22-rimfire
Member
All I can say is those 22 rimfire's sure are a poor choice for self defense..... 
22LR Military Use
- Thread starter AKGuy
- Start date
- Status
bandit5150
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10
I went to an officer survival tactics couse one time. They had a full auto demo with Thompsons, Uzis, a couple of different MP5 models, a belt fed water cooled .30 (lewis?) and my favorite, an integrally suppressed full auto 10-22.
It had a "fatty" suppressed barrel that was surprisingly quiet. Man could that thing rock and roll. The vendor that had it said that it was marketed to SRTs and the military for use on dogs, windows and streetlights.
I didn't get to shoot it because I didn't bring any .22. I did blast about 400 rds of 9mm through the MP5s and the UZIs though (on the city's dime by the way)
I liked the idea of the FA 10-22 because it is probabably the only full auto that I could afford to shoot!!
It had a "fatty" suppressed barrel that was surprisingly quiet. Man could that thing rock and roll. The vendor that had it said that it was marketed to SRTs and the military for use on dogs, windows and streetlights.
I didn't get to shoot it because I didn't bring any .22. I did blast about 400 rds of 9mm through the MP5s and the UZIs though (on the city's dime by the way)
I liked the idea of the FA 10-22 because it is probabably the only full auto that I could afford to shoot!!
Tinpig
Member
Funderb
Member
i disagree with all of the above.
out 10-22 has been none of those.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The Army used silenced standard velocity .22s in Viet Nam. They were primarily used by tunnel rats -- so they could shoot in confined spaces without blowing their ear drums out. I know of at least one case where such a gun was used in the open, the intent being to wound and take a prisoner (it failed, the prisoner died.)
Interestingly, there were claims that lead bullets violated the Hague Convention prohibition against ammunition "designed to cause unnecessary suffering" and the Army had to develop a jacketed bullet for the .22 LR.
Interestingly, there were claims that lead bullets violated the Hague Convention prohibition against ammunition "designed to cause unnecessary suffering" and the Army had to develop a jacketed bullet for the .22 LR.
runrabbitrun
member
Why do I keep remembering what
ALL the ladies say about those guys with BIG motors on little boats?
Most can confirm, there is an 'overcompensation thing' going on. LMAO
Seriously, well placed shots with a 22 can do the job.
But to each their own.
If a BIGGER weapon is what makes you feel safer (and bigger).
I say go for it.
ALL the ladies say about those guys with BIG motors on little boats?
Most can confirm, there is an 'overcompensation thing' going on. LMAO
Seriously, well placed shots with a 22 can do the job.
But to each their own.
If a BIGGER weapon is what makes you feel safer (and bigger).
I say go for it.
this topic of jacketed 22 lr has a long history as described above.i think more importantly is topic ... what does it hold for the future???jacketed 22 lr is a complicated little very powerful round.the jacketed 22lr with lead core is a wonderful round however the jacketed "non tox green"core 22 lr is certainly a solution to the cali and other states that will soon implement lead in ammo bans.the question arises why are we still shooting antiquated soft lead over-lubed stuff when the technology is around for better?:banghead:
__________________
Really a mini-14 as a battle rifle? Remember the show the A-team when they would shoot thousands of rounds through mini-14's and hit nothing. That was the only thing in the show that was reality...
Sorry had to take the shot. Anyway we used them in the Army for training purposes. One of my best friends growning up is SF and he has told me that they carry them depending on the mission for dogs, lights, sentries. Very quiet and accurate for short range work.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Not necessarily. The .22 in particular is notorious for not penetrating in a straight line. A "well-placed" shot will often miss the vitals.
It's no more powerful than non-jacketed rounds. And those used in Viet Nam were subsonic -- which made them less powerful than modern Wal-Mart bulk packs.
22-rimfire
Member
The Colt ACE was developed for the military for training purposes. The intent was to simulate the recoil of a 1911 45ACP at lower cost.
Mossberg made military 22 target rifles, again for training.
That's why you shoot more than once.
Mossberg made military 22 target rifles, again for training.
That's why you shoot more than once.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The Ace could not simulate the recoil of a .45 ACP. In fact, the .22 LR did not generate enough impulse to reliably cycle the slide. The Service Ace, with the floating chamber was developed to give added impetus -- but it still cannot duplicate the .45 ACP.
If you go to old posts -- like Fort Benning and Fort Sill -- the old multi-story barracks buildings still have 50-foot ranges in the attics. The Army was very interested in using .22s for training, and built several rifle types for this purpose -- the most famous being the M1922 Springfield, the MKI and MKII.
The Army also bought under contract many .22 rifles, including the 513 Remington, the M52 Winchester, the 40X Remington, and other makes.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If you live long enough to get off a second or third shot.
hanno
Member
Mossberg made military 22 target rifles, again for training.
Indeed, the M44US. I bought two of them in 2001 from the CMP and they are tackdrivers. At $75 per, they were one of the best deals around at the time.
Indeed, the M44US. I bought two of them in 2001 from the CMP and they are tackdrivers. At $75 per, they were one of the best deals around at the time.
SDC
Member
Under some circumstances, the 22 makes a useful sniping tool; the Russians used their silenced SV-99 (basically a reworked biathlon rifle) for head-shot sniping in Chechnya;
Cost and law. The law prohibits a large range of cheap materials as "armor piercing" which prohibits the use of materials even cheaper than lead such as iron from being used as the core. Iron core FMJ rounds would be very similar in cost to lead rounds. They would not be quite as dense, reducing the BC, but the iron is significantly cheaper per pound. The machinery would take significantly more wear which would reduce most savings on material. The result would be similarly priced ammo.
Beyond the mere cost of the materials is the cost of the machinery. It is much more expensive to form and cut harder materials because it wears down the machinery after X number of rounds. Lead is so soft that wear on machinery is extremely low.
If you are using something both more expensive than lead, while being harder then the cost of the ammo will be significantly higher.
People can also form thier own lead bullets. That means they can be self sufficient in a nation that has long prided itself on the ability to be self reliant.
Perhaps you would like to legislate reliance on factory sources, and I am sure many antis would agree that is a good idea.
Most lead substitutes are not really substitutes at all. Bismuth is primarly produced through lead refining. Which means you still need to mine and create the lead to end up with the majority of bismuth (which is a small percentage of the total refined product.)
The world supply of bismuth is quite low, and the mining of bismuth is predominantly dependent on lead demand. Without as much demand for lead and with increased demand for bismuth the material is unable to meet demand.
With just moderately increased demand for bismuth in 2007 the price was almost $18 ($17.90) a pound at the start of 2008. It was still over $16 a pound by september 2008 when we first had our economic troubles and the prices of many things went down as demand plummeted.
That is with relatively low bismuth demand. If you replaced all ammo lead demand with bismuth demand the price would skyrocket far higher, probably over $30 a pound.
Lead meanwhile never even hit the $2 mark per pound at its most expensive point in 2007 when everyone was complaining of the large increase in ammo costs. It has been around .50 or 50 cents per pound for much of this year (2009). It is currently below .67 or 67 cents per pound.
So replacing lead with something like busmith and giving projected demand increases for the relatively small worldwide bismuth quantities for most ammunition use would push the cost of ammo extremely high.
Ammo could end up costing literaly over 50x what is does now.
Every single type of replacement material has a lower BC, is restricted material by law under the AP rules for anything chambered in a production handgun, or is significantly more expensive. The people most in favor of green ammo are those either seeking to increase the cost of ammo, or those who will directly profit.
Other non-toxic ammunition is in some cases even more toxic. Tungsten for example which is more expensive and outlawed as armor piercing under federal law so unsuitable anyways, can create carcinogens. The military was practicing with such "green" rounds to appease some environmentalists.
Further a lot of "green" rounds are actualy still composed of a large percentage of lead alloyed with other materials.
Lead is simply the most cost effective suitable material, and has the high density of mass that creates a good BC suitable for decent trajectories.
Last edited:
runrabbitrun
member
Interesting to note the thing that caused all this assault weapon ban BS was a 22 huh?
Brady was shoot with a 22 I do believe.
Note: I know semi autos, any semi auto is NOT an assault weapon.
Wish we could get that cleared up with the media,
the Brady Bunch and the politicians so they would just leave us semi auto gun people alone already.
Brady was shoot with a 22 I do believe.
Note: I know semi autos, any semi auto is NOT an assault weapon.
Wish we could get that cleared up with the media,
the Brady Bunch and the politicians so they would just leave us semi auto gun people alone already.
Yup, throw that in a tactical wheelbarrow and you are ready for action...
1. Modern American SpecOps use suppressed M4s. Much easier to add a 4" can than to carry an additional firearm + ammunition to their gear.
2. The reason IDF stopped using suppressed .22lr rifles for riot control is because their reserve unit snipers kept going for groin, chest and head shots, instead of shooting the upper legs of riot leaders as was dictated in their orders.
2. The reason IDF stopped using suppressed .22lr rifles for riot control is because their reserve unit snipers kept going for groin, chest and head shots, instead of shooting the upper legs of riot leaders as was dictated in their orders.
runrabbitrun
member
King,
I'm not sure anyone is saying a 22 is good SD weapon.
Only that is has been used by military units
in different applications, including clandestine uses, training and spec. ops type missions.
I'm happy to have a 22 rifle with a pretty decent scope, but I don't consider it as my SD weapon.
It's more for plinking and if need be, for hunting small game.
My go to SD weapon in the home or traveling is and will probably always be my Browning HP 9mm handgun.
For hunting large animals, or fending off would be looters/BGs in the event of some possible future 'situation'...
I can use my SKS for that.
Now of someone wanted to give me say an 8 shot 22 revolver, I'd take it.
Could come in handy for killing snakes and it may be pretty fun to shoot at the range too.
Hell, I might even use it as a back up gun, but would never consider it as a primary SD tool.
I'm not sure anyone is saying a 22 is good SD weapon.
Only that is has been used by military units
in different applications, including clandestine uses, training and spec. ops type missions.
I'm happy to have a 22 rifle with a pretty decent scope, but I don't consider it as my SD weapon.
It's more for plinking and if need be, for hunting small game.
My go to SD weapon in the home or traveling is and will probably always be my Browning HP 9mm handgun.
For hunting large animals, or fending off would be looters/BGs in the event of some possible future 'situation'...
I can use my SKS for that.
Now of someone wanted to give me say an 8 shot 22 revolver, I'd take it.
Could come in handy for killing snakes and it may be pretty fun to shoot at the range too.
Hell, I might even use it as a back up gun, but would never consider it as a primary SD tool.
IndianaBoy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,551
desidog
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,595
Any weapon you use to defend yourself is by definition a self defense weapon; regardless of caliber. A grapefruit spoon can be a self-defense weapon, albiet, very few people's first choice.
The development of the modern suppressor is the main element in play with the .22lr for combat - materials and baffle technology have come a long way since 1960's and Nam. At that time, the suppressors for an M16 were big, bulky, and didn't do as good a job to dampen the sound. That, coupled with issues of fouling, made it impractical. Therefore a clear alternative to a big can was to bring along a .22lr pistol - that was roughly the same size, and a lot quieter.
Check out the guns & ammo article introducing the 5000 FPS .22-284 back in about 1964. they used a cast iron bullet from a very old .22 rimfire loading so the projectile would not vaporize when exiting the barrel. so, we used to have cast iron bullets in the .22. I'm willing to say they were hard on barrels....
Darth AkSarBen
Member
I still say a 10/22 Ruger is a weapon to rekon with. Short range combat would be it's forte. Putting meat in the pot is also one of it's charms, and without severly pinpointing your position.
Came across this Israeli Mossad .22LR article.
theotherwaldo
Member
A reasonably good shooter could usually kill his opponent with a .22. Problem is, that opponent is unlikely to die quickly. It may take days for that opponent to die.
Meanwhile, if your opponent has a knife or a bigger gun then you're probably long buried.
A .22 is handy. I prefer it in most survival situations, mostly because you aren't likely to leave it behind. I wouldn't want to have to defend myself or my country with one, though.
Meanwhile, if your opponent has a knife or a bigger gun then you're probably long buried.
A .22 is handy. I prefer it in most survival situations, mostly because you aren't likely to leave it behind. I wouldn't want to have to defend myself or my country with one, though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
