sgt127
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,114
…it’s difficult to justify not scraping together a few hundred dollars, even if it takes a minute.
But…if something bad happens in that minute..
I’ll take the .22 Magnum revolver.
…it’s difficult to justify not scraping together a few hundred dollars, even if it takes a minute.
I believe it is enough to stop a threat and survive for another day.
Especially at distances most shootings occur. I believe the 22 WMR is so underrated for a defensive round
Oh no, no!!! At minimum you need to carry the S&W 500 magnum because all of your bad guy encounters will be the bad guy hiding behind 10 reinforced concrete walls a half a mile away!!!!!
View attachment 1115201
Do you have a basis for that assertion?22 mag will work fine in most cases if it's all you have.
It's quite simple, sounds like you have your bias and I have mine. The impression I'm getting here is you want to argue against my assertion. If so it's an argument that has been going on for a long time and has never been resolved and most likely never will. We can waste our time rehashing it all or we could simply agree to disagree if indeed an argument was what you intended.Do you have a basis for that assertion?
Your saying that you hav a "bias" does not substantiate your contention.It's quite simple, sounds like you have your bias and I have mine.
Nope.The impression I'm getting here is you want to argue against my assertion
There is an abundance of scientific evidence regarding handgun wounding effectiveness, and a lot of real-world experience. I know of no data from which one could reasonably conclude that the .22 RFK will "work fine" for self defense. Do you?If so it's an argument that has been going on for a long time and has never been resolved and most likely never will.
I did not offer my opinion.We can waste our time rehashing it all or we could simply agree to disagree if indeed an argument was what you intended.
Yet here you are arguing your position........ Go figure.......Your saying that you hav a "bias" does not substantiate your contention.
Nope.
There is an abundance of scientific evidence regarding handgun wounding effectiveness, and a lot of real-world experience. I know of no data from which one could reasonably conclude that the .22 RFK will "work fine" for self defense. Do you?
I did not offer my opinion.
I simply asked whether you have any basis for your belief; I said that I was not aware of any; and I pointed out that reasonable assessments can be made from information that exists. None of that constitutes arguing for anything.Yet here you are arguing your position........ Go figure.......
Apparently you never took or even studied "debate". You're presenting an argument (one side of a debate) and have made conclusions based on that component of the argument and are requesting I show my "proof" that may counter your assertion (argument).I simply asked whether you have any basis for your belief; I said that I was not aware of any; and I pointed out that reasonable assessments can be made from information that exists. None of that constitutes arguing for anything.
I have presented no argument at all.You're presenting an argument (one side of a debate) and have made conclusions based on that component of the argument and are requesting I show my "proof" that may counter your assertion (argument).
22 mag will work fine in most cases if it's all you have.
Okie dokie........I have presented no argument at all.
Okay ya gave it a go. Feel better? Like I told the other poster I'm not going to rehash an argument that has been hashed and rehashed a thousand and one times already between the low caliber vs the high caliber tribes. Like in politics it's the same diatribe over and over again, pointless and a waste of time.How is "work fine" defined?
I'll give that a go.
"Work fine" = stopping (incapacitating) threat(s) before they can inflict wounds or kill the defender. Sounds like a reasonable expectation for "work fine" to me.
What bullet qualities have the best potential of generating that desired result? Commonly accepted standard is at least 12'' penetration and consistent expansion.
Majority of law enforcement carries ammo that meets the 12'' penetration and consistent expansion criteria, yet I still see fail to quickly stop incidents, even with multiple hits.
Since sometimes multiple hits of 9mm HP fails to "work fine" logically anything less than 9mm HP is even less likely to "work fine".
It is pointless until the results are tallied.Like in politics it's the same diatribe over and over again, pointless and a waste of time.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-for-self-defense.912378/page-5#post-12464077It is pointless until the results are tallied.
Well, that one certainly is pointless.
Your posts always remind me of this.
Think a 9 shot 4in revolver with Gold Dots in 22 mag would be a good defensive weapon for ccw?
And yea I know there are better calibers for this.
But that's all my friend has, he just got his ccw.
I believe it is enough to stop a threat and survive for another day.
Especially at distances most shootings occur. I believe the 22 WMR is so underrated for a defensive round
Who actually claimed a .22 LR or mag is equivalent to a .38 or a 9 mil?Yep, that's it. As always with these debates, someone argues that a lesser caliber is as good as the standard line of .GE. 9mm, 38 SPL, with a diversion to the more power 32s.
However, if that's all you have or some physical reason necessitates a 22 LR, 22 Mag, then go for it. But can we stop the argument that they are equivalent? That's so boring each time it's brought up.