have a knife. Up close and personal it's far more effective than a .22.
It's fairly easy to move and make someone miss vitals when you are 0-15 feet away.
If you are talking about only using your weapon as a deterrent, learn to use a knife and you will be far more formidable than a .22.
If I really wanted to get to you a .22 is not going to keep me from getting to you and if I have a knife and I get in range you are dead. You really need to lay some hurt on fast in a SD situation. Penetration is part of the reason for caliber choice when looking for lethality. In most situations your first shot is not going to be able to be dead center mass. You need something that will tear a hole that will slow them down for the followup shots.
That brings me to the next point. In a SD situation it's my opinion that you should shoot first and shoot often. The follow up shots are very important. These can be hard to come by with some of the little .22's. If you have a good .22 auto this is doable. Many of the cheep autos are not very easy to shoot, bad triggers and the NAA would be tough to shoot fast.
If you can shoot it well and you can't carry something bigger (I can't see why) then carry the .22. Or carry a knife.
It's fairly easy to move and make someone miss vitals when you are 0-15 feet away.
If you are talking about only using your weapon as a deterrent, learn to use a knife and you will be far more formidable than a .22.
If I really wanted to get to you a .22 is not going to keep me from getting to you and if I have a knife and I get in range you are dead. You really need to lay some hurt on fast in a SD situation. Penetration is part of the reason for caliber choice when looking for lethality. In most situations your first shot is not going to be able to be dead center mass. You need something that will tear a hole that will slow them down for the followup shots.
That brings me to the next point. In a SD situation it's my opinion that you should shoot first and shoot often. The follow up shots are very important. These can be hard to come by with some of the little .22's. If you have a good .22 auto this is doable. Many of the cheep autos are not very easy to shoot, bad triggers and the NAA would be tough to shoot fast.
If you can shoot it well and you can't carry something bigger (I can't see why) then carry the .22. Or carry a knife.
fallout mike
Member
303, you may be right but he is talking about .22lr.
exavid
Member
"This said, regardless of the outcome in that case, what little I know suggests that bigger caliber generally means more damage to the attacker, ceteras paribus. Luckily Mr. Hinckley went for the .22, albeit with those funky "Devastator" rounds (whomever knows about those, they'd be interesting to hear about even just for curiosity)."
http://www.firequest.com/DV22.html
http://www.firequest.com/DV22.html
coolluke01
Member
If you were to get me in between the eyes with a .22lr i would give it to you that I would stop. But theres no way i would stand still for that. 
My point is that the BG is not going to give you a good shot. Having a larger caliber would be nice if that first shot won't be perfect.
My point is that the BG is not going to give you a good shot. Having a larger caliber would be nice if that first shot won't be perfect.
R.W.Dale
Member
In all seriousness from my experience shooting small animals and from research and tests I've seen online I'm not entirely convinced that the sub 9mm "pocket pistol" rounds are more effective stoppers than certain 22lr loadings.
I carry a glock34 or sometimes even a 20.
But if I were gonna carry something small I'd likely just go right down to a 9shot 22lr revolver.
I carry a glock34 or sometimes even a 20.
But if I were gonna carry something small I'd likely just go right down to a 9shot 22lr revolver.
mljdeckard
Member
If you are carrying with the intent to SCARE, you should scrap the idea.
This is like suggesting that you really don't need to put a good parachute in ejector seats, because the odds are small you will ever need one, and if you do, so many other things are wrong anyway.
This is like suggesting that you really don't need to put a good parachute in ejector seats, because the odds are small you will ever need one, and if you do, so many other things are wrong anyway.
After the Broncos game I needed that laugh. Thanks.
gun addict
Member
well OP, instead of carrying a SCARY .22LR pistol to "deter" threats i have a better idea
assume a good karate stance and shout "KEEEYAAAA" really loud, that your attack (ers) has must have seen many kung fu movies (who hasnt?), he will know not to mess with you.
but seriously, obvious troll is obvious
assume a good karate stance and shout "KEEEYAAAA" really loud, that your attack (ers) has must have seen many kung fu movies (who hasnt?), he will know not to mess with you.
but seriously, obvious troll is obvious
Slicer22 - Internet forums are a great place for dialogue and to disseminate ideas. I don't know if that was the intent when you originated this thread. The internet is a dangerous place if you are looking for education. I would suggest using the forums for guidance and then cross-check any nuggets of information you think you've found.
It's a beat up subject, but .22 LR is better than nothing and also better than .25ACP. Given a choice, I'd want something a bit heavier. You shouldn't carry a gun with the intent to intimidate an attacker. You should be prepared to shoot to kill. With that said, if the attacker can't see the gun in you hand, he's not likely to run away screaming. What is more likely to deter an attacker is your situation awareness and if that fails you must rely on your quick, determined response.
It's a beat up subject, but .22 LR is better than nothing and also better than .25ACP. Given a choice, I'd want something a bit heavier. You shouldn't carry a gun with the intent to intimidate an attacker. You should be prepared to shoot to kill. With that said, if the attacker can't see the gun in you hand, he's not likely to run away screaming. What is more likely to deter an attacker is your situation awareness and if that fails you must rely on your quick, determined response.
While it wouldn't be my preference I'd take a .22lr over nothing, but I'd prefer a more substantial caliber given my druthers. That being said, I'm confident my favorite choice in .22lr ammo, the CCI Velocitor would be at the very least substantially unpleasant to be shot with.
- Status
