.22 hollowpoint Effectiveness

Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally witnessed one take down a mule dear at 75 yards in a single shot. The deer just dropped instantly.
Conversely A friend of mine's brother was shot 5 times in the side with a .22 short at almost point blank range back in the 70s. The rounds lodged in the muscle tissue, maybe a half inch penetration. That said he was a young body builder with almost no fat on him and I don't know what he was wearing at the time. I also have no idea if the shooter was using under powered ammo and again they were short ball rounds so lots of factors involved.
 
Can a .22 LR kill a person? Sure it can.

Do I think that there are other handgun calibers that will stop an attacker more reliably than a .22 with similar hit placement? Yes.

Would I prefer a .22 in my hand over no gun at all? Yup.

Do I ever want to be in a position where I had to find out? Nope.

Stay safe.
 
I don't know that anyone believes that a .22 will ricochet backwards after a direct hit, but if it hits something at a shallow enough angle it certainly can deflect in a different direction, like if you shoot a .22 out into a lake it can skip off the surface. But larger projectiles can do the same. My first deer, shot with a 1oz slugger, was quartering towards me. The slug was a direct hit to her shoulder, absolutely demolished it, and then the slug was deflected about 45 degrees and traveled the length of her body, making a soupy mess of everything inside. I found it lodged in her hams.

I also wish Paul had shown what the .22 solid bullet looked like after going through the test medium. My experience has been that .22 hollow points can do a lot of damage on small game like squirrel, but solids are no less lethal on squirrel, rabbit, raccoon and possum. Of course this is with a rifle in hunting / varmint control situations where shot placement can be far more accurate.
 
Bouncing off the ribs on the far side and going back through is a new one on me.

Obviously a 22 is better than nothing, but I'd use something else if I had it. A guy my wife went to high school with was shot with a 22 during a hunting accident almost 50 years ago. Fortunately for him the bullet hit his leather belt, completely penetrated the belt and his skin.

The bullet was stopped by his abdomen muscles and he was able to squeeze the bullet back through the entrance hole much like you'd squeeze a pimple. It left a bruise and a tiny hole that quickly healed. His parents didn't find out until he was almost 40 years old so he never sought treatment.

Had the bullet missed the belt it may well have killed him so he was lucky in that regard.
 
I don't know that anyone believes that a .22 will ricochet backwards after a direct hit, but if it hits something at a shallow enough angle it certainly can deflect in a different direction, like if you shoot a .22 out into a lake it can skip off the surface. But larger projectiles can do the same. My first deer, shot with a 1oz slugger, was quartering towards me. The slug was a direct hit to her shoulder, absolutely demolished it, and then the slug was deflected about 45 degrees and traveled the length of her body, making a soupy mess of everything inside. I found it lodged in her hams.

I also wish Paul had shown what the .22 solid bullet looked like after going through the test medium. My experience has been that .22 hollow points can do a lot of damage on small game like squirrel, but solids are no less lethal on squirrel, rabbit, raccoon and possum. Of course this is with a rifle in hunting / varmint control situations where shot placement can be far more accurate.
Here's one that was done with .22 ball ammo out to 450 yards at 1/2" thick pine boards (old military penetration requirements).

 
On FB .22 pages you get a lot of weird posts where people claim they would choose a .22 LR over a 357 mag revolver or a 5.56 rifle (which is just a faster .22lr)
 
BTW, this is NOT a "I think .22s are the best defensive rounds out there and I'm justifying my belief" thread. It's more aimed at those who think .22s are a waste of time and money because it's worthless as a defensive round. Would it be my first choice for a defensive round? No, not if I could afford a more powerful sidearm of which I own a few but if it's all I had I wouldn't hesitate to use it in a defensive situation with the knowledge it would kill or severely injure an assailent.
 
Last edited:
BTW, this is NOT a "I think .22s are the best defensive rounds out there and I'm justifying my belief" thread. It's more aimed at those who think .22s are a waste of time and money because it's worthless as a defensive round. Would it be my first choice for a defensive round? No, not if I could afford a more powerful sidearm of which I own a few but if it's all I had I wouldn't hesitate to use it in a defensive situation with the knowledge it would kill or severely injure an assailent.
We get it :thumbup:. There are a lot of folks who think a .22 is a harmless noisemaker… and others who swear one shot will ricochet around a persons body or skull and make a complete shambles of a persons innards. (Which is the myth Paul Harrell was mentioning in the video.)

Any fired projectile has the potential to be ultimately fatal with a major artery hit, heart penetration hit, brain penetration hit, etc. But a .22 round won’t penetrate the chest and bounce off multiple ribs across a torso in succession like a pool ball bounces off the table cushions. :)

Stay safe.
 
This is a time worn discussion with many threads about it and endless "tests".

.22 lr can kill, but the "error bar" on that is enormous.

.22lr has stopped attacks, but the "error bar" on that is also enormous.

Is .22lr better than nothing? Yes, but not enough to carry it instead of a larger caliber with better stopping data.
 
This video is based on data Gregg Ellifritz collected over a 10 year period of real-world gun fights on a study he did about stopping power and the common beliefs people have about what calibers and bug out guns or rifles to chose. As old as I am I've hunted one caliber for more than 50 years and carried a 1911 for 40 years, he made this old dog think again, check it out. I would like to add that my personal experience with bullet wounds stems from 21 years in the military and over 37 years working Level one trauma centers.
 
I’ve shot many deer, hogs, and gators with .22 LR. I always picked my shots very carefully. Eye and ear holes were best, and usually resulted in one shot kills. This was in my teen years during which I hunted, both for food as well as money. Times were very different back then. I was fairly wild. Lived on my own devices, as I had no stable family. One thing I learned was quiet kills were the best kills. Then the War came along.......
 
I used to consider a .22 with hollow points as possibly more effective than most people think. This was based on "I've seen what those Winchester Power Points do to squirrel and groundhog heads"

Then I came to terms with the prospect that the .22 ammo out of a 4" barrel probably loses so much velocity vs a rifle, the hollow points may not be nearly as effective. Then I tried shooting them at different inanimate objects, which proved a fun waste of ammo, but nothing else.

So then I decided to stick with ammo in calibers that have proven themselves over many years and many wars. You know, like the experts suggest.
 
Lots of misinformation and myths out there concerning .22 lethality.
What do you think?.....

In the context of self defense the point is to stop the assailant quickly -- before he can hurt you (or another innocent). If your assailant is able to complete his attack, even though shot, and leave you maimed or dead, it will be a small comfort to you and your loved ones that the assailant ultimately died from his .22 lr wound.

We have data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology which generally show, with regard to self defense, the following:

  1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.

  2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.

  3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.

  4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

  • The goal is to stop the assailant.

  • There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:

    • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."

    • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function

    • breaking major skeletal support structures

    • damaging the central nervous system.

    Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.

    Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.

    Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.

    The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.

    So as a rule of thumb --

    • More holes are better than fewer holes.

    • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.

    • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.

    • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.

    • There are no magic bullets.

    • There are no guarantees.

  • With regard to the issue of psychological stops see

    • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates set out in the table headed "Here are the results."

      As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):
      Greg Ellifritz said:
      ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

      In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

      • There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.

        • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.

        • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.

        • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.

        • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.

        • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.

      • The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.

        • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.

        • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.

      • And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.

      • From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.

    • Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:
      ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.

      The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

    • And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":

      • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):
        In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

      • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):
        The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

      • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):
        Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

    And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:
    ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....
 
I can tell you this from MUCH experience, not just one anecdotal event:
When I was a teen, I did a lot of rabbit hunting with 22lr., mostly Win model 62 with irons, and a Rem 572 with a 4x weaver.
I saw the difference between standard round nose and Yellow Jackets. Don't even know if Rem still makes them, but they would literally pick a rabbit up and throw it a couple feet, saw it too many times. Solid round nose still worked fine, but they didn't throw a rabbit like the Yellow Jackets did.
 
After testing out a Taurus PT22 and a Beretta M21, I gave my Wife a Ruger LCPII. The penetration from those handy, neat little guns was so poor I could pick HV rounds oit of the target frames with a fingernail.
 
The Mossad issued standard velocity solids for their Beretta M70s.
Of course, placement is everything.
 
  • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.
  • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.
This had me wondering as well especially the .380 caliber and lower calibers. My assumption was that there was a trend for more people to carry smaller guns for concealibility purposes, lighter, and a question of economics. So more guns in the smaller calibers could skew the data from larger calibers.

And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty.
. I personally have seen a patient survive 6 rounds to the head, face and neck from a .357. Which leads me to believe a higher power made it possible.
 
I can tell you this from MUCH experience, not just one anecdotal event:
When I was a teen, I did a lot of rabbit hunting with 22lr., mostly Win model 62 with irons, and a Rem 572 with a 4x weaver.
I saw the difference between standard round nose and Yellow Jackets. Don't even know if Rem still makes them, but they would literally pick a rabbit up and throw it a couple feet, saw it too many times. Solid round nose still worked fine, but they didn't throw a rabbit like the Yellow Jackets did.

https://www.remington.com/rimfire/29-21074.html

I just pulled this off Remington's website. Looks like they're still listed. I'm sure I've shot bunnies with them. Long time ago... I think I've still got part of a box somewhere. I should look for it. Just for fun. The last rabbit I shot was with my Ruger Mk II loaded with Winchester bulk ammo. I don't think a Yellow Jacket would have made it more dead. Like John Joseph said, "placement is everything."
 
That was one of the downfalls of that bullet. They worked great in pumps and most tube fed auto's, but they had feed problems in magazine fed guns due to the square shoulder. We experienced that in my Buckmark and my grandad's High Standard pistol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top