.22 Magnum=scratch awl @ 950 fps

[38snapcaps]

I've noticed some people here have a very low opinion of the .22 Magnum for defense. I have wondered why, and I especially do now. Let me explain:

I was making a play box for my cat and I needed to punch some holes in the cardboard to run string thru. I went out to the garage and looked thru my screwdrivers and noticed the scratch awl would be perfect.

As I was punching the holes I noticed they were exactly the size of the
.22 holes I've seen in targets.

I thought; imagine the force I would need to hit the awl with a hammer to drive it thru an object that would equal a bullet going 950 fps. I have shot completely thru two 2X4's, one placed in front of the other, with my NAA mini revolver. Picture placing the tip of the awl on the wood and how hard you would have to hit it to drive it thru both boards.

Now, apply the mental image of the awl as a .22magnum bullet fired at an assailant. Place the tip of the awl on the abdomen, the chest, or the face, and hit the hammer with the required force to equal 950 fps. With over twelve inches of penetrative power this bullet has a good chance of seriously damaging an internal organ or a part of the nervous system. The critics say this kind of impact is not going to stop an aggressor. Oh really?

Now, tell me again, how a .22 magnum isn't enough.

 

[1911Tuner]

While I'll refrain from bringing other facets into the discussion like momentum, energy, and the fact that bigger holes let more blood out and more air in...I think that the .22 Magnum is a bit underrated in the arguments against it. It's a pretty wicked little cartridge, even at the attenuated velocities that handguns produce as compared to rifles.

That said...there are better choices. The one thing that weighs heavily in the MRF's favor is in the tiny guns that are chambered for it...even though the mini revolvers' short barrels further diminish its effectiveness to roughly the same as being shot by a .22 LR at rifle velocities.

And...That said...there have been a lotta graves filled with the .22 long rifle cartridge.

 

[CHEVELLE427]

i like them, that is why i have a NAA 22 MAG

it is not my go to gun but it is better then a sharp rock on the end of a stick or awl.

off duty cop killed a bad guy last year here with a naa 22lr 1 shot to the gut,
responding officer i had business WITH
(on a felon trying to buy a gun from me)(another long story short, you don't SAY DO WE NEED TO GET THE COPS INVOLED AFTER I REFUSED TO SELL THE GUN, I SAID I GUESS WE DO .he got 8 months)
WAS first on the seen and went to the hospital with the bad guy, ER doctor said that was the most damage he had seen from a gun shot.

took the bad guy 7 days to die

 

[LHRGunslinger]

Yet another little facet of the .22 caliber people forget. .22's don't break bones. they bounce off of them.

 

[38snapcaps]

Gunslinger, please show where your statement can be authenticated.

I've seen no evidence of .22 lr's bouncing off human skulls, which have some of the thickest of bone density in a human body. Evidence; R. Kennedy, J. Brady, Special Forces in Vietnam, mafia hitmen. If a .22 magnum will completely penetrate four inches of wood, how can you say any bone would deflect such a bullet?

 

[Old Shooter]

I think I'm gonna carry a scratch awl and a hammer as my bug!!!

 

[Buck Snort]

Yet another little facet of the .22 caliber people forget. .22's don't break bones. they bounce off of them.

That may be true once the bullet has entered one's body and has slowed down a bit.

 

[38snapcaps]

Old shooter

...............and the bad guy is ten feet away

 

[Walkalong]

I am going to continue to carry a NAA .22 Mag, as I have for about 32 years now. Highly underrated, despite there being better choices. If I know I am headed to a gunfight, I'll bring something bigger, I promise.

Here are some velocities from a 1 5/8" barrel NAA .22 Mag

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Even if the .22 Magnum bullet had the same impact energy as a scratch awl struck by a hammer , you would have to get close enough to your attacker to strike him with it. If you must use contact distance weapons, a knife at least only needs one hand to use.

 

[1911Tuner]

how can you say any bone would deflect such a bullet?

Angle of impact. Two convex surfaces tend to deflect when one impacts at a shallow angle...like a riccochet.

.38 Special round nose bullets have be4en observed to deflect off windshields, as have .45 ACP ball rounds. Like billiards, it's all in the angles.

 

[Phydeaux642]

I'm becoming more intrigued with the thought of the Kel Tec PMR-30. Thirty rounds of .22 mag. If it is reliable that wouldn't be a bad carry gun due to it's light weight. Add an extra mag or two and I'd say a guy would be pretty well armed.

 

[Manco]

I think that even .22 LR is underrated, let alone .22 Magnum--either that or the advantage of larger calibers is overrated. Don't get me wrong, as I'll shoot the largest caliber that I can shoot well, and continue to argue that caliber makes some difference, but I think that a lot of people could shoot a .22 faster and more accurately, which would make it (Long Rifle or Magnum) a better choice for them overall, or at least until they become proficient with something more powerful, anyway. Even some .22 LR loads in certain guns can meet the common penetration standards against thin-skinned creatures that stand upright most of the time. With that and simply having a gun in the first place, you wouldn't be doing too shabbily with a .22.

 

[jbkebert]

I sometimes carry are Walther p22 and have never felt undergunned. Growing up it was nothing to grab my dad's .22 and tell him I was going hunting. I have seen more critters dropped with a .22lr or .22mag than I have ever seen with centerfire anything. I have put down a couple horses with a marlin .22mag. I don't even begin to know how many muskrats, beaver, snapping turtles, coyotes, badgers, coons, a couple bobcats have fallen to a .22 in my hands. Between growing up on a farm and still living on a farm and trapping a .22 is a very capable little round.

 

[CHEVELLE427]

22 is what needs to be in everyones arsenal as it is cheep to shoot and will kill most anything needing killing, when / if times get rough----er

 

[Onmilo]

A .22 Magnum when fired from an adequate length of barrel, general agreement by experts is a minimum of five inches, will and does produce wounds in human body that approximate the same level of tissue damage and penetration as does the .38 Special semi wadcutter bullet fired at non +P velocities from a two inch barrel, i.e. approximately 700-780 feet per second.

When the .22 Magnum is fired from barrel lengths of less than five inches, the results are far less spectacular and sure.

This indicates a defensive CCW shooter woud be better served by a shorter barrelled and easier to carry .38 than they would a belt gun sized 5" or 6" barrelled .22 Magnum and would definately be better served by the .38 than ANY .22 Magnum with a barrel shorter than five inches.
While blast and flash can be spectacular, performance of the .22 Magnum cartridge in short barrelled guns is severely handicapped and standard .22 long rifle calibered firearms of ANY barrel length aren't even in the same league.
The .22 LR rimfire is best considered as no more effective than the .25 Auto centerfire cartridge and is best reserved for absolute last ditch close range personal defense applications.

With all the scientific hoo ha related, I can say that I personally do not feel undergunned by carrying a .32 Auto handgun in the places where I legally can.

 

[LHRGunslinger]

@Onmilo: It's not WHAT you shoot it's WHERE you shoot it. A .22 short that goes where you want it to will be more effective than a .32 that doesn't. I don't need an expert to tell me that.

 

[Lucky Derby]

While a .22, either LR or Mag is a good "killing" round, I don't believe it is a Good "stopping" round. Yes it penetrates and does damage, possibly lethal damage. However the hole that it makes is smaller than the more accepted deffensive pistol rounds. That means it bleeds less and slower. Therefore hydraulic failure takes longer. If I am using a gun to protect myelf, I want something that will stop the beast, whether they be two or four legged, as quickly as possible.
That said I can see some circumstances where a .22 of some sort may be the best choice for a particular situation.

And as always, a .22 that hits is better than a .44 that misses.

 

[ms6852]

22lr or 22 magnums are very very lethal rounds. The problems that most people may have is that they do not have stopping power. I have shot 1x4 boards at 200 yds and every round has penetrated whether it was subsonic or high velocity. The question I have is more of reliability. I feel as long as you load your pistol with match rounds that cost a few dollars more, that raises the reliability factor. I would rather carry a 22lr or 22 magnum than nothing at all. Joaquin Jackson a pretty well known Texas Ranger now retired used a 22 magnum for backup. If it's good enough for him it's good enough for me.

 

[oldfool]

color me ambivalent

on the one hand, I do think the 22WMR is the most under-rated of all cartridges
on the other hand, I would not carry one for SD, same reasons as other have stated

mob killers used to use ice picks once upon a time
extremely effective penetration
but I would not CCW one of those either

 

[Aka Zero]

Only one reason I don't like 22mag, is the price. Near 9mm in cost.

I love the round, I think it's performance is awesome.
And if people hate tiny holes, why do people buy guns in 5.56? I know the bullet is faster, but really, speed is only so much.

Might CCW a PMR30. But at the cost and size, another 9mm or 380 keltec would be easier to conceal, and you get a louder bang.

if I could only shoot one gun the rest of my life it would be a 22. Probably MarkIII. I am really accurate with it, because I have shot at least 100 times as much as any other gun I own.

 

[jonmerritt]

And the 38 spcl deflecting off a wind shield is 99.9% BS. Yes LRN ammo, I tried it, it will deflect off of the windshield only at extremly shallow angles. as will most any other caliber, so will a brick at the right angle. even a 22 mag. And as a self defense round, the 22 mag will do wonders, even in a short barrel deringer. If that is what he is comfortable with, go for it. If he wants to carry a 10mm Glock, go for it. It is border line (between the legs) envy. Just make sure you are dam good with what ever you choose to carry.

 

[481]

The .22 Magnum might be enough gun. Then again, it might not.

Remember it is immediate incapacitation that we seek, not the ability to punch clean holes through something. You can run someone through with a screwdriver as a means of defense if you'd like, but that selection is highly unlikely to stop them from doing many nasty things to you before they expire.

The one fact overlooked so far (at least in this thread) is that rimfire priming is much less reliable than centerfire priming. If the point is to carry a minimally effective package, then any centerfire caliber (.25 ACP, .32Auto, .380ACP, 9mm, .357Sig, .40S&W, 10mm, .45ACP, etc.) loaded with any weight of FMJ will do.

I am not foolish enough to bet my life upon the uncertain properties of rimfire priming in any event.

Threads like this make the .380 95 gr. FMJ look better all the time.

 

[Manco]

This indicates a defensive CCW shooter woud be better served by a shorter barrelled and easier to carry .38 than they would a belt gun sized 5" or 6" barrelled .22 Magnum and would definately be better served by the .38 than ANY .22 Magnum with a barrel shorter than five inches.

Overall effectiveness depends on how well people can shoot each caliber in those handguns. I can shoot .357 Magnum in lightweight snubbies without much difficulty--the recoil doesn't bother me, and neither does that of .40 S&W in lightweight polymer-framed handguns. However, some people can shoot 9mm significantly better than .40 S&W, and some can only shoot .22s with both speed and accuracy. For the latter folks, larger calibers throw them off so much that they take seconds to recover, and to me defensive shooting--or any type of combat shooting between humans trying to kill/stop one another fast--is measured in shots per second (all aimed) as opposed to seconds per shot.

While blast and flash can be spectacular, performance of the .22 Magnum cartridge in short barrelled guns is severely handicapped and standard .22 long rifle calibered firearms of ANY barrel length aren't even in the same league.

I wouldn't say that based on the external and terminal ballistics test results that I've seen.

The .22 LR rimfire is best considered as no more effective than the .25 Auto centerfire cartridge and is best reserved for absolute last ditch close range personal defense applications.

While .22 LR is a last resort as a caliber, it may well be more effective in the hands of some people than larger service calibers would be.

While a .22, either LR or Mag is a good "killing" round, I don't believe it is a Good "stopping" round.

Eh, no common handgun caliber has any "stopping power" worth speaking of, short of hitting the CNS, anyway, and a .22 LR can do that, too.

Yes it penetrates and does damage, possibly lethal damage. However the hole that it makes is smaller than the more accepted deffensive pistol rounds. That means it bleeds less and slower. Therefore hydraulic failure takes longer. If I am using a gun to protect myelf, I want something that will stop the beast, whether they be two or four legged, as quickly as possible.

True, but we're still talking about minutes here without a CNS shot. Hopefully the bad guy will either run away because he doesn't want to die (possibly hours later), or be stopped psychologically, either by being conditioned to go down when shot (also to hasten the administering of medical treatment) or giving up.

In a major, extended shootout I would agree that bleeding out in several minutes from a good hit to the circulatory system is better than half an hour, but such scenarios are exceedingly rare for most people. Even when they occur shot placement is what can end the engagement more quickly, and nothing helps shot placement in a dynamic gunfight better than multiple aimed shots taken when the opportunity presents itself, which is accomplished with more speed and better aim with smaller calibers for some people, as I've said.

That said I can see some circumstances where a .22 of some sort may be the best choice for a particular situation.

That and some people, I think, especially those who don't have the time, money, or inclination to train much.

And as always, a .22 that hits is better than a .44 that misses.

Agreed, and I would add multiple successive shots to this notion.

The question I have is more of reliability. I feel as long as you load your pistol with match rounds that cost a few dollars more, that raises the reliability factor.

That's a good point. At least in my experience, using high quality rimfire cartridges can improve the reliability of ignition to pretty near to the level of centerfire cartridges (some brands of rimfire are really bad, I know, but rimfire ignition can be reliable with good processes and quality control), although personally I'd stick with revolvers for .22 LR.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Impact energy is not the only consideration. A scratch awl will only make a hole exactly as deep and wide as the length of the awl. The .22 Mag hollowpoint bullet, if it expands, has at least a chance of deeper penetration as well as making a larger, more ragged hole.