Follow me on this one..

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

herrwalther

Member
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
8,127
We have the occasional discussion on here about home defense weapons. The thought I had tonight was using a .22LR semi-auto pistol or carbine for home defense. Here is why I am considering this:

1) Typical home defense distances are the distances that most people plink at with .22LR: 7-15 yards
2) Easy and cheap to train spouses/older children on a small caliber
3) Little concern with over penetration on "miss" targets
4) Low sound and flash for night time indoor shooting
5) Large magazine capacity and ease of follow up shots

Has anyone else pondered this possibility or implemented it? Why or why not. Discuss.
 
Have there ever been times when all I had to defend myself was a 22? Yes. I slept just fine. Unless there was a medical or financial reason, it wouldn't be and isn't my first choice. I worry about reliability of both the round and of high capacity semi auto mags in this caliber. Having said that if someone really wanted to use it, that's their choice and I wouldn't spend much time debating it with them.

Ultimately I think it's the mindset and skill set that is the most important factor.
 
Though a centerfire handgun is almost always on my hip (and next to my bed when it isn't), my bedside long gun is indeed a .22LR autoloader. I have owned this Ruger 10/22, now fitted with a Tapco AR/M4-type stock, since 1986, and have no qualms with its reliability, especially with CCI MiniMags and the Ruger BX-25 magazine now in it. This is in spite of the fact that I actually do own a centerfire AR-type carbine (S&W M&P Sport; I just haven't been in much of a hurry to function-prove it.)

I do admit that I've never set up a .22LR handgun as a "first-up" defender, but that's likely because I owned a centerfire one prior to my first rimfire one.

Countless bad guys have been driven off, captured, or otherwise-neutralized by "some old lady and her .22". To date, I've never heard of a failed defensive use of the .22 by a criminally-targeted citizen in a case in which it could be clearly proven that a 9mm (for example) would have changed things.

Sheepdog1968 writes:

Ultimately I think it's the mindset and skill set that is the most important factor.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There was a thread (linked below) a while back in which a disabled Vietnam veteran was selecting such a weapon for home defense. As one respondent put it: "I'd rather go up against some street thug carrying a .357 Magnum than a (combat) veteran armed with a .22."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=754151&highlight=unconventional
 
Last edited:
IMO 22LR is a capable round, although not my first choice because of reliability issues and if the rounds get wet, like pistol falls in a puddle, the bullets may not fire. Now I would rather use a 22LR or 22mag revolver instead of an auto-loader as a carry piece, just because if one round does not go off all you have to do is pull the trigger again instead of having to rack the slide.

On second thought I may mount one of these at the top of my stairs, 200rds of 22LR aimed at the poor soul trying to come up :evil:

attachment.png
 

Attachments

  • untitled 3.png
    untitled 3.png
    69.1 KB · Views: 1,010
Yes, the lowly .22 has probably killed more pests, game, and people then all the other calibers combined.

The problem is, how long did it take for the people to realize they were dead, and just hadn't had the urge to fall down and stop doing whatever it was they were doing that got them shot?

On the other-hand, a 10 or 15 round mag dump at 5-10 feet from a .22 semi-auto would be about like one 12 ga 00 buck out of a shotgun.

If thats what you got, use it.
But don't stop shooting till the deadly threat is on the floor not moving.
Or your gun is empty!

The former is much preferable to the latter though.

Would it be my first choice for SD?
NO.

Would I feel helpless if that's all I had?
NO.

rc
 
A 22lr is a lethal round. At 400 yds the 22lr will penetrate a 1/2 inch of pinewood. And it can still kill you at that distance. The question remains ....when? In close quarters scenarios the bullet will move faster than the assailant but if you hesitate you are dead.

Another factor remains that most have not taken into consideration, your adrenaline pumping through your veins. How calm do you really think you can be in a life and death situation where your first shot will be true.

Based on my personal experience in the military it is easy to miss from a few feet, so out of 10 or 15 rounds I would guess that you could probably hit maybe 3 times if any and you are not using the caliber that could deliver a fatal hydrostatic shock at the moment you need it most. Yes eventually they will die if they bleed out or you are super calm in any scenario and deliver accurate hits to the neurological system.
 
Use the right bullet. I shot a grouse at spitting distance 4 or 5 times with a Ruger 22 pistol and it flew off. I know I hit it because I was knocking down its fanned out tail feathers. All the bullets zipped right through.

No doubt it died later, but my lead round nose bullets were accurate but the WORST choice for small game.
 
My ex-wife was a Circuit Court Reporter. She has three cases involving death by firearms while we were together. Two were from .22 caliber NAA derringers and the other was a .32 revolver.

A friend of mine's wife defended herself, killing the assailant who had broken into her home, with a .22 semi-auto pistol.

I consider it a viable alternative for self defense. Not my first choice but neither is it my last choice.
 
9mm, .38 spec, .22 mag in that order in my home within 25ft. as I type. a .22 rnd will get a criminal caught, they will end up at hospital but what happened in the rest of the story?
grouse with a .22? really? interesting.........
 
Plan2Live said:
My ex-wife was a Circuit Court Reporter. She has three cases involving death by firearms while we were together. Two were from .22 caliber NAA derringers and the other was a .32 revolver.

A friend of mine's wife defended herself, killing the assailant who had broken into her home, with a .22 semi-auto pistol.

I consider it a viable alternative for self defense. Not my first choice but neither is it my last choice.
Click to expand...
i got laughed at, at other forums when i talked about the NAA .22 mag. as a viable
defense handgun. black widow i think.
 
BSA1 writes:

Sounds like to me that the O.P. isn't comfortable with the idea of taking another human's with a firearm.
Click to expand...

No one should be "comfortable" with taking another human's life with a firearm.

Self-defense isn't about killing. Killing is just a possible side effect that must be accepted. Acceptance isn't necessarily comfort.
 
Would I use a .22 LR for home defense?

Absolutely.


Would my planned home defense choice center around a .22 LR?

Absolutely not.


Yes, a .22 LR can kill. However, compared to the scads of other rounds to choose from for home defense (or personal defense in general), it is at the low end of the totum pole for a variety of reasons.
 
Even if you are comfortable with the low power, there is always the worry over functional reliability.

I have had more misfires and misfeeds with .22s than all others combined.
They turn .22s out in vast quantity for low priority uses; even though it doesn't seem that way in the Ammo Panic Era. QC is not equal to centerfires.
Design is not equal to centerfires, a rimmed case with lead bullet is just not going to get out of the magazine and into the chamber as smoothly as a rimless case and jacketed bullet.
Priming compound spun out into the rim can have gaps not seen in centerfire.

Best ammo and best guns available can minimize but not eliminate the difference.

If by some magical command, I were limited to a .22 for self defense, I guess I would clean my Woodsman, load it with Mini-Mags, and do the best I could.
 
On another forum, people with more experience than I have were practically unanimous that if you're going to use 22LR as a self defense round, load it with CCI Velocitors. They are reputed to outperform other extra zippy ammo, such as Stingers.

As nearly as I can determine, if you produce a firearm, 93% of the time your assailant will flee. Only 7% of the time does it even matter what your firearm is.
 
Last edited:
herrwalther said:
....The thought I had tonight was using a .22LR semi-auto pistol or carbine for home defense. Here is why I am considering this:...
Click to expand...
It comes down to a matter of whether the benefits to you of the .22lr outweigh the fact that it is more likely to do a poor job of reliably stopping an aggressor. While the .22lr may have some attributes which make it an attractive choice for home defense, its terminal performance is what it is, i. e., not very good. And if you don't stop the bad guy, he can still be a threat.

As I've said before:

There is data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology. But we keep getting into these "ring-around-the-rosie" discussions because, I guess, a lot of people are dissatisfied that there really is no definitive answer.

Perhaps the real conclusion(s) 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 by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates:


      Ellifritz_Failure_to_Incap.jpg


      As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):
      Greg Ellifritz said:
      ...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....
      Click to expand...

      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....
    Click to expand...
  • 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.
      Click to expand...

    • 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.
      Click to expand...

    • 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....
      Click to expand...

  • And sometimes even 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....
    Click to expand...

  • 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....
      Click to expand...

    • 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, but one must still decide it that particular need makes up for a sub-caliber's less than stellar performance.
 
If, or, only, never, always, yeah but...

So many variables to consider. If it is the only thing available to an individual or all they can afford/are allowed then hell yeah .22 is viable.

One major consideration for me would be the likelihood of an "intruder" being drunk or stoned and the belated effect of being hit.

Sure, one can go on about Mossad or hunting anecdotes but Mossad walked up behind folk and left nothing to chance and how many times has your life been threatened by an attack squirrel or even deer (yeah, we know about the old days of cappin' deer with .22s) and continued breathing has been owed to a .22?

I would be and have been OK with a .22 but I'd always rather be better than OK if at all possible.

One thing to consider if a .22 is all, is one or two rounds of snake/rat, - whatever you want to call it - shot and get used to shooting a round or two at face level than using up the rest of it mid torso.

Shock often transcends minor drug or alcohol effects.
 
BSA1 said:
Sounds like to me that the O.P. isn't comfortable with the idea of taking another human's with a firearm.
Click to expand...

Didn't bother me when I did it before. Care to rephrase?

The .22LR is an option I am considering for my wife, who has arthritis in her hands.
 
If that's all that is available to you, by all means use it.

However, if you have a bit more money to spare and are willing to look into other options, I would suggest you do so. There are other things that perform better in SD and HD situations than a .22lr would.

(For example, 9mm carbines, shotguns, AR-style rifles, other long guns chambered in larger calibers)
 
ApacheCoTodd writes:

One thing to consider if a .22 is all, is one or two rounds of snake/rat, - whatever you want to call it - shot and get used to shooting a round or two at face level than using up the rest of it mid torso.
Click to expand...

Uh, what? I don't follow...
 
ApacheCoTodd said:
One thing to consider if a .22 is all, is one or two rounds of snake/rat, - whatever you want to call it - shot and get used to shooting a round or two at face level than using up the rest of it mid torso.

Shock often transcends minor drug or alcohol effects.
Click to expand...

Shock is a poor bet to place your life in trust of. Better to stick with a demonstrably superior form of firepower which is proven to be more effective. Then if shock ends up transcending "minor drun or alcohol effects", you've got the bonus plan.

"Snake shot" isn't meant to stop humans, or anything approaching humans in size and capability.

;)
 
Last edited:
Uh, what Frank said. :)

I was formulating a comment as I read down through the thread, then hit Frank's treatise (I say that admiringly, not flippantly). Excellent post.

My short form was going to be:

I was trained (LFI, Insights, Storm Mtn, etc.) to shoot to stop. To that end, I would want something more capable than the .22. I would use a .22 if that was all I had available, but it isn't what I would choose to use for the purpose.
 
One thing to consider if a .22 is all, is one or two rounds of snake/rat, - whatever you want to call it - shot and get used to shooting a round or two at face level than using up the rest of it mid torso.
Click to expand...

No.
That is shooting to maim. I do not think that would leave you in a good legal position these days when even the gunboards are criticizing people for shooting felons who were not directly attacking at the moment.

We have lawyers here who could comment in detail. I bet they will advise against it, too.
 
The heaviest bullet in .22 LR along with a quality red dot sight mounted on a semi auto .22 pistol isn't the best solution, but it isn't by far the worst.
The firearm that you can shoot accurately and reliably with is the solution.
Dumping an entire magazine in two seconds with a .22 in to the face of an assailant is much better than being unarmed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Ruger 44 carbine for home defense
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Gordon
Gordon
F
  • Locked
Home Defense: Go-To Guns and One Assumption Why...
Replies
15
Views
830
ShaiVong
S
K
  • Locked
Home Defense--Toolset Comes Last
Replies
0
Views
524
Kleanbore
K
N
  • Locked
Defensive Shotgun 17 Sept 2011 Carthage NC
Replies
0
Views
143
NCPatrolAR
N
S
  • Locked
New Gun Storage Requirements for a Family Member
Replies
9
Views
828
Hardtarget
H
Back
Top