Follow me on this one..

[ApacheCoTodd]

Shock is a poor bet to place your life in trust of. Better to stick with a demonstrably superior form 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.

Neither is .22 in any form - "meant to stop humans, or anything approaching humans in size and capability", Chief.

JIMWATSON: 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.

That's OK... Don't do it. I just said to consider it. It has been 200% successful for me and if one chooses to over interpret it and ignore the rest of the post, that's OK too. On one of the instances, an attorney did try to get involved in the issue - it wasn't an issue.

Nits can be picked all day long but it has worked for me and worrying about what might happen has never had much bearing when I've perceived a threat. In addition JIMWATSON what's the scenario in which one would shoot an individual/felon(?) "who were not directly attacking at the moment"?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

OK, let's back the truck up a moment here.

My intent was not to denigrate any given caliber. I've already made my statement earlier about using a .22 LR for defense and, quite frankly [EDIT: no pun intended] Frank Ettin's repost on different calibers and such most elegantly addresses the issue of different bullets with respect to what is better.

The key word here is "better", not "best".

My point is that if you have to pull a gun on someone, then the reason WHY is because you have reached the point where you believe deadly force is the only way open to you to protect your life or the life of another. Deliberately trying to use less than deadly force is, therefore, counterproductive AND may not be viewed by the law as anything OTHER than a display/use of deadly force anyway.

Deadly force, as I learned during my time in the Navy, is "that amount of force which I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily injury or death, to be used as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed."

That, in a nutshell, is what deadly force is, whether in the military, police, or civilian community. There is no real difference in this definition, regardless of the community. However, there IS a difference in what constitutes a justified use of deadly force. Simply put, some of the reasons I might have been authorized to use deadly force while in the Navy are NOT legitimate reasons for me to use as a civilian.

In the eyes of the law, if you pull a gun on someone you ARE using deadly force. It doesn't matter what you have loaded in the weapon or whether you actually intend to use it or not.


So, here lies my opinion:

If I am going to PLAN on providing for my defense, I will do so with something that is proven to be reasonably and reliably consistent in terms of being able to penetrate deeply enough to hit vital organs and cause sufficient damage to stop my attacker. I will NOT rely on the "shock value" caused by less-than-lethal means as a means of self defense.

That said, if I am attacked, I will employ whatever means available to me to survive. If a gun loaded with shot shells is handy, then I will most certainly use it as a "weapon of opportunity".

But I will not keep or carry a gun which is deliberately loaded with "snake shot" as my preferred means of self defense.


Does this make sense? If not, then let me put it another way:

If I were to defend my wife from a violent attack and I had a choice between gun loaded with "snake shot" and a .22 LR gun, I would choose the .22 LR.

If I were to defend my wife from a violent attack and I had a choice between a .22 LR pistol and a 9mm pistol, I would choose the 9mm.

If I were to defend my wife from a violent attack and I had a choice between a 9mm pistol and a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot, I would choose the shotgun.


My choices are based on their inherent capability to actually cause serious bodily harm or death. Does this help clarify my stance?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it has worked for me...

And that is an absolutely horrible way to define best practices. The woods are full of anecdotes about folks choosing a lousy tool for the job or doing something the wrong way and still getting away with it. People sometimes do get lucky, and "One Swallow does not a summer make."

When the stakes are high, trusting to blind luck is not well calculated to reliably produce a good result. The better and more thoughtful the choices we make, the luckier we will be.

 

[denton]

Choosing a firearm for self defense is a highly personal decision. You need something that you're comfortable using, and that you will keep available. As the old saying goes, in time of need, the 380 in your pocket is a better weapon than the 45 at home in your safe.

All of us here spend a lot of time thinking about guns, and what is optimum for a given situation. So it's natural for us to think in terms of one-shot stop percentages. And, I think that's a good discussion.

In my own case, my favorite carry gun is a 41 Mag snubby. So you know where my sentiments lie on the issue.

At the same time, I would not feel undressed carrying my little Ruger SR22 loaded with Velocitors. The slide is not difficult to operate, you have 10 shots, it's lightweight, and the muzzle flash and blast will not blind and deafen you. I've never been shot, but I'm pretty sure a bullet from that anywhere in your body would hurt like the dickens.

About 6 in 7 people shot with a handgun survive. As was pointed out, the objective is not to kill but to stop the threat. Unless your assailant is high on drugs, your demonstrated ability to inflict pain is a great deterrent.

 

[leadcounsel]

Is .22LR lethal? Sure. But as others pointed out, it fails to have the take-down stopping power - immediate energy dump that is needed. Big holes, energy dump, deep penetration are required to create shock and wound channels. The .22LR doesn't do this enough.

I would have to see numbers to be convinced the .22LR has killed more people than the 8mm Mauser, or the .3006, or the 9x19mm, or the 7.62x39... those calibers likely killed millions of people in the 20th century.

Finally, most would agree that .22LR ammo is inherently less reliable than centerfire ammo.

And .22LR is no longer the cost effective platform or available ammo it once was when a brick was $10.

Yes, of course it's mindset. But it also helps to have the proper tool.

 

[hso]

Why not??? Poor reliability and poor terminal ballistics performance is why. The objective is to stop the attacker ASAP and that's achieved with the largest permanent and temporary wound. The .22lr produces a very small wound volume resulting in minimal ability to stop compared to 9mm or .223.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer.htm

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/

 

[DT Guy]

My wife, who is rather tiny and has some hand pain due to arthritis, is also MASSIVELY averse to muzzle flash and noise; simply the way she's wired.

For her CCW, she's picked a Ruger LCR .22LR. My main concern isn't it's lethality, it's the reliability of .22 ammo; it's essentially 'disposable' in the view of most ammo makers, I think, and certainly not subject to the QC centerfire ammo is.

All that said, a .22 is much closer to a .44 magnum than it is to nothing....


Larry

 

[Fred Fuller]

The smaller the caliber of the defensive firearm, the more demands it makes on the shooter in order to be effective for the purpose. This isn't to say that a .22LR cannot be effective in a defensive role - just that it requires hitting a small, mobile target to achieve reasonably quick stops in a determined attacker. That small, mobile target is the triangle formed by the bottom of the nose and the corners of the eyes.

That's a pretty demanding requirement to place on a defender on top of all the other adrenaline-provoking list that comes with being forced to use a firearm in self defense. It's not something I would want to force someone into doing if it were possible to avoid.

And given the possibilities available today, it's pretty easy to avoid. As one possible example, my own 87 year old mom uses a Beretta Storm carbine in 9mm, loaded with Remington Golden Saber 147 gr. JHPs ... it took us a while to arrive at that as a suitable option, but we got there.

As with any choice of this nature, YMMV...

 

[ilbob]

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.

Or missing 6 times with a 44 magnum.

 

[FireInCairo]

My recommendation would be to use 40 grain solid point .22lr as that would give you your best chance at critical penetration.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

And that is an absolutely horrible way to define best practices.

Never said and never will that it was the best. I said it worked in the case when it came to .22 or buttstock. And it did - more than once and became in fact a standard fall-back for the situation, sadly repeated. Folk can go on about optimum scenarios in the comfort of their homes when firearms selection and loading is entirely hypothetical but I have the experience backed up by a couple of bubs doing the same that this worked when optimum was a while ago and the Berettas were alway to hand for entirely other reasons.

 

[Bobson]

Why or why not. Discuss.

In the OP, you list five points that seem to support the use of a 22 handgun or carbine for HD. I'll address them one by one, using a 9mm pistol or 5.56 carbine as the rebuttal firearm. I'll also be granting and/or penalizing points to the 22 as necessary. We'll start it off at zero and see where we end up.

1) Typical home defense distances are the distances that most people plink at with .22LR: 7-15 yards

I agree, but I don't see the relevance. If your goal is to choose a firearm that "most people" could use effectively, then the 22LR is a good choice. If your goal is to choose a firearm that is reliable, effective, and simple to use, a 22LR has quickly been reduced to a terrible choice:

• High-quality rimfire ammo is notoriously unreliable even compared to the lowest quality centerfire ammunition. Minus 1.
• Given the biological mechanics of threat elimination, and the importance of wound diameter and penetration therein, 22LR is about the worst caliber choice for quickly/effectively stopping a threat (given it's relatively low energy and small bullet diameter). Minus 1.
• You would have a very difficult time explaining how/why a 22LR pistol or carbine is easier to use (in terms of function) than a comparable firearm chambered in 9mm. That makes this point moot, so we'll call it neutral/zero.

2) Easy and cheap to train spouses/older children on a small caliber

Based on recoil and muzzle report, I'll give you this one. Suppressing a pistol or carbine, while being an effective option, is both expensive and time-consuming. Plus 1.

3) Little concern with over penetration on "miss" targets

This one is moot, given the numerous options in bullet designs in popular HD calibers (namely in 5.56) designed to eliminate over-penetration. Neutral/Zero.

4) Low sound and flash for night time indoor shooting

This is addressed in point #2. Since it's redundant, it's neutral/zero.

5) Large magazine capacity and ease of follow up shots

The capacity thing is a toss-up. Popular 22 pistols (specifically the offerings from Browning and Ruger) have ~10-round capacity, which is less than typical duty-sized centerfire pistols. Popular 22 rifles (the Marlin 60 and Ruger 10/22) have capacities ranging from 10-25 rounds. The 10-rd 10/22 magazine comes with the rifle and is great, but obviously has marginal capacity. The 25-rd 10/22 mags are notoriously unreliable. The tube-fed Marlin 60 (14 rounds, btw) is ridiculous to reload - it's not even an option.

As for the ease of follow-up shots bit, I agree, but this is assuming ammo reliability. It also ignores the training possibility for rapid follow-up shots with a centerfire pistol or carbine. Since training is accounted for in point #2, this is also redundant. Neutral/Zero.

Looks like the overall score for a 22 is -1. Guess that's a no.

 

[MedWheeler]

ApacheCoTodd, what is it that makes you believe that, had your .22LR firearm been fully loaded with solid, single-projectile loads, your self-defense response(s) would have failed?

I also agree that shooting someone in the face with a round or to of "snake shot" might be more effective than hitting them with a buttstock, but I don't see where you also were able to include "solid, single-projectile" rounds in the comparison. I would choose that because, no matter what the caliber, I would shoot to "mean business."

I've used a heavy Craftsman ratchet as a hammer before, but that doesn't make it the best choice for tasks that do call for a hammer.

 

[MedWheeler]

Bobson writes:

High-quality rimfire ammo is notoriously unreliable even compared to the lowest quality centerfire ammunition.

This is what I hear, but my experience has not corroborated it. I have shot maybe 15-18 thousand rounds of rimfire ammo, at least two thirds of which was CCI MiniMags. I have had zero misfires, and fewer than a dozen malfunctions with my most-commonly-fired guns in the chambering (incidentally, both Ruger firearms, a 10/22 and a Mk-II.) None of those malfunctions was with a CCI round. Even my Jennings J22 has always functioned flawlessly with CCI ammo.

I have fired about half as many centerfire rounds, and have had one misfire. That was a round of agency-issued, commercially-reloaded .38 Special ammo, and it fired the second time the hammer of the circa-1987 Charter Arms Undercover 38 was dropped on it.

I understand the process behind the theory; I just have yet to have it present itself firsthand to me.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Any gun will do so long as YOU will do.

That said ... I'd rather have a 12 gauge pump!

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.

 

[Onward Allusion]

It's funny how my opinion has changed through the years. Just a few years ago, I would not have had problem relying on 22LR, 25ACP, & 32ACP. I guess still wouldn't have a (major) problem if it came down to it, but I would definitely rather have something along the line of a 9mm, at the very least.

A 22LR will kill, but unless it is a CNS hit, it is not going to stop immediately. I've learned this firsthand. It takes a while for the damage to kill. It may slow 'em down for you to get away or call 911, but I rather have 'em drop right there.

As an aside, gotta love that Failure to Incapacitate chart. Who would have thunk - .357 mag has about the same incapacitation rate as a rifle. Gives me a sense of comfort carrying a 608.

 

[mike28w]

Disclaimer: I'm only an anesthetist, not a cop or soldier, never seen someone as they have been shot....but I've cared for too many folks who have been shot and are now having surgery in an attempt to keep them from trying to die.

I'm a long time gun enthusiast but i really can't tell any difference in handgun calibers. I've cared for folks who were shot with 22s and who do nothing but curl up in fetal position ( there's no fight left in them) and I've seen folks shot by 45s and 357 mag that just seemed very irritated with their situation.

My uneducated conclusion is that all handguns are terribly underpowered and the only real variables are shot placement ( tissue damage) and the motivation ( either natural or drug induced) of the person who was shot.....

Now , if you want to discuss shotgun ( buckshot) or high powered rifle....now that's a whole different animal !! Patient motivation seems to a play very small part in how those folks react. They are frequently incapacitated and if hit center of mass are actively trying to die.....

Just another data point....mike

 

[HadEmAll]

I'd never intentionally trust my family's life to a rimfire. Effective enough, yes. Reliable enough, no.

I've got several rimfire rounds that I keep in a bowl that I've attempted to fire, or picked up off the ground over the years, with firing pin indents in them.

Besides, I've got a bunch of center-fire This's and That's I bought over the years for home and other defense.

 

[gamestalker]

FYI, the first and second time I needed to defend myself against a deadly encounter, all I had was a 22 RF, and I'm here today to talk about it. those not being my only potentially deadly encounters, I can tell you this much, none of the bad guys who faced that little gun ever made a decision to challenge it's effectiveness.

Yes, rim fire cartridges are notorious for experiencing mis-fires, feeding issues, and they are rather under powered.

If that's what you have, at least you have a self defense option. It's plenty of weapon when your the bad guy weighing your options.

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away"

GS

 

[CMC]

I got a NAA sidewinder in 22 mag , I like it because it can be in my pocket all the time even wearing shorts and a tanktop or mowing my yard.
Is it the best? no , but it is always with me.

 

[PistolPete45]

Remember the bad guy you have to shoot at might be on drugs all hyped up .. A normal man would think twice about advancing after being shot in the face. I would bet on a druggie that is not going to stop turn and run . I say no rat shot .

 

[Phaedrus/69]

This topic is a classic! To be serious though, I can see pressing a .22 LR into service in extremis but I'd never deliberately choose it for defense. If for whatever reason I was limited to .22 LR I would prefer a revolver. My own personal experience with .22 LR over the course of four decades is that it's uniformly less reliable than centerfire ammo. It seems that current production .22 ammo is less reliable than the stuff from years past (which I conjecture is because the production lines have been running 24/7/365 for the last two years). At least with a revolver I would have 8/9/10/however many rounds available with the pull of a trigger, and the whole works won't come to a halt if I land on a dud.

At least according to Greg's study of handgun rounds there hasn't been a case he could find where the good guy hit a bad guy with .22 round and was later killed during the fight by that bad guy. Be it .44 Mag or .22 LR no one wants to get shot if they can help it.

 

[herrwalther]

The .22LR firearm would be a backup to what is currently in place. I take my carry weapon off my belt at night to go in the bed side safe. That is the primary home defense firearm. The .22LR firearm would only be used on the rare night I am not there or as a backup to the primary which would be in use.

 

[Warp]

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.

Nope. Absolutely not.

Rimfire isn't reliable enough. Won't even consider it save for exceptional cases where an elderly, very small/weak, injured, etc person is physically incapable of handling anything else...and even then I'll bet something better can be found.

And that's to say nothing of the actual effectiveness of the rounds at stopping the threat.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Yes. I have.

I personally think a Ruger 10/22 with the new BX-25 mags loaded with CCI mini-mag 40 grain round nose would not be bad at all for HD work. Think of it like this:

1. Powerful enough to reach vitals: with the load mentioned and in the close range of inside a home, this load will have no problem of reaching vitals. CCI also makes some of the most reliable .22 ammo out there. This load will make nearly 150 ft-lbs of energy... absolutely nothing to sneeze at. That's about 75% of the energy in most factory .38 special loads. A pellet gun this is not.

2. Follow up shots: can you say FAST? .22 LR has virtually 0 recoil in a rifle. I can pull the trigger as fast as my finger will go and put rounds into a fist sized hole at 15 meters all day every day. It is simply the most controllable semi auto rifle out there, no arguing on that one.

3. Low noise/flash: a .22 rifle would be about the queitest thing to fire indoors and would have almost no flash. This is hugely important in a tactical situation and in the long run your hearing and overall well being would thank you. Tinnitus is a bummer.

So there you go. A 10/22 carbine with say a red dot optic and a stash of BX-25 magazines loaded with a hot, penetrating round such as the CCI load mentioned, would not in the least be the worst gun for home defense. Is it powerful? No. Would I use something more powerful if I could? Yes. But, quite frankly, I don't think it would be a bad option at all. The person or posse who could absorb 25 rounds of those little missiles in there chest as fast as one can pull the trigger from across the room would probably not be laughing at using "just" a .22 for home defense.