Self defense .22rimfires?

Larry

You're spot on with the hard chrome; work was done many years ago by Ron Mahovsky at Metalife. Still looks as good as the day I got it back from them, even after lots of holster time during many a hike through the backwoods.

vba said:

Bassjam, did you find the Aquila 60 grainers tended to keyhole? I've shot these from a Ruger MKII and most of them keyholed on the paper target.

On to the OP, I would use a non-hollow point 40 grain bullet in .22LR, CCI mini-mags or Small Game Bullet are the best I've found. One wants reliability and the most penetration you can get.

Click to expand...

At further distances, yeah the 60gr bullets will keyhole. I figure my NAA is a 5 yard and under gun though, and keyhole-ing doesn't seem to be a problem at those distances.

grampajack said:

Like I said, there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. But the fact remains that a good fighting knife is a formidable weapon, and a .22lr, especially from a tiny barrel, is not. In an actual attack, pepper spray might do more to incapacitate the assailant than a .22lr pocket gun. It's simply not a viable defensive weapon.

Click to expand...

You're funny gramps. I provided some "facts" about defense with a .22, which you obviously dismissed as either a lie or a damned lie. (Here they are again) Someone else provided firsthand experience with getting shot with a .22 (a ricochet with diminished velocity) and stab wounds and pretty much said that the force of a bullet strike is more incapacitating than the slice of a sharp knife. I guess he was lying too. Then there was the video of a LEO getting shot with a .22. Obviously a faked video, right?

But you say "the FACT remains that a good fighting knife is a formidable weapon, and a .22lr, especially from a tiny barrel, is not."

So some people have provided some actual FACTS supporting the other side of the argument. Even if some of those are single instances, those are actual data points that could be used to create (gasp) statistics.

The thing is, you haven't provided a single fact. Just opinions. Let's hear some facts to back up your side, I'm all ears.

bannockburn said:

If I had to use a .22 for self defense (and no, I'm not a trained Mossad operative), it would be my Beretta Model 70S. Totally reliable, accurate, great single action trigger, and easy to acquire sights.

Click to expand...

Your photo inspired me to break out the 70S, (see avatar), from the safe and prepare for a range trip tomorrow. Love the flat grips. Most models have the thumb rest on the left grip. Where did you locate them?

bassjam said:

You're funny gramps. I provided some "facts" about defense with a .22, which you obviously dismissed as either a lie or a damned lie. (Here they are again) Someone else provided firsthand experience with getting shot with a .22 (a ricochet with diminished velocity) and stab wounds and pretty much said that the force of a bullet strike is more incapacitating than the slice of a sharp knife. I guess he was lying too. Then there was the video of a LEO getting shot with a .22. Obviously a faked video, right?

But you say "the FACT remains that a good fighting knife is a formidable weapon, and a .22lr, especially from a tiny barrel, is not."

So some people have provided some actual FACTS supporting the other side of the argument. Even if some of those are single instances, those are actual data points that could be used to create (gasp) statistics.

The thing is, you haven't provided a single fact. Just opinions. Let's hear some facts to back up your side, I'm all ears.

Click to expand...

Well, one fact is that pain is not a deterrent in a gunfight. No gun or knife is going to induce enough pain to make a person stop, so that's not an argument for either one.

You also seem to have completely ignored what the same poster said about how unreliable .22s are at penetrating raccoon skulls. Have you ever seen a raccoon skull, much less held one? They're pretty flimsy compared to a human skull. And you really think something that can't penetrate a raccoon skull from a full sized barrel is going to make it to human vitals from a 1-2'' barrel? Forget "facts," just use some galldarned common sense!

I have to go with K Bob and J Frame. Shoot several different kinds of ammo and see what gives you best reliability in operation. Start there.

Hopefully, there will be more than one 'winner'. So your second criteria should be penetration. Not expansion, not kinetic energy, not Voodoo or magic mushrooms or cool name, but reliable penetration. The only way a .22 rimfire cartridge is going to positively stop an aggressor is to penetrate to a vital organ or structure and disrupt the functioning thereof immediately. (Not five minutes later; five minutes is a long time in a hand to hand fight.)

The shooter must also be rather cool, calm and collected in all this. No shooter can make a reliable 'small target' shot when excited or terrified.

In parting, I do not like the idea of a rimfire anything for self defense. Nor do I like the idea of a .22 anything (handgun cartridge) for self defense. However, you're a big kid - I presume - and well acquainted with your own limitations. So choose for yourself.

Google the attempted Reagan assassination to see how effective a .22 can be. I'm convinced I don't want to be shot by anything.


edit; fixed it.

usp9 said:

Google the Reagan assassination to see how effective a .22 can be. I'm convinced I don't want to be shot by anything.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you were born after the event... but whichever, best to be accurate when Googling things. Better to look up 'Reagan attempted assassination' I think. He lived a good many years after the one round went bouncing through his torso. Of course Brady wasn't quite so fortunate. Still lived, but not in good shape. I agree wholeheartedly, don't want to be shot by anything, nor even to be faced with the 'choice' of being shot with a .22lr pistol or stabbed/slashed with some big-ass bowie knife. But being shot definitely seems more intimidating, whatever the calibre.

Ladies and Gentlemen; allow me an observation.

Since most of us on this forum have never been in the position of shooting someone, statistically none of us 'need' to carry any deadly implements.

Such thinking is the danger of basing not just a passing thought, but an entire plan of action on one single factoid. One needs to look at the 'big picture'.

grampajack said:

Well, one fact is that pain is not a deterrent in a gunfight. No gun or knife is going to induce enough pain to make a person stop, so that's not an argument for either one.

Click to expand...

What?

I haven't been in a gun fight or knife fight, but severe pain has delayed my actions or stopped me cold on more than one occasion.

Archie said:

Ladies and Gentlemen; allow me an observation.

Since most of us on this forum have never been in the position of shooting someone, statistically none of us 'need' to carry any deadly implements.

Click to expand...

So by this logic, though I have never needed to use the first aid kits I have carried since about 1980, I should stop carrying one when I go hiking or whatever? Because my personal history dictates, according to your logic, that such a prophylactic measure is unnecessary? What if my little boy takes a fall and slashes his leg open on a sharp rock or tree branch? Do I come back to this forum and ask advice, or do I go for the first aid kit and apply what measures I can to the wound prior to moving him and finding medical assistance?

Again, being in Canada I'm not carrying a weapon for self-defense, as this is forbidden under our laws. But in areas where it is permitted, such as it is in much of the United States and many other places around the world, I have to wonder why a person wouldn't at least carry a small .22lr pistol. It would seem sensible, considering the rates of hooliganism of various sorts in the cities. In the countryside I'd be somewhat concerned about mountain lions and the like so likewise a weapon of some sort to discourage attacks seems sensible - it IS legal here to carry animal deterrents and as such I carry both bear spray (2 cans) on my belt and a couple of bear banger cartridges with their launcher when hiking back country. I'd rather avoid being a bear's dinner if possible. Again, if I were in the USA I would likely carry a gun for such cases. Something like a short barrelled shotgun with slugs might be a good idea. But of course I'd use the spray first if time permitted, if the bear wasn't in a full charge. Humans don't seem quite so formidable as bears somehow...

usp9

Your photo inspired me to break out the 70S, (see avatar), from the safe and prepare for a range trip tomorrow. Love the flat grips. Most models have the thumb rest on the left grip. Where did you locate them?

Click to expand...

My Model 70S goes with me practically like every range trip, along with my other favorite, my Browning Hi-Power. The grips, which are factory originals, I got many years ago from an ad I saw in a gun magazine. They took a bit of careful fitting but everything worked out just fine.

grampajack said:

Well, one fact is that pain is not a deterrent in a gunfight. No gun or knife is going to induce enough pain to make a person stop, so that's not an argument for either one.

Click to expand...

If we are exhorted to use 'common sense', then I must point out this is a nonsensical statement. Of course pain (along with fear, shock and other results of being injured) is a deterrent in a gunfight, or any fight.

I could point to almost innumerable cases where an assailant took a non-serious wound and turned tail; the average miscreant isn't looking for a fight, he's looking for a victim. Hurt him,(or indeed, often just display the capacity to hurt him) and he often chooses to disengage and look for softer pickings elsewhere.

And while you continue to argue about the lack of wounding power of .22 rimfires, myriad folks have been killed by the round; you're essentially arguing with reality.


Larry

This argument seems to generate more heat than light. People that carry a .22 do so for a host of reasons, including reduced recoil, ammo cost, availability, portability of the gun,etc. People that can't imagine using a .22 as a ccw make that choice for equally valid reasons, reliability, limited stopping power, etc. I've read many of these posts and it doesn't seem like either group will ever see eye to eye. For me, I'll carry my Beretta 21 with mini mags when it's appropriate to do so and feel protected. It won't happen a lot, but I'm convinced that it'll do the job if called upon.

Not sure what it is about this thread, and maybe I shouldn't be comfortable revealing so much about myself online, but I can't help but be reminded of different life events I have experienced as I read through this.

I can say, in over 20yrs of riding bulls, many of which it was my major source of income, earning more on the back of a bull than I did as a professional engineer, and spending just over 20yrs in various martial arts, PAIN CAN BE A DETERRENT, even in a high adrenaline situation.

I recall an instance at a rodeo in Texas, as I was preparing behind the chutes, a bull kicked free one of the chute rails, which levered out and hit me in the thigh. I've taken some amazing hits as a bull rider, bull fighter, bouncer, and kick boxer (even being kicked by world champion kickboxers), played football through high school and walked on a season in college, I'd been hit by a car on by bicycle in college, and had been hit by a car on my motorcycle - I've never been hit so hard in a focused location. I crumpled instantly, and I was dead certain my femur was broken. I'd broken my OTHER femur before, and this was far more painful. I couldn't speak, couldn't move. I was conscious, not in shock, but I wished I would have been.

An hour later, I could put weight on it, and by the last section of the event, I rode my bull and placed at the event. Nothing more than a deep tissue bruise. No structural damage, no broken bone, no severed muscles or ligaments. But the pain was debilitating for about 15min, and I will readily admit, if I were in continued danger, I would not have been able to physically act to save myself in any way. I've been pinned down and stomped by bulls many times, even causing life threatening injuries and I've always been able to move - I even ran (kinda) when I had a compound fracture of both bones in my right leg, wobbling like a peg leg and tripping over my own flopping foot, and I did walk out of the arena with a collapsed lung and ruptured kidney, but I HAVE experienced immobilizing and debilitating pain too.

I will refresh, neither being stabbed nor shooting myself with a ricochet caused anywhere near so much pain, and I'll admit, I've never experienced any pain like that in my life, even events which caused extreme injuries. But pain CAN be a deterrent, as well as a debilitating force.

Saying otherwise is a foolish assertion, and I feel as though people who haven't experienced extreme pain like that have missed out on fantastic adventures in their lives.

Kleanbore said:

Just what might "statistically none of us 'need' to carry" mean?

Click to expand...

Card stacking to make an absurdism - he stated since none of us have been involved as civilians in defensive shootings (our data set reflects an occurrence of zero), statistically we're immune to attack and therefore, by extension, if threat is zero, the "need" for defense is zero. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but all I see is an absurdism to make a point; I don't see someone taking a political stance against defensive carry. Just pointing out the reality the overwhelming majority of people will never need to call on their defensive pistol.

grampajack said:

Well, one fact is that pain is not a deterrent in a gunfight. No gun or knife is going to induce enough pain to make a person stop, so that's not an argument for either one.

You also seem to have completely ignored what the same poster said about how unreliable .22s are at penetrating raccoon skulls. Have you ever seen a raccoon skull, much less held one? They're pretty flimsy compared to a human skull. And you really think something that can't penetrate a raccoon skull from a full sized barrel is going to make it to human vitals from a 1-2'' barrel? Forget "facts," just use some galldarned common sense!

Click to expand...

Again, you're throwing around that word "fact" without any supporting data. I've read enough "Armed Citizens" in American Rifleman that I believe pain is a deterrent. You'd be surprised how many home invaders are shot with a .22 and then run away, but are found dead in the front yard. Not all attacks are by drug crazed lunatics, most are lowly thugs looking for an easy victim and a quick buck and are not interested in a fair fight.

And growing up on a farm, I’ve dispatched my share of coons, possums, and skunks. I’ve never had a head shot fail with a .22. Of course I always use solids, and that post you refer to mentioned that solids DO always penetrate, while hollow points often do not. But you’ve already decided in that “other” thread that you think solid points and hollow points perform the same, so I’m not really surprised you missed that bit of information.

Many here are failing to understand the fight or flight response. Most people, upon seeing a gun, will at least take cover, and most will flee altogether. That is of course the natural response of any sane, sober person. Realizing you've been shot is also a very reliable way to activate your flight response.

But you have to understand that it's not pain that's making them flee, it's fear. First of all, gunshots don't always hurt immediately, even if the person is not high on adrenaline at the time. Some have compared it to an insect sting. Others report not even being aware they were shot until after their adrenaline died down, or they saw blood or were impaired in some way. I've never seen one instance of someone being stopped by pain alone.

What's important to understand is that if you activate someone's fight response, then no amount of pain is going to make them stop. This can happen if the person feels cornered, or if they're high on drugs or mentally unstable. If someone is still coming at you despite you shooting at them then you've activated their fight response and the only reliable way to stop them is to somehow make them physically unable to continue the attack.

Take the Michael Brown shooting as a lesson. When he attacked that cop his fight mechanism was triggered, and that was that. No amount of fear or pain was going to stop him. In all likelihood, he probably didn't even register any pain as such.

So it seems guns are out. Thanks for clearing that up grandpa. So we're back to big knives then? Swords it would seem, since decapitation is really the most reliable way to incapacitate someone. Unless they're high on PCP of course. Then you have to decapitate and burn the parts.

a_canadian said:

So it seems guns are out. Thanks for clearing that up grandpa. So we're back to big knives then? Swords it would seem, since decapitation is really the most reliable way to incapacitate someone. Unless they're high on PCP of course. Then you have to decapitate and burn the parts.

Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that any gun is better than any other weapon, and that is just not the case. Just because something fires a bullet with gunpowder doesn't make it a viable weapon. Where do you draw the line? Is an NAA mini in .22 short better than a knife?

I feel like we're also too focused on the knife vs. gun thing. That's not what I'm trying to debate here. My contention is that a .22lr is not a viable self defense cartridge, and that any viable weapon is better if you actually get into a fight, vs. just scaring someone off. I honestly believe you would be better served by pepper spray if someone actually called your bluff than with a .22 pocket pistol. Or even a stun gun.

I agree. Pepper spray being legal to carry for self-defense would probably be very useful, and in the USA would probably save a LOT of lives, especially if police used it instead of going straight for their guns. But this mindset which dictates that anyone who makes a move against one has essentially abdicated any rights to life means that the high-powered handgun rules supreme in popular culture.

I was taking a poke at your Michael Brown reference by the way. Brown didn't feel discouraged by a few bullets, you suggest, and those bullets were nothing like .22lr, hence the obvious logical conclusion from your example: guns are useless, even powerful guns.

a_canadian said:

I agree. Pepper spray being legal to carry for self-defense would probably be very useful, and in the USA would probably save a LOT of lives, especially if police used it instead of going straight for their guns. But this mindset which dictates that anyone who makes a move against one has essentially abdicated any rights to life means that the high-powered handgun rules supreme in popular culture.

I was taking a poke at your Michael Brown reference by the way. Brown didn't feel discouraged by a few bullets, you suggest, and those bullets were nothing like .22lr, hence the obvious logical conclusion from your example: guns are useless, even powerful guns.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by police "going straight for their guns." I don't think you know anything about police here, or anywhere for that matter.

And you're entirely missing the moral of the Michael Brown story. The main takeaway is that the pain of being shot multiple times didn't phase him. Only a kill shot to the vitals was finally able to stop him. The pain of being shot is not a deterrent to someone in fight mode.

What I'm trying to get across is that .22lr doesn't penetrate reliably enough to be viable for self defense. Yes, it kills people, but so do airguns, and I don't think anyone is going to argue the fact that they're not appropriate. Just because a cartridge is known to be capable of being fatal doesn't mean it's reliable.

Take a .380 for example. If you shoot someone square in the chest with it, there's a near certainty that it's going to penetrate to the vitals, even in a large person wearing heavy clothing. Therefore if you do your job you can rely on it doing its job. A .22lr, on the other hand, is a crapshoot at best. You can place the shot perfectly and there still be a good chance that it won't penetrate far enough to stop the threat.

This is not a matter of opinion or preference. It is simply irresponsible to allow someone to believe that a .22 is a viable self defense weapon. It would be like telling someone that a two inch lockback or leatherman is a viable weapon. The .22lr is to guns what the pen knife is to knives. Can you kill someone with a two inch knife? Absolutely, and I'm sure it happens. Does that mean you should rely on one for self defense? Absolutely not.

Your stance on the issue is duly noted.

Having 'OC' sprayed some 150+ people, I believe I can state with some certainty that OC is NOT generally effective on motivated, dedicated people. It most certainly does NOT invoke any of the three (electrical, mechanical or hydraulic) mechanisms for actually disabling an attacker. To suggest that OC is more effective than a .22 is essentially stating that:

1. A weapon which CANNOT kill you (OC) is a more effective fight stopper than a weapon that can (.22 rimfire)
2. A weapon which does not cause bleeding, muscle or skeletal damage or hydraulic system failure (OC) is a more effective stopper than a weapon that can (.22 rimfire)

I would also point out that the only deterrent effect OC possesses is 'pain', which you have already stated is not effective once an adrenaline dump (the biological mechanism behind the 'fight or flight' response) occurs; if that were true, OC would not only not be more effective than a .22 rimfire, it would not be effective at all, since anyone sprayed with it generally experiences an adrenaline dump, even if events leading to the spray have not caused one.

Again, the argument simply doesn't hold up rationally.


Larry