Look up the Perry Stevens/George Temple incident.
The almighty .45 failed to make an impression on the perp untill he was shot in the head while he was still fixated on beating the officer to death.
A bullet, even a .45 bullet is not going to stop an attack unless it hits something vital. A .22 in the hands of a shooter who is really good with it, is as good as many other choices. The man behind the gun is what makes the difference, not the piece of hardware. Who would you rather face; a punk gangbanger with a tech 9 or Bob Mundan with a .22 Ruger?
For a first hand gritty account of what it was like to be shot in the face by a .22 pistol, read the first chapter or two of Frank Serpico's book. He very barely lived through the experiance, and was taken down imediately.
To the original poster; A .22 Ruger will do just fine, if you do your part. Practice like a mad obsessed person, with at least weekly if not twice weekly visits to the range. Get to know, really know the gun, and pratice with a wider range of shooting conditions. One very clear advantage of a .22 is, you will be able to expend thousands of rounds of ammo with very little hardship to your wallet. You will have almost zero recoil, and in the space of the next year, you will turn into a far better shot than if you go center fire over the next year.
Is the .22 a good choice for a self defense gun? While not the best choice, It's not a bad choice either considering the adavntages. As for people making comments that a .22 is little better than a sharp stick, or somebody will take it away from you and stick it up where the sun won't shine, their idiots. I've seen 5 people shot by a .22 in my life. three of them were attacking somebody and they got shot for thier pains. All three were out of action, with one of them curled up in a fetal position making whimpering noises, a second was sitting on his rear end agaist a building moaning that he needed an abmulance, and a third had his arm hanging down by his side and was making sure it didn't move because it hurt like hell.
But the thing that stayed with me for my life, was the memory of seeing a heavy set man with a large hunting knife coming at a man, put down by three shots from a Colt Woodsman.
I was 10 years old at the time. My father had taken us to the montains on a summer get away, and we had stopped at a picnic ground just outside of Front Royal Virgina. We were at a table having luch when three men came out of the woods, and came in our direction. They were dirty down at the heels bums, and they asked my dad for some beer money. My father was polite but firm, and told them to leave. One of them got closer and started yelling at my dad that how come he has a nice shiney new Pontiac but can't spare a few bucks. Started calling him some pretty bad names. Dad told him again to leave. This was the 1950's, and there was no cell phones to call the cops.
The man took out a large knife from a sheath at his belt and took a step toward dad. Dad took out the .22 Woodsman he carried when we were on a trip or hiking in the woods. The man kept advacing on my dad, cursing him and saying he din't have guts to shoot. Dad stopped warning him and shot him. The shot made the man stop for a second and hunch up a bit, then he again came toward dad with the knife. Dad shot two more times and the man doubled over then fell on his side, pulling his knees up to his stomach and screaming that his guts were on fire. Over the course of a minute, he grew quiet, and went unconcious. Some others from the picnic ground went down the road to a gas station where they called the police and an ambulance. By the time they got there, the man was dead. He hadn't moved or made a sound since he went down.
Because there was lots of witnesses, it was ruled self defense, and dad had no problem with the police. He even went back down to Front Royal a month later to get his woodsman back. Like I said, it was the 1950's, and things were a little differnt.
But to my dying day, I will never ever forget the sight of a man going down screaming that his guts were on fire, and then dying. It made a lifelong impression. If somebody tells you a .22 won't do the job, thier're an idiot. When the liver, heart, kidneys, or other organs are punctured, blood pressure drops drasticly and fast. This results in loss of conciousness. If an organ does not get hit, then it won't matter if it was a .22 or a .45, there has been no major damage. they say the .22 does not have any shock effect. Maybe thats a good thing in a way. The people I've seen shot by a .22 seem to be in sever pain.
You'll be fine with the Ruger, deltastorm11. Just practice alot, and stay calm. The devil will be buying a snow shovel before you encounter a person who will take half a magazine of good CCi ammo in center of mass and still be a danger. It they are, then shoot the head. It'l work just fine.
Go ahead and use the Ruger .22 if you really like it, your the one shooting it. If you like it, thats all that really matters. It's a great gun, fun and cheap to practice with, and you'll get good with it.
These posts come up with great regularity. It's ridiculous that so called experianced gun people have such scorn for the .22. This leads to misconceptions that it is not a very dangerous and potentially deadly gun. Misconceptions that lead to a gun not being taken very seriously leads to tragic accidents. Like the idiot who wanted a hole through the wall for the TV cable and didn't have a drill, so he used the .22. He shot through the wall, hit his wife and killed her. I guess he thought that a .22 was only for squirells too.
Any gun, even a .22 short is dangerous. How deadly it is, is totally in the hands of the user.
