Self defense .22rimfires?

bassjam said:

Dang, you're pretty prophetic! While he did read it, he clearly cherry picked and saw only what he wanted to see. Let's see if it happens again. Here's ANOTHER article and some statistics on .22 shootings.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/foghorn/ask-foghorn-22l-for-self-defense/

While gramps mind is made up regardless of the facts, I hope other readers don't ever take his advise and charge someone with a knife when they have a .22 pointed at you. There's a good chance you'll die.

Click to expand...

What a load of useless nonsense that article was!!! This is exactly what I mean by lies, damnable lies, and statistics. So a .22 is better than any caliber that starts with a 4??? Really? I don't think so...

And again, there's no distinction given to barrel length. And apparently there's not even a distinction between .22lr and .22 WMR. Hell, for all we know, 5.7mm is lumped in there too along with .223 and anything else ".22 caliber."

Then his "statistics" make the claim that it takes fewer rounds of .22 than a shotgun to incapacitate someone. Well hell, for all we know half the shotgun statistics are from a .410 loaded with birdshot.

This is exactly why statistics are next to useless in selecting a round. You can make the data say anything you want if you torture it long enough, and I would estimate this particular data has been so savaged it would admit to the Kennedy assassination if you asked it to.

The author has also totally missed the point. The problem with .22lr isn't that it doesn't do enough damage to non vital organs (that problem is inherent to all handgun rounds), but that from a short barrel it lacks enough penetration to reliably reach the vitals.

The data is also self conflicting at every turn. The shotgun is the deadliest, but it takes the most shots to take someone down, which is completely counter intuitive. Then supposedly .22 is better than .44 at killing people, and supposedly with fewer rounds, then two graphs later you have .22 as one of the most unreliable rounds in terms of incapacitation. This suggests to me that many cases involving .22lr are suicides and/or assassinations. That would explain the high fatality rate and low number of rounds needed, in conjunction with the low ability to stop an actual fight.

This last graph also gives us a little window into the many reasons this study is deeply flawed. The .22 fared better than the .25 and .32 because obviously .25 and .32 are almost always fired from ultra short barrels, whereas .22 is most often found in rifle form (not to mention .22 WMR is probably lumped in there as well). It also doesn't stand to reason that .22 should do worse than .25 since they're ballistically very similar, yet this is easily explained by the fact that much of the .22 data probably comes from rifle length barrels, whereas most if not all of the .25 data comes from 2'' barrels.

Forget statistics. You would be better served by asking an astrologer what round you should carry. Look at individual cases, look at ballistics testing, then decide based on that if you trust your life to something. There are literally THOUSANDS of cases involving .22lr where it completely failed and it's a sure bet that any real defensive caliber would not have.

Just look at this thread: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/documented-22lr-self-defense-failures.773313/

Read some of the stories in there and tell me with a straight face that .22lr is a legitimate self defense weapon.

grampajack said:

Read some of the stories in there and tell me with a straight face that .22lr is a legitimate self defense weapon.

Click to expand...

It's definitely better than that knife you advised throwing away the gun for.

Like it or not, statistics are based on individual cases. You seem to think it's a made up world of opinions, but that's pretty much what you've been doing.

And I don't think ANYONE here is saying the .22 lr if a legitimate self defense round. We are saying it's better than a knife. Probably better than a baseball bat. It's better than a sharp stick or pepper spray. Given the choice, a centerfire handgun is certainly better than a .22. But stop ruling .22's out as a deadly round!!! They can, and do, kill people.

Bad Ninja said:

But you advise the average person to choose a knife.

Over a gun.




This is the quote you keep avoiding.
It's dangerously incorrect.

Amateur knife fighting isn't a better option than a .22.

Click to expand...

I'm not avoiding anything. I know exactly what I said, I stand by it, and furthermore I follow my own advice. I have a very capable folder as a backup. If I can't carry at least a .32 then the knife is all I have, and I'm not about to run out and get an NAA or Bobcat. No sir. I wouldn't mind having one in addition to the knife, but if I can carry both then I sure as $#!* can carry a galldarned .32 or .380. There is nothing that would make me trade that knife for a tiny barreled .22lr.

bassjam said:

Like it or not, statistics are based on individual cases. You seem to think it's a made up world of opinions, but that's pretty much what you've been doing.

And I don't think ANYONE here is saying the .22 lr if a legitimate self defense round. We are saying it's better than a knife. Probably better than a baseball bat. It's better than a sharp stick or pepper spray. Given the choice, a centerfire handgun is certainly better than a .22. But stop ruling .22's out as a deadly round!!! They can, and do, kill people.

Click to expand...

For crying out loud, BB guns kill people! .22 Short kills people. Doesn't mean crap.

Look at your own statistics, man. .22 (even with .22 WMR lumped in, along with .22lr from rifles) is twice as likely to fail than any viable self defense caliber. What do you think that statistic would look like if we threw out all the cases that involved a .22 WMR or a barrel length over 2''? Have some common sense!

Fine. You carry your pocket knife when you can't carry something larger. I'll carry my .22 when I can't carry anything larger. I'll use my common sense, and you try to use yours. I'm tired of discussing this and providing meaningful data, just to have it cherry picked.

I think I'd rather go argue with my wife.

grampajack said:

Those were used for sneaking up behind someone and shooting them in the head, preferably behind the ear or in the base of the skull. Completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Click to expand...

Pick your side of the fence - either you are close enough, or you're not. If you're close enough to pick your stab or slash placement and debilitate an attacker with a pocket knife, then you're close enough to pick your shot placement of a 22LR. There simply aren't that many options for immediate stoppage of a fight with a knife - been there, done that - and being in arms reach with a knife dictates the same range you're referencing as "completely irrelevant" for a pistol. If you're going to pick a soapbox, pick one.

Maybe you've watched too many old westerns where guys get gut shot and make it back to the bunk house before they succumb to their wounds, whereas anyone stabbed in the gut with a boot dagger or bowie knife go down instantly...

Varminterror said:

Pick your side of the fence - either you are close enough, or you're not. If you're close enough to pick your stab or slash placement and debilitate an attacker with a pocket knife, then you're close enough to pick your shot placement of a 22LR. There simply aren't that many options for immediate stoppage of a fight with a knife - been there, done that - and being in arms reach with a knife dictates the same range you're referencing as "completely irrelevant" for a pistol. If you're going to pick a soapbox, pick one.

Maybe you've watched too many old westerns where guys get gut shot and make it back to the bunk house before they succumb to their wounds, whereas anyone stabbed in the gut with a boot dagger or bowie knife go down instantly...

Click to expand...

I know I said I was out-I should stay out.

But I have to point out that I've survived three knife attacks, each without a scratch; had I been shot at with a .22 three times, I suspect I'd be doing less well than I am today. Delivering effective violence with a knife requires flexibility, strength, dynamic action and quickness. It also is effective exactly as far as your arm reaches plus the blade's length. A firearm-of any type or caliber-is designed to reduce the importance of these physical attributes.

Not that I'm expecting to make a dent, mind you, but for others who may someday read this thread.


Larry

Although I didn't read the whole thread, some of the stuff I did read just seems really short-sighted.

To suggest that a firearm is automatically the best choice in a given self-defense encounter, is just misguided. I can definitely see where Grampajack is coming from. The truth is, the majority of all aggravated assaults occur at "contact distances," and are ambushes.

General statements like this:

We are saying it's better than a knife. Probably better than a baseball bat. It's better than a sharp stick or pepper spray.

Click to expand...

That statement can only be true in a vacuum.

OC-Trainer said:

Although I didn't read the whole thread, some of the stuff I did read just seems really short-sighted.

To suggest that a firearm is automatically the best choice in a given self-defense encounter, is just misguided. I can definitely see where Grampajack is coming from. The truth is, the majority of all aggravated assaults occur at "contact distances," and are ambushes.

General statements like this:


That statement can only be true in a vacuum.

Click to expand...

You really should read the thread.

bassjam said:

Fine. You carry your pocket knife when you can't carry something larger. I'll carry my .22 when I can't carry anything larger. I'll use my common sense, and you try to use yours. I'm tired of discussing this and providing meaningful data, just to have it cherry picked.

I think I'd rather go argue with my wife.

Click to expand...

You're the one cherry picking here. Don't forget it's your own data that says .22 is twice as likely to fail than 9mm etc. And again, how much worse do you think that would look if we remove .22 WMR and barrel lengths over 2'' from that statistic?

And again, this thread is pathological at its core. There simply is zero excuse for carrying a .22lr. A .32 is just as concealable, and the recoil isn't bad enough to be a problem for hardly anyone. I simply don't understand this fetish for carrying what is obviously a wholly unreliable platform.

Varminterror said:

Pick your side of the fence - either you are close enough, or you're not. If you're close enough to pick your stab or slash placement and debilitate an attacker with a pocket knife, then you're close enough to pick your shot placement of a 22LR. There simply aren't that many options for immediate stoppage of a fight with a knife - been there, done that - and being in arms reach with a knife dictates the same range you're referencing as "completely irrelevant" for a pistol. If you're going to pick a soapbox, pick one.

Maybe you've watched too many old westerns where guys get gut shot and make it back to the bunk house before they succumb to their wounds, whereas anyone stabbed in the gut with a boot dagger or bowie knife go down instantly...

Click to expand...

You're oversimplifying the problem. You get 5 shots with a .22 pocket pistol to hit that sweet spot, then once those 5 shots are expended you're defenseless. Again, it's just not going to happen. Hitting someone in the head is hard enough, but you really think you're going to hit someone behind the ear or in the base of the skull? Just ain't gonna happen.

With a decent knife, you're not limited by capacity. You also have a lot more options. There are 6 arteries only an inch or so deep, the lungs are only a few inches from the back, then you have kidneys and liver. One stroke with a knife can literally disembowel someone. Not only are there more options for fight ending targets, you actually have a reasonable expectation of being able to hit those targets under realistic conditions.

The point is that for a .22lr to be effective, you basically have to assassinate someone. If they're standing still and you can be very selective about where you hit them then it can get the job done. That's what they used the MkI for, not for a defensive scenario like we're discussing here.

I also can't stress enough that I'm not saying a knife is all that great a self defense tool. But it's absolutely better than a 2'' .22lr, which is a thoroughly TERRIBLE choice in every way, shape, and form. It's also a completely unnecessary choice, stemming from willful recklessness, not from practicality.

You absolutely stated "ditch the .22 lr and get a knife".
You didnt specify anything.

So now its a 2" barrel .22lr.
Okay.
I still disagree.


You thwn absolutely count on an individual having skills to use a knife but not get a headshot with a .22lr semi automatic?

SMH.

Still waiting on data showing a folding knife consistently stopping bad guys with .22lr semi autos.

Bad Ninja said:

You absolutely stated "ditch the .22 lr and get a knife".
You didnt specify anything.

So now its a 2" barrel .22lr.
Okay.
I still disagree.


You thwn absolutely count on an individual having skills to use a knife but not get a headshot with a .22lr semi automatic?

SMH.

Still waiting on data showing a folding knife consistently stopping bad guys with .22lr semi autos.

Click to expand...

Stop being obtuse. The effectiveness increases with barrel length, but even from a 20'' barrel there are still serious problems with .22lr. But that's a moot point because there's no advantage to carrying .22lr unless it's with a tiny barrel. Increase the barrel length and you marginally increase its effectiveness, but at the cost of the very concealability that would make it advantageous in the first place.

This also isn't a matter of how skilled someone is. It's a simple matter of which weapon has more potential to be effective, and the knife has more potential. For the .22lr to be reliable, you absolutely have to count on a solid shot to a specific area of the skull that is weak, such as the temple, base of the skull, or behind the ear. You also have to count on it being square to the target, otherwise it's highly likely to glance off the bone. The odds of getting such a shot are next to nil in a self defense scenario. Such a shot necessarily required that the target be standing relatively still and unaware you're trying to shoot it. That's not a self defense scenario, it's an execution, and therefore entirely irrelevant.

The knife yields far more opportunity. Like I said, you've got six easily accessible targets evenly distributed across the front of the body, any one of which would quickly render a cessation of hostilities. The knife is also not limited by capacity. Would I ever want to be armed only with a knife? Absolutely not, but given the choice between it and the .22lr, you can bet your bottom dollar I'm taking the knife every time.

It's a choice between bad and worse, and also an entirely unnecessary one. As I've pointed out many times (and yet you people completely ignore this fact), there is no scenario in which you can carry a Bobcat that you could not just as easily carry a P32 or similar (they're virtually the same size). And I'm pretty confident that even the old and frail can handle the recoil.

grampajack said:

Stop being obtuse. The effectiveness increases with barrel length, but even from a 20'' barrel there are still serious problems with .22lr. But that's a moot point because there's no advantage to carrying .22lr unless it's with a tiny barrel. Increase the barrel length and you marginally increase its effectiveness, but at the cost of the very concealability that would make it advantageous in the first place.

This also isn't a matter of how skilled someone is. It's a simple matter of which weapon has more potential to be effective, and the knife has more potential. For the .22lr to be reliable, you absolutely have to count on a solid shot to a specific area of the skull that is weak, such as the temple, base of the skull, or behind the ear. You also have to count on it being square to the target, otherwise it's highly likely to glance off the bone. The odds of getting such a shot are next to nil in a self defense scenario. Such a shot necessarily required that the target be standing relatively still and unaware you're trying to shoot it. That's not a self defense scenario, it's an execution, and therefore entirely irrelevant.

The knife yields far more opportunity. Like I said, you've got six easily accessible targets evenly distributed across the front of the body, any one of which would quickly render a cessation of hostilities. The knife is also not limited by capacity. Would I ever want to be armed only with a knife? Absolutely not, but given the choice between it and the .22lr, you can bet your bottom dollar I'm taking the knife every time.

It's a choice between bad and worse, and also an entirely unnecessary one. As I've pointed out many times (and yet you people completely ignore this fact), there is no scenario in which you can carry a Bobcat that you could not just as easily carry a P32 or similar (they're virtually the same size). And I'm pretty confident that even the old and frail can handle the recoil.

Click to expand...

Highlight 1: I disagree; please provide data to support.

Highlight 2: As someone who's trained and taught knife for 20 + years, this is inaccurate; the 'easily accessible' targets are no easier to reach than it is to shoot a head, and hydraulic failure is in no way 'quick.' The only 'quick' incapacitation strikes with a knife, short of beheading, major amputation or essentially eviscerating wounds, is electrically based; i.e., disruption of the central nervous system. Neck, head and spinal targets which, if difficult with a handgun, are only more so with a knife. I encourage anyone who contends otherwise to engage in FOF training with marking knives.

The most common, and easiest to inflict, knife injuries are flesh wounds to the arms, which almost invariably interpose as a defense against a knife. A more skilled (i.e., trained and practiced) knife user may manage mechanical damages to muscles and tendons in the limbs ('defanging the snake' in Filipino knife parlance), but these will not incapacitate, only reduce ability to threat when the hands become less manageable.

Highlight 3: This is incorrect. My wife, for instance, suffers from hyperacusis, a physiological sensitivity to loud noises. After a great deal of training and acclimation practice, she is *barely* able to tolerate the blast from a .22LR in a revolver. A .380 renders her incapable of continued fire.

In my opinion-you are arguing from an opinion, rather than experience or fact. In the enlightened world of the scientific method, this will not carry the day. Please provide data to support your opinion, as many of us with an opposing viewpoint have done.

Larry

DT Guy said:

Highlight 1: I disagree; please provide data to support.

Highlight 2: As someone who's trained and taught knife for 20 + years, this is inaccurate; the 'easily accessible' targets are no easier to reach than it is to shoot a head, and hydraulic failure is in no way 'quick.' The only 'quick' incapacitation strikes with a knife, short of beheading, major amputation or essentially eviscerating wounds, is electrically based; i.e., disruption of the central nervous system. Neck, head and spinal targets which, if difficult with a handgun, are only more so with a knife. I encourage anyone who contends otherwise to engage in FOF training with marking knives.

The most common, and easiest to inflict, knife injuries are flesh wounds to the arms, which almost invariably interpose as a defense against a knife. A more skilled (i.e., trained and practiced) knife user may manage mechanical damages to muscles and tendons in the limbs ('defanging the snake' in Filipino knife parlance), but these will not incapacitate, only reduce ability to threat when the hands become less manageable.

Highlight 3: This is incorrect. My wife, for instance, suffers from hyperacusis, a physiological sensitivity to loud noises. After a great deal of training and acclimation practice, she is *barely* able to tolerate the blast from a .22LR in a revolver. A .380 renders her incapable of continued fire.

In my opinion-you are arguing from an opinion, rather than experience or fact. In the enlightened world of the scientific method, this will not carry the day. Please provide data to support your opinion, as many of us with an opposing viewpoint have done.

Larry

Click to expand...

I fully admit that the knife vs. .22lr is my opinion. The fact that a 21A is not a viable self defense weapon is not my opinion. I suppose it's better than nothing. If you give me a free lotto ticket I'm going to scratch it, but I certainly wouldn't expect to win anything. Likewise, with the Bobcat, if I were being attacked and you threw me one I would empty it into whatever was coming at me (assuming running away wasn't an option), but I certainly wouldn't expect it to stop the attack.

How about this, someone show me one case where a micro .22lr successfully stopped an assailant. Not scared him away etc., but actually physically ended his ability to fight. I'm not talking about a gang assassination or anything like that either, but an honest self defense shooting. For every case you show me that fits these parameters I can probably show you ten cases where .22lr failed where almost any other round would have almost undoubtedly succeeded.

To be honest, I don't think anyone can find even one such case. I know off the top of my head of a handful of cases where .22lr was used in self defense, and the only successful ones were with rifles, and all the cases I remember involving pistols failed.

PS-Your wife is in an extreme minority. If she can really only stand to shoot .22 then God bless her and keep her safe. Like I said before, it's better than nothing at all. But you have to admit that 99% of the gun carrying public can easily handle a .32 ACP. Speaking of which, has your wife tried one? To my perception, the noise from both is about the same. I believe both are subsonic from a micro carry pistol.

For those trying to refute or support the argument that a knife is a more effective "threat-ender" than is a .22 caliber handgun using statistics, we're missing one critical element.

It's no secret that the mere display of a handgun, especially if it's fired (whether or not any hits are scored), has ended hundreds of thousands of attacks each year, and some studies put that at over one million, vs. the number of times the assailant(s) have decided to soldier on. I'm sure that .22 caliber firearms hold their fare share in that.

What's missing is how many times an attack by one or more assailants has been ended by the display of a knife by the intended victim each year, vs. the number of times the assailant(s) have decided to soldier on.

There really is no good reason to tell someone to "ditch the .22 and get a good knife." There are few people who would be unable to afford a knife without selling their .22, so better advice might be "get a good knife, train well to use it, and carry it along with your .22. Then, when you can, upgrade your handgun to one firing a more-powerful round and from a more-effective platform." (By that last part, I'd not tell someone to switch from a 1.125-inch NAA mini in .22LR to a Cobra derringer in .38 Special, but I would suggest going from the mini to the already-mentioned P32.)

I always do have a solid knife on me. I really need to train with it some more, as I agree that one should be able to effectively utilize whatever they have with them (even if it is a .22LR pistol.)

DT Guy said:

In my opinion-you are arguing from an opinion, rather than experience or fact. In the enlightened world of the scientific method, this will not carry the day. Please provide data to support your opinion, as many of us with an opposing viewpoint have done.

Larry

Click to expand...

Nailed it.



I'm convinced the old man's never even shot a .22. But he's a lost cause, we should let him get back to chasing kids off his lawn with a sharp stick.

Now we have to ask "Can more angels dance on the head of this pin with a good knife or a .22 LR pocket gun?"

Now I have to ask what is a "good knife"?

Had an aquantence that used to carry a Linolium cutter as a knife. Got a few laughs from folks on occasion. The guy that stoped right there and then and got 46 stitches from ear to ear by way of his throat did not laugh at it. He lived by the way. was that a "Good Knife?"

In the service I knew guys that went down town with Mess kit knives in home made cardboard sheaths. I know of fights stopped then and there with those stamped one piece bits of stainless steel. "Good Knife?"

For a bit one winter I carried a Randal Made Amphibian under my left arm pit. "Good Knife?"

On patrols in the service I carried a FS fighting knife. "Good Knife?"

Whether one chooses a knife or a little bitty rimfire pistol how it is used makes the difference not anyone's idea of what good is.

Can we stop yah-yah-ing at one another and move on?

-kBob

It seems to me people on this thread and just saying the same things over and over and not convincing anyone of anything.

I can't see how it comes down to a choice between carrying a gun or a knife.

Carry both. Most knives being considered for SD are small and light.

BTW, most people who are physically impaired enough so the only gun then can shoot is a 22 probably wouldn't be very good at knife fighting either.

I carry a 32 H&R Magnum Airweight J frame Smith and Wesson that weighs 13.5oz.

I carry it instead of a similar weight and size 38 special J frame because it is easier to shoot accurately (for me) than a similar weight 38. Plus it holds one additional round (6 instead of 5). I can shoot an all steel 20 oz 38 special J frame as well as my 32 because it's heavier so I carry that at times too.

Anything heavier than about 20 oz I'd probably just leave at home most of the time.

I can't see downgrading from my 32 Smith to a 22. If I develop a physical problem and can't handle 32 Magnum ammo I'd switch to 32 S&W long -- a much more effective round than 22lr and one that has very little recoil even in an Airweight revolver.

ZVP, I hate being that guy, but, I didn't read all 192 replies prior to posting this, so if im repeating anything, my bad.

I'm going to assume that you're not really interested in buying a new gun. It sounds like you already found ammo that's pretty reliable, which, as I understand it, is the number one issue with using a .22. If I was going to use a 22 for self defense, I'd put reliability over anything else, with accuracy a very close second, followed by penetration. In order to get the most bang for your buck, shot placement will be critical. With that in mind, I've heard that match grade ammo tends to be the most reliable, so I'd start there, and just find what your gun likes. The nice thing about .22 is that the ammo is so affordable and the recoil so light, that you can get a lot of practice in.

If I was going to rock a 22, my process would be something like this:
Step 1- experiment with many many types of ammo to find what is reliable. Then shoot a bunch of the dirtiest ammo you can find and repeat the process and see what is still reliable.
Step 2 - make note of the most and least reliable ammo. Eveluate the reliable ammo for accuracy at verging ranges. Not the typical 7 yards that "most shootings" take place at, but stretch your legs and see how far out you can actually shoot. Eliminate any options that are not accurate
Step 3 - of the ammo that made it through the first 2 steps, I'd be looking at whichever sends the heaviest bullet the fastest. If that's a hollow point, or a fmj, or just cast lead, or something I've never heard of, cool, bullet design isn't something I'm super concerned with, although super light frangible varmit rounds are probably going to be lacking the penetration I'm looking for.
Step 4 - buy ammo like its toilet paper and you're about to be stranded on an island.
Step 5 - don't just practice, compete. Shoot the steel challenge match, see if your local uspsa, idpa, or 3 gun club will let you shoot your 22 in the match (you may have to play the "it's cool if my score isn't counted, I just want to shoot with my carry gun" card. I'm confident that you will find some match directors and ROs who are cool with it as long your scores aren't being entered into the running for the IDPA classifier or sent off to 3 gun nation)
Step 6 shoot those matches, shoot at extended small gun ranges (25-75 yards) and mix some of that super unreliable ammo into your range bag so you can get practice clearing malfunctions

Again, that's just what I would do.

We're forgetting here that the .22lr proponents claim they can't carry anything bigger, even a .32, because of their summer wardrobe. If they could carry their .22lr plus a decent fighting knife then they sure as heck can just forget the whole nonsense and carry a P32 instead. Which I still completely fail to understand in the first place, as a P32 to me seems even more concealable than a Bobcat.

I'll say it again, This thread is pathological. Save for the lady with what seems to be an extremely rare hearing condition, I see no legitimate reason why anyone else here would be relegated to .22lr. Even then, I see no noise difference between .22lr and .32 ACP. If there's really a barrier preventing her from stepping up to .32 then I would be willing to bet it's simply the mental aspect of shooting a larger caliber, where she perceives more noise because the bullet looks bigger and there's more recoil. And again, even if there is a 1 decibel difference that's really preventing her from it, then she represents an extreme case. Besides, the reasoning in this thread is all about summer wardrobe restrictions, not rare physical handicaps.

If you want to carry a .22lr then fine, but don't sit there and try to justify it as a practical choice. It's like all these hipsters trying to justify listening to records "because they sound better." No they don't! Any sane person from the age of vinyl would gladly trade you his entire collection for an ipod any day of the week. They simply have a fetish for records because it fits their hipster decor, but they can't just admit that. No, they've got to concoct some cockamamie mental gymnastic reasoning as to why theirs is the superior choice.

All I have left to say is if you can't carry a P32 instead of a Bobcat due to wardrobe, then get rid of the danged thong speedo and get yourself some proper trunks. Then you can carry a P32 and still have room left over for your car keys!

Ok, now that I'm caught up, I've got a few questions. Tone doesn't carry super well so if it sounds like I'm being snarky or argumentative or dipstick, I'm not, just a poor communicator. Boyd Crowder I ain't.

Dt guy: since your wife is so sensitive to noise, what kind of ear pro does she use when she does go shooting? You also mentioned a martial arts background, what do you practice? How often do you spar/roll with people of other disciplines?

GrandpaJack: you mentioned that you carry a suitable folder for self defense. What is it? Why do you opt for a folder over a fixed blade? While I can certainly see a context and practical application where an edged weapon may be more effective than a firearm, and I agree 22 isn't the best option out there, if you and an assailant were about to get into it, would you rather attempt to get a round or two from a 22 on board before you went hands on and started going stab city? For once, im not being flippant, I sincerely want to know if you think you'd go straight to knife before the distance has been closed, and why.
In regards to your challenge of not being able to find a 22 in defensive use being used Effectively, well, my first GSW call was a fella who got hit with 22 from a handgun pretty close up. He was about as incapacitated as you could be and still have a heart beat. There was also more blood from that one gunshot wound than I have ever seen from one incident before or since. And for context, I've seen dudes with bones on the wrong side of their socks, and child birth (both live and c section). I'm sure there are instances of a 22 not being effective at all. I'm sure there's also instances of just about anything being ineffective. I also used to have an aquantance who once shot an asailant 3 times in the chest with a 40s&w. The point I'm trying to make is that a 22 is not a best choice, an optimal choice, and I'm willing so say that it may not be a reliable choice even. But neither is just about anything (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi seriously, nothing is a sure bet.)

As far as your comments in regards to pain as it relates to the sympathetic nervous system, I'd agree that it's unreliable, but mainly because it comes down to the individual situation, and it's not something that can be planned for, mearly a bonus.

Varminterror, you sound like you've lived an interesting life! Completely off topic (sorry ZVP) but how hard/dangerous is bull riding? I've always wanted to give it a shot, but don't want to be on the inside of an ambulance unless I'm the one starting lines and dropping tubes.

ZVP, you meantioned that it's a pain sometimes to conceal with summer attire such as shorts that don't have belt loops. Have you tried a belly band? I wear one around where my belt would go, and it's great. Lets me carry a full sized 1911 or a J frame or whatever else I want, no problems. The only draw back is I'm not 100% comfortable rocking something like a Glock as it doesn't offer hard protection of the trigger, but I made another one with some kydex that lets me roll with a G29 or G20 when I'm running, hiking, rucking, or working out. If you want to try one, I got mine off Amazon for only $18 or something like that. Just get your hands on a square of neoprene or something to put between your skin and the sewed on Velcro, makes it way more comfortable.

GrampaJack, now your just speaking madness. Ditch the speedo? What's next? Wear an undershirt, or maybe even use the buttons on my Hawaiian shirt? I think not.

kayak-man said:

GrandpaJack: you mentioned that you carry a suitable folder for self defense. What is it? Why do you opt for a folder over a fixed blade? While I can certainly see a context and practical application where an edged weapon may be more effective than a firearm, and I agree 22 isn't the best option out there, if you and an assailant were about to get into it, would you rather attempt to get a round or two from a 22 on board before you went hands on and started going stab city? For once, im not being flippant, I sincerely want to know if you think you'd go straight to knife before the distance has been closed, and why.
In regards to your challenge of not being able to find a 22 in defensive use being used Effectively, well, my first GSW call was a fella who got hit with 22 from a handgun pretty close up. He was about as incapacitated as you could be and still have a heart beat. There was also more blood from that one gunshot wound than I have ever seen from one incident before or since. And for context, I've seen dudes with bones on the wrong side of their socks, and child birth (both live and c section). I'm sure there are instances of a 22 not being effective at all. I'm sure there's also instances of just about anything being ineffective. I also used to have an aquantance who once shot an asailant 3 times in the chest with a 40s&w. The point I'm trying to make is that a 22 is not a best choice, an optimal choice, and I'm willing so say that it may not be a reliable choice even. But neither is just about anything (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi seriously, nothing is a sure bet.)

ZVP, you meantioned that it's a pain sometimes to conceal with summer attire such as shorts that don't have belt loops. Have you tried a belly band? I wear one around where my belt would go, and it's great. Lets me carry a full sized 1911 or a J frame or whatever else I want, no problems. The only draw back is I'm not 100% comfortable rocking something like a Glock as it doesn't offer hard protection of the trigger, but I made another one with some kydex that lets me roll with a G29 or G20 when I'm running, hiking, rucking, or working out. If you want to try one, I got mine off Amazon for only $18 or something like that. Just get your hands on a square of neoprene or something to put between your skin and the sewed on Velcro, makes it way more comfortable.

Click to expand...

Right now I have a CRKT something or other that I like because it's thin for what it is and easy to conceal. I carry a folder because in my state there's no limit to blade length for one, whereas fixed blades are outright banned in many municipalities. The blade on mine is about five inches long, so it's as large as any fixed blade I could carry, probably larger in fact. I can also carry it in gym shorts without a belt.

If I had a .22lr mousegun for some strange reason, like I just happened to be plinking with it at the time, yes, I would empty it into the assailant until he closed the distance. Like I said, you give me a free lotto ticket I'm going to scratch it even though I don't expect to win anything. There's just no reason not to. However, there's no time you would ever find me packing a Bobcat. The only time I would go without a real gun is if it's a gun free zone, and anywhere a gun is legal to carry I'm going with a minimum of a .32 ACP.

It sounds like your mousegun victim was unlucky enough to have had an artery struck. Whoever the shooter was won the lottery that day. Regarding the .40 cal incident, I would bet money that none of the three struck the heart or CNS. But the point is that they would have, had the shots been placed correctly, as in they had enough penetration (assuming the assailant wasn't a bear or gorilla). While there are failures documented for every round imaginable (including 30mm), the question you have to ask yourself is would another round have succeeded in its place. For example, would 10mm have the dropped the guy, assuming the bullets took the same trajectory. Probably not, considering that lack of penetration probably wasn't the issue in that case. But there are thousands of documented cases where .22lr failed where a slightly more powerful cartridge would have almost undoubtedly succeeded, where the bullet was stopped by the skull or rib cage, or only penetrated several inches into the thoracic cavity, or was wildly deflected by a rib and missed vitals it otherwise would have struck. That's the difference between failure of the shooter and failure of the cartridge itself. And .22lr and .25 ACP are the only two rounds I've ever seen that have a broad history of failing the shooter, where you have hundreds of cases that absolutely should have been kill shots that failed to even slow the assailant down. I actually did a fair amount of research several years ago, as I myself was thinking of getting a .25 ACP Beretta or .22lr NAA as a backup to my .380 on days where I couldn't carry my 19 (the .380 normally serving as backup to that). I quickly arrived at the conclusion that I would be better served by a good knife.

I, too, often wear gym shorts everywhere in the summer. I absolutely loath hot weather, and I live in the armpit of the midwest. My solution is a clipdraw. It's so comfortable I forget it's there, and it's secure enough to wear while running (not that I run mind you, but I could). Before that I always used an IWB holster like an alien gear type, and with the drawstring tied tight that worked well enough.

One thing you can't do is just throw the gun in your gym shorts pocket, and this is where I don't understand the NAA or Bobcat, as both are designed to be pocket pistols. Even their minuscule weight would thrash around wildly just walking. If gym shorts is what you got, your only way to secure a gun in them is to put it in the waistband. For me, the only way to carry a Bobcat would be to use an IWB holster with belt clips (i.e. alien gear), or drill and tap it for a clipdraw. In either scenario, a P32 or similar would be better. In fact, I believe the P32 is thinner and lighter, and while it is probably marginally larger overall I'm confident it's by fractions of an inch. BTW, I keep harping on the P32 because it's what I know, but there are definitely other choices out there so it's not like you're limited to keltec or anything. The Ruger LCP is also a good choice, though with the ammunition it definitely weighs more I believe. Still, I think it would be very manageable.

Gramps,

The incident I spoke of with the 22 it was actually a shot to the eye.

It's not the crkt m21 or 24 is it? The larger version of the m16? That's almost exclusively what I carry day in and day out, along with a kbar tdi when I can. The crkt is a great knife.

i don't disagree with your point about 22 not being a very good option when there are guns like the LCP (although I actually almost never carry my LCP, go figure) but my point isn't so much that "22 is a good choice" so much as "all handguns are pretty lousy choices, but if circumstances dictate a .22, then I think three are ways to make it more effective and at the end of the day, shot placement is king over everything else." I actually really like your lotto ticket analogy. To continue that metaphor, I'm saying "you might be playing the lottery, but let's make sure we are playing it wisely (better odds with a handful of scratch off tickets than one powerball) and just to be safe, I'm going to actually have the scratch off ticket with me."

One thing that I haven't seen hit on yet, is that there is one VERY significant advantage that the beretta 22 has over a Ruger LCP and the kel Tec and an M&P shield and one of those heifer defense pistols: the OP already owns one, and doesn't need to spend another $200 on another pistol. One could make the argument that 380 or 9mm is better than your kel tec, simply because the slightly larger diameter will increase the possibility of a tension pneumothorax because your creating a larger opening in the chest cavity, but that doesn't change the fact that you already have a kel tec, and chasing that perfect carry gun can be a very expensive never ending exercise.

As far as the gym shorts goes, I concede, agree, and disagree. My concession is that everyone is different and the clothes we wear are different, and the way they fit is different. I have never been able to carry a j frame in my jeans pocket, they just don't fit me that way, and I don't understand how anyone else does, but I know there are people that do. I agree with you about waistband location of a firearm being optimal, it's the way to go from a security and speed stand point, no arguments there. I disagree with the idea of a gun like an NAA not being viable in gym shorts pocket. I have zero problems carrying a j frame in my gym shorts pocket, and often do as an around the house gun. I similarly (as long as I'm not going for a run) don't have a problem with a spare m&p shield mag, Glock 20 mag, iPod, or anything else in gym shorts pockets, and am confident something like the NAA would be just the ticket, from the stand point of something that can fit in a small pocket for when you just want to wear a pair of board shorts or for whatever reason want to have a small concealed gun despite having a full size blaster on your belt.