Documented 22lr Self Defense Failures

[marb4]

It seems that whenever the terms "self defense" and "22 long rifle" appear in the same paragraph, in very short order you'll start seeing responses with phrases like "better than a sharp stick", "a little more effective than harsh language", etc. Generally speaking the little cartridge takes a pretty good beating and I'm wondering if its justified. I've read several accounts through the years documenting real world incidents where folks have successfully used the 22lr to defend themselves. I don't ever recall a story though where the diminutive little round has failed to serve as adequate protection when pressed into a self defense role.

My question, can anyone point me to a documented case where the 22lr was actually inadequate in stopping an attack?

Not looking to start a caliber war but it seems to me that the 22 doesn't get the respect it may deserve in regards to real world self defense encounters.

 

[GEM]

You would have to compare that to other calibers to be meaningful. You can search Frank Ettin's posts for his links and summary of Greg Ellifritz's data.

 

[Kleanbore]

We have discussed the general problem of trying to use actual data to establish anything with regards to defensive firearm effectiveness. Setting aside all of the other factors--the relatively small number of defensive shootings, the extremely large number of variables, the fact that no one records how quickly and in what way someone who is shot succumbs--we are left with one insurmountable obstacle--the almost complete absence of a 'record book' to turn to, other than the Eliffritz data.

Rimfire firearms may have failed, for one reason or another , to do the job in n cases. But we nave no way of knowing what n is, over a time frame of whatever.

On the other hand, we do have expert medical evaluations of what is required to reliably effect a stop, and the results are embodied in FBI standards. And we have test data. And that's why we know that the rimfire fall short.

 

[mnhntr]

I can give you a half dozen real shootings that I have personally been at in the course of my job that involved 22LR as the weapon. From my experience you need to get the bad guy to open his mouth and shoot him in roof of the mouth or shoot him in the temple to achieve a stop to the threat.
1) A single shot in the rib cage at less than 3ft stopped when it hit the rib. Zero penetration.

2) A single shot to the roof of the mouth (self inflicted) penetrated the entire brain cavity with no exit.

3) 2 shots to the thigh with entrance and exit no bone hit.

4) A single shot to the temple area penetrating the entire brain cavity

5) A single shot to the roof of the mouth with the bullet barely sticking out the top of the skull.

6) A shot to the abdomen area with approx. 6in of penetration and a shot to the pelvic area with a bullet lodged in the pelvis.

 

[COLOSHOOTR]

Well I don't know about self defense shoots but I've seen attempt homicides using. 22LR's where the victims lived but likely would have died with a larger caliber. I can think of 3 incidents I have been to where victims were shot in the head with .22's and the bullet did not pierce the skull and instead tracked under the skin, around the skill then exited ouy the other side.

On the other hand multiple rounds of .22LR at close range works though especially if you pierce the heart and fire a few into the face at close, near contact range.

 

[9mmepiphany]

My question, can anyone point me to a documented case where the 22lr was actually inadequate in stopping an attack?

Well, I did write a report about the incident, but it never went to trial and I doubt they'd release the original LE report unless you were an involved party.

Basically wife shot husband in the back while he was restraining step daughter. 2 shots from a .22lr revolver that struck halfway between the kidneys and the shoulder blade, just to the right of the spine. He took the gun away from her.

Later at the hospital, the doctor told be that they weren't going to remove the slug as it wasn't endangering anything vital. Then they told be that it was closely placed to 2 previous .22lr slugs already lodged in his back.

 

[JB_3]

I was with a friend hunting, when he shot a raccoon six times with a 6" barrel heritage
arms .22 revolver. All six shots to head and he continued to run.

 

[George Dickel]

A young soldier in my platoon in the Army was living off post with another soldier. For whatever reason the roommate shot his friend right between the eyes with a .22lr pistol at about 5' distance. The victim had two black eyes and a bad headache but no other injuries. The bullet didn't penetrate.

I've related this story on this forum before. A Military Policeman was escorting an individual from the post commissary (grocery store for you civilians) with the day's sales receipts. A robber shot the MP 9 times with a .22lr pistol and the MP shot the robber 5 times with his .45. Both survived.

I would only rely on the .22 as a last resort for personal defense.

 

[Drail]

There are so many variables in something like this that even if you had a stock of "documented" cases where a .22 LR did or did not perform it wouldn't tell you anything useful. Calibers are not as crucial as lots of folks believe they are. Where you place the shot is crucial. Many people have been killed with .22 ammo but it was because of where they got hit much more than what they got hit with. I have seen documented cases where a night guard was shot with a .22 and fainted and went face down. And a case where a cop was shot 5 times with his own service .357 and yet managed to take it back from his attacker and kill him with it. The human element just involves too many variables. Carry whatever you can hit with quickly on demand every time and is totally mechanically reliable. Practice as much as possible. You'll do OK.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Not looking to start a caliber war...

Really now? So what did you imagine the result of your post would be?

In any case, in the last year we've had at least six threads (not including this one) on self defense cartridge choice, and they've all been pretty much the same. See here, here, here, here, here, and here.

...I've read several accounts through the years documenting real world incidents where folks have successfully used the 22lr to defend themselves. I don't ever recall a story though where the diminutive little round has failed to serve as adequate protection when pressed into a self defense role...

So what? Have you read every single detailed report about every single time the .22lr has been used in self defense? Is there even comprehensive documentation of such incidents? And if there is, is it readily available?

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology, and none of it supports the notion the .22lr is a particularly wise choice for self defense.

What the data shows with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

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.
   
   
5. And that's probably as good as we can do.

I've posted the following before and might as well post it again here:

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:
    
    
    
    ​
    
    
    As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):

    ...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....

    
    
    1. 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.
       
       
    2. 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.
       
       
    3. 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.
       
       
    4. 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....

  
  
• But take special note of the quote in the third bullet point in item V., above:
  
  
  • In In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, with my emphasis):

    ... 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....

    
    
  • So a sub-caliber, .22 lr, .25 ACP, or similar, can kill and can, under some circumstances, stop an attacker. But the odds are that something larger will be more likely to be effective. A sub-caliber might fill a special need, such as a need for deep concealment or if one can't handle something larger; but if someone has a choice, a sub-caliber will not be the best choice.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I've related this story on this forum before. A Military Policeman was escorting an individual from the post commissary (grocery store for you civilians) with the day's sales receipts. A robber shot the MP 9 times with a .22lr pistol and the MP shot the robber 5 times with his .45. Both survived.

Even though they both survived, how badly were they injured right after? Were they both down for the count?

 

[silicosys4]

A couple of months ago we had a murder, pretty rare for around here.

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20141012/NEWS/310129935

"Gary Carl Borneman Jr. was in custody in the Clallam County jail Saturday, charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Gerald David “Jerry” Howell...

The report said officers followed a trail of blood through a kicked-in back door to the laundry room, where they found Howell face-down, dead of a gunshot wound to the head, with a shotgun between his legs...

Borneman carried a .22-caliber handgun which appeared to have been "disabled in a gunfight. The gun was covered in blood. He also had a loaded spare magazine for the gun in his pants pocket," Winfield said.

Multiple injuries to his hands "appeared to be consistent with a close-quarters gunfight, and he had what appeared to be shrapnel injuries to his face," Winfield added."

Not exactly a self defense situation, but pertinent to the discussion.
Point being, he shot the victim in the head with a .22lr. The victim died, but not before returning fire with a shotgun, unfortunately only wounding the suspect but hitting him in the hands and destroying the .22lr.

This is a failure of the .22lr to provide that "stop" that a self defense situation requires. Jerry was still able to attack.
You cannot count on a .22lr to stop a determined assailant even with good CNS hits.

I didn't know Jerry very well, but I can tell you he was a strong guy and a good man.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I believe that the most deadly, or used to be most deadly round was the .22

HOWEVER, this would also correlate to it being the most COMMON round
now, we know it's deadly, and many of these deaths were due to stupidity and negligence. This doesn't mean it's a great SD round, just that it pokes holes well, like all bullets.

And a .22 to the head, is more likely to kill the person 24-48 hours later, but the newer drugs and techniques can do a lot to keep the swelling down and release the pressure. Still doesn't make it a great SD round.

 

[PowerG]

Maybe not applicable to SD cases but I had a friend whose family owned a meat processing plant in my younger days, worked there during the summer some. The cows were killed with a .22 rifle. I have witnessed many dozens of them shot in the head, DRT. It's all about placement. You get hit in the right spot you've got a serious problem.

 

[slickone]

I will say one thing. My .22 stopped this Racoon with one shot between the eyes about 15ft. I live right next to a patch of woods and this animal kept coming in the daytime. He was sick from rabies probably. I did everything to run him off but he just kept coming so my S&W M&P 15-22 did the job with CCI Velocitors.

 

[jamesinalaska]

I knew a man who was shot with a .22LR and didn't know it until the prostitute he was going to visit said something like "Oh my! You're bleeding!"

Big John, who stands about 6'-1" and has large waist, was apparently walking into the business (it was payday after all) just as a robber was walking out. The robber shot him in the belly and ran. Of course things in the house were pretty busy with all the excitement of the robbery and the gun shot, but John didn't know he had been shot until he was told so.

 

[natman]

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology, and none of it supports the notion the .22lr is a particularly wise choice for self defense.

Frank, many thanks for this excellent post. It ought to be made a sticky and anyone who wants to post about caliber choices for defense ought to be required to read it and pass a quiz on it before they post.

What the data shows with regard to self defense could be summarized as follows:

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.
   .

Which is why basing an argument on one-off incidents is so pointless.

• In In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, with my emphasis):
  ​
  
  
• So a sub-caliber, .22 lr, .25 ACP, or similar, can kill and can, under some circumstances, stop an attacker. But the odds are that something larger will be more likely to be effective. A sub-caliber might fill a special need, such as a need for deep concealment or if one can't handle something larger; but if someone has a choice, a sub-caliber will not be the best choice.

[/list]

Exactly - it's all about probability.

 

[dirtengineer]

I love that the data shows .380 as better than .38 special and .357 as better than a shotgun. It would be interesting to see why this is so.

 

[Cee Zee]

This is a favorite example of mine. It wasn't a defensive shooting but rather an offensive shooting using a .22. You can watch if for yourself here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9zy37-_0LU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The man was shot multiple times including once in the neck. I think there was 5 bullets that made impact. He walked away from the shooting and is still alive.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I love that the data shows .380 as better than .38 special and .357 as better than a shotgun. It would be interesting to see why this is so.

It probably isn't so. The thing is that the sample sizes are relatively small, so small differences really aren't significant.

 

[JB_3]

I love that the data shows .380 as better than .38 special and .357 as better than a shotgun. It would be interesting to see why this is so.

The 38 special is more powerful than the the .380, but not by much.

The .380 goes faster but has a lighter weight bullet.

 

[Sav .250]

Seems like it was the cal of choice for the Mafia .

 

[jrdolall]

Research the Ronald Reagan shooting. .22 revolver fired at 15 feet. 6 shots in less than 2 seconds from a cheap revolver. Four men were hit, one by ricochet, but none of the four actually died from the gunshots. Brady died some 30 years later and his death was attributed to the gunshot for political reasons. 30 years is not very good "stopping power".
One man with six shots and he hit four people. None of them died and three, Brady excluded, were able to continue after the shooting.
It makes me wonder why the Brady Bunch were after "assault weapons" when he was shot by what is probably the most ubiquitous gun in the USA. But that's a whole 'nother question

 

[Thermactor]

I was with a friend hunting, when he shot a raccoon six times with a 6" barrel heritage
arms .22 revolver. All six shots to head and he continued to run.

Raccoons are tough bastards.

 

[roadchoad]

As to the dead raccoon with a 15/22, it goes without saying that a .22 rifle will always have more power than a .22 handgun.

I can give you a half dozen real shootings that I have personally been at in the course of my job that involved 22LR as the weapon. From my experience you need to get the bad guy to open his mouth and shoot him in roof of the mouth or shoot him in the temple to achieve a stop to the threat.
1) A single shot in the rib cage at less than 3ft stopped when it hit the rib. Zero penetration.

2) A single shot to the roof of the mouth (self inflicted) penetrated the entire brain cavity with no exit.

3) 2 shots to the thigh with entrance and exit no bone hit.

4) A single shot to the temple area penetrating the entire brain cavity

5) A single shot to the roof of the mouth with the bullet barely sticking out the top of the skull.

6) A shot to the abdomen area with approx. 6in of penetration and a shot to the pelvic area with a bullet lodged in the pelvis.

Interesting examples. You wouldn't happen to remember the types of gun in each incident, would you?

Point being, the effectiveness of .22 in a handgun is across the board and depends on ammo type, barrel length, revolver vs auto, etc. Shorts in a 2" revolver vs stingers in a 6" auto for an extreme example.