Self defense .22rimfires?

[DT Guy]

Selections from "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques Second Edition by Vincent J. M. DiMaio, M.D.":

.22 Long Rifle and .22 Magnum Cartridges. Hard-contact wounds of the
head with the .22 Long Rifle cartridge range in appearance from a small
circular perforation surrounded by a narrow band of blackened seared skin,
to large, usually circular wounds, with ragged, blackened and seared edges.
True stellate wounds are the exception, not the rule. Soot, powder, and
searing are prominent. There should be no difficulty in distinguishing a
distant from a contact wound with the .22 Long Rifle cartridge. The use of
a dissecting microscope will reveal obvious deposits of soot and powder in
the subcutaneous tissue. Muzzle imprints are much more common than in
wounds from the Short cartridge because of the greater gas volume produced.
Secondary fractures of the skull are frequent with fractures of the
orbital plates virtually the rule. The bullet often exits the skull, though it
may be found underneath the scalp, adjacent to the exit in the bone. X-ray
of the head usually shows lead fragments at the entrance site and along the
bullet track. However, the author has seen a number of instances of perforating
.22 Long Rifle wounds of the head in which no lead was present on
x-ray.

Emphasis added.

Distant Wounds
Distant wounds of entrance from .22 rimfire bullets are generally circular in
shape, measuring 5 mm in diameter, including the abrasion ring. In some areas
of the body where the skin is very elastic and may be stretched when the bullet
enters, e.g., the elbow, the entrance wound may be extremely small; in one
case the complete diameter (including abrasion ring) was 3 mm. This wound
initially was interpreted as a puncture wound and not a gunshot wound, as it
was believed to be too small to be a gunshot wound. Distant wounds from .22
caliber bullets have been mistaken for ice-pick wounds and vice versa.
.22 Hollow-point bullets fired from handguns do not as a general rule
mushroom. If they strike thick, dense bone, they can flatten out. More
commonly, both solid and hollow-point bullets, rather than flattening out
on striking bone, penetrate it. On recovery, they may appear relatively intact
and un-deformed. Close examination, however, will usually show fine, brushlike
scrape marks on their surface. Long Rifle hollow-point bullets, fired from
rifles, may mushroom without striking bone due to the increased velocity
imparted to them by the longer barrel.
At distant range, .22 Long Rifle bullets penetrating the head can produce
linear fractures of the skull whether the weapon used is a handgun or a rifle.

Again, emphasis added.


Skull penetration or skull fracturing and penetration of thick dense bone are both described with distant .22 rimfire wounds, written by an M.D. described as 'the nation's leading authority on gunshot wounds", does not sound like a wholly ineffective self-defense round, does it?


Larry

 

[a_canadian]

But DTGuy, you're citing actual facts. This is an opinion thread. Or so it seems. In grandpajack's opinion, a big ol' knife kicks arse on a short-barreled .22lr pistol any day of the week, hands down. And with a name which includes 'grandpa' he's plainly an elder and so we are supposed to respect his opinion in this matter. Joking, obviously.

Likewise, while I really appreciate the other fellow's contributions regarding his experience in shooting many, many raccoons (seems a bit sad, but I guess they had to die, eh? - I just leave my neighbourhood raccoons alone as they don't cause nearly as much trouble as squirrels, and they're native here which grey squirrels are not), I was a bit bugged by the leap of logic where he suggested human heads are much harder to penetrate than raccoon heads. That's not really what I've heard elsewhere. Typically raccoon skulls are rather high on the penetration resistance scale, what with them being basically small bears, and bears of all varieties being famous for their resistance to head shots among other attributes of legendary toughness. Still, one immense (for many years record-holding) bear was killed with .22lr by a teenaged girl. Head shots too. That was Bella Twin back in 1953. And there was of course this .22lr bear kill:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/bear-killed-with-22lr.232037/

But I ramble. Point is, a leading expert is quoted at length above citing damage he's catalogued from impacts by .22lr rounds from close and far shots, pistols and rifles, and has found skull penetration to be significantly common. Unlike what I've seen in various forums regarding raccoon hunting, where exact placement and fairly accurate physiological knowledge on the part of the hunter are rather important. With good shot placement - preferably a little low of the line and centred between eye and ear hole - even a 20fpe airgun can do the job. Some report as low as 10fpe being sufficient, again with perfect placement. I know a fellow who used to pay for his beer with night visits to a chicken farm, a warm jacket and a Ruger MkII doing the job nicely on invading raccoons from about 25 yards out. He went for side of the head shots. In a self-defense situation one is unlikely to be so selective. But thankfully, humans aren't in the bear clan. Our skulls are actually rather thin and fragile. Hence the need for helmets in so many fun activities and jobs. Which brings me around again to suggesting that marksmanship, and basic ability to hit a head-sized target at typical 'oh **** I'm under attack' ranges should be standard fare for would-be self-defenders with a CCW, whatever the calibre.

 

[grampajack]

Selections from "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques Second Edition by Vincent J. M. DiMaio, M.D.":

Emphasis added.


Again, emphasis added.


Skull penetration or skull fracturing and penetration of thick dense bone are both described with distant .22 rimfire wounds, written by an M.D. described as 'the nation's leading authority on gunshot wounds", does not sound like a wholly ineffective self-defense round, does it?


Larry

I never said it's totally ineffective, just that it's entirely unreliable. The shooter can place the shot perfectly and there's still a good chance it won't do it's job. That in my mind makes it totally unacceptable. There are simply too many instances where .22lr failed to do its job and it was the fault of the cartridge itself, not the shooter or other extenuating circumstances.

I'm also not saying that pepper spray is a great idea either. But, if you get it where it needs to go then the attacker will have a very hard time seeing, which might give you the chance to get away. I have more faith in pepper spray than I do .22lr, which more than anything illustrates how little faith I have in .22lr.

I'm still completely mystified that we're even having this conversation. A .32 can be just as concealable as a .22 for all intents and purposes, and the recoil isn't anything to write home about. I simply see no reason why anyone would carry a .22lr, or why anyone else would defend that choice, try to justify it, or try to "help" someone mitigate such a terrible choice with marginally less terrible ammunition. It strikes me as pathological.

Again, where do we draw the line? Is anything that fires a bullet using gunpowder an acceptable choice? Would anyone defend .22 short? After all, it's killed people, and it undoubtedly hurts to get shot with it.

ETA: Canadian, you're living in a fantasy world. Headshots are uncommon in self defense scenarios, even for skilled shooters. And again, have you ever held a raccoon skull? They're not what you're making them out to be.

Also, since we're talking facts here, Di Maio is a forensic pathologist. That means all his patients were dead. No one is disputing that .22lr can be fatal, or that it can penetrate a skull. The problem is all the cases where it should have and didn't, and none of those cases make it into Di Maio's reports because they didn't die. What you're seeing in his reports represents less than 10% of people shot with a .22lr.

It's also not his aim to identify any weaknesses with any given cartridge. His only purpose in that book is to help pathologists identify different types of gunshot wounds to determine things like what range it was fired from and what kind of powder was used, etc. You shouldn't take his findings as an endorsement of anything.

 

[WYO]

You seem to be under the impression that any gun is better than any other weapon, and that is just not the case. Just because something fires a bullet with gunpowder doesn't make it a viable weapon. Where do you draw the line? Is an NAA mini in .22 short better than a knife?

I feel like we're also too focused on the knife vs. gun thing. That's not what I'm trying to debate here. My contention is that a .22lr is not a viable self defense cartridge, and that any viable weapon is better if you actually get into a fight, vs. just scaring someone off. I honestly believe you would be better served by pepper spray if someone actually called your bluff than with a .22 pocket pistol. Or even a stun gun.

OC spray is merely a distraction device that buys a little time and may impair vision to allow escape. It does not prevent an aggressive person from fighting or closing distance. A “stun gun” is a pain compliance device requiring continued contact, which is difficult against a vigorous assailant. A Taser, with barbs deployed, is a temporary incapacitation device that buys 5 seconds per trigger press, after which the person is restored to full fighting capacity. They all have failure rates. A knife is a deadly weapon that requires contact (assuming it is not a one throw wonder after which the assailant is unarmed).

A .22 LR firearm is a remote control device deployable outside contact distance that (assuming deadly force is warranted), may serve the multiple purposes of a distraction device, a pain compliance device and/or a temporary incapacitation device. At best, it may permanently incapacitate the assailant. Thus, it generally beats all other options.

It behooves any person utilizing ANY means of self-defense to be prepared to IMMEDIATELY follow-up the use of force with other measures in the assumption that the force applied is insufficient to immediately end the attack. That could mean to re-apply the same force, use a different means of applying force, get away, seek cover that prevents further attack, close in and go hands-on, etc. It doesn’t matter if the defender is using bare hands or a .357 magnum. They all have failures. Yes, the .22 LR has a higher likelihood of failure to immediately incapacitate than the .357 magnum, so have a plan as to what you want to hit with it and also plan to buy more time to allow it to work. (But, have a plan even if you use the .357.) OTOH, I can't hide a .357 magnum in a bathing suit.

P.S. Shooting someone in the face can impair vision similar to OC spray.
P.P.S. Running away is not an option limited to using OC spray.

 

[Varminterror]

humans aren't in the bear clan.

Either are raccoons.

Grab an encyclopedia. Raccoons are of the procyonidae family, bears of the Ursidae family. You have to go clear up to the sub-order Caniformia before raccoons branch into bears, at which point, a person could equally say a skunk, fox, walrus, bear, and raccoon are in the same "clan". You're climbing pretty high in the genealogical tree to claim a similarity at sub-order. Reminding - taking one step up to Order, you're effectively lumping ALL CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS into the same "clan."

 

[a_canadian]

My apologies. It wasn't meant as any claim to biological expertise, more an affectionate reference. I think of raccoons waddling past me in the garden as my little neighbourhood bears. Silly of me. But they do have rather tough areas on the fronts of their skulls, apparently, considering how many hunting them have reported glancing hits with face shots.

 

[grampajack]

I've not noted anything about a raccoon skull as being particularly reinforced. If bullets have a tendency to glance off the front I would imagine it's just because of the rather shallow angle. They don't have much of a forehead after all, so it's pretty much a bullet ramp if you shoot one right between the eyes.

 

[a_canadian]

They don't have much of a forehead after all, so it's pretty much a bullet ramp if you shoot one right between the eyes.

Yup. And Emilio Estevez (no, wait, not him... who was that bad actor with the hispanic name and the slanted forehead?) notwithstanding, humans kind of don't.

 

[Varminterror]

Banderas?

 

[a_canadian]

I

Banderas?

nah, like 1980's dude. It's really bugging me now. Terrible actor, usually intense rebel kinds of roles.

 

[bassjam]

I never said it's totally ineffective, just that it's entirely unreliable. The shooter can place the shot perfectly and there's still a good chance it won't do it's job. That in my mind makes it totally unacceptable. There are simply too many instances where .22lr failed to do its job and it was the fault of the cartridge itself, not the shooter or other extenuating circumstances.

I'm also not saying that pepper spray is a great idea either. But, if you get it where it needs to go then the attacker will have a very hard time seeing, which might give you the chance to get away. I have more faith in pepper spray than I do .22lr, which more than anything illustrates how little faith I have in .22lr.

I'm still completely mystified that we're even having this conversation. A .32 can be just as concealable as a .22 for all intents and purposes, and the recoil isn't anything to write home about. I simply see no reason why anyone would carry a .22lr, or why anyone else would defend that choice, try to justify it, or try to "help" someone mitigate such a terrible choice with marginally less terrible ammunition. It strikes me as pathological.

Again, where do we draw the line? Is anything that fires a bullet using gunpowder an acceptable choice? Would anyone defend .22 short? After all, it's killed people, and it undoubtedly hurts to get shot with it.

ETA: Canadian, you're living in a fantasy world. Headshots are uncommon in self defense scenarios, even for skilled shooters. And again, have you ever held a raccoon skull? They're not what you're making them out to be.

Also, since we're talking facts here, Di Maio is a forensic pathologist. That means all his patients were dead. No one is disputing that .22lr can be fatal, or that it can penetrate a skull. The problem is all the cases where it should have and didn't, and none of those cases make it into Di Maio's reports because they didn't die. What you're seeing in his reports represents less than 10% of people shot with a .22lr.

It's also not his aim to identify any weaknesses with any given cartridge. His only purpose in that book is to help pathologists identify different types of gunshot wounds to determine things like what range it was fired from and what kind of powder was used, etc. You shouldn't take his findings as an endorsement of anything.

The thing is, it's not totally unreliable. I've yet to have a single misfire using CCI or Aguila .22 ammo. And the link I shared showed the data comparing .22 hits to all other calibers in actual shootings. .22's actually fared pretty well against other handgun rounds. One shot incapacitation when hits when to the torso and head were 60% with the lowly .22. That's not too bad, considering 9mm, .38sp, and .45ACP all hovered around 50%. Now I certainly wouldn't carry a .22 over my .380 or 9mm most days. But there are times when even my LCP is too large to carry, like a the pool, and I'll slide that NAA .22 in my pocket.

When you look at the larger picture, ALL handgun rounds are unreliable. Those "one shot stop" numbers all hovered between 40-60%, which isn't that great. It wasn't until you step up to a rifle or shotgun that the percentages reached 80-90%, which is what I would consider reliable. Handguns kind of suck for self defense, but it makes no sense to walk around with and AR 15 or AR 10 everywhere. So we choose something that works. I always have a 3.5" knife in my pocket, but I consider that a last resort since it is a contact device. I'd rather run away than try to defend myself with a knife. There's times when I carry pepper spray, like when I'm at a bar drinking and I can't legally carry a gun. Next step us is a .22. Like it or not, it is more deadly and likely to stop an attack than a knife or pepper spray and I do bet my life on it. More often though, I carry a .380 or .38 sp. And when I can, I prefer to carry my subcompact 9mm. But even that isn't as good as strapping a full sized 9mm to my hip, but that's not practical for me. But even then, you still have a gun that's effective only part of the time.

I don't think anyone is saying you should carry a .22 over a center-fire round. I'm firmly in the camp that a conceal carry handgun should be a .38sp/.357mag/9mm/.40S&W/.45ACP, and sometimes a .380ACP. But I don't understand your argument that .22's are ineffective. The data doesn't support that, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.

 

[grampajack]

Yup. And Emilio Estevez (no, wait, not him... who was that bad actor with the hispanic name and the slanted forehead?) notwithstanding, humans kind of don't.

Your chances of getting a headshot are bad enough, and your chances of getting it perfectly square to the skull are worse still. More likely than not, any shot you make in the real world is going to be coming in at an angle. It's moot though, because as stated many times (and yet somehow you don't seem to be registering this) headshots are rare in defensive situations. I'm not saying they don't happen, but they are in the extreme minority of cases.

The thing is, it's not totally unreliable. I've yet to have a single misfire using CCI or Aguila .22 ammo. And the link I shared showed the data comparing .22 hits to all other calibers in actual shootings. .22's actually fared pretty well against other handgun rounds. One shot incapacitation when hits when to the torso and head were 60% with the lowly .22. That's not too bad, considering 9mm, .38sp, and .45ACP all hovered around 50%. Now I certainly wouldn't carry a .22 over my .380 or 9mm most days. But there are times when even my LCP is too large to carry, like a the pool, and I'll slide that NAA .22 in my pocket.

When you look at the larger picture, ALL handgun rounds are unreliable. Those "one shot stop" numbers all hovered between 40-60%, which isn't that great. It wasn't until you step up to a rifle or shotgun that the percentages reached 80-90%, which is what I would consider reliable. Handguns kind of suck for self defense, but it makes no sense to walk around with and AR 15 or AR 10 everywhere. So we choose something that works. I always have a 3.5" knife in my pocket, but I consider that a last resort since it is a contact device. I'd rather run away than try to defend myself with a knife. There's times when I carry pepper spray, like when I'm at a bar drinking and I can't legally carry a gun. Next step us is a .22. Like it or not, it is more deadly and likely to stop an attack than a knife or pepper spray and I do bet my life on it. More often though, I carry a .380 or .38 sp. And when I can, I prefer to carry my subcompact 9mm. But even that isn't as good as strapping a full sized 9mm to my hip, but that's not practical for me. But even then, you still have a gun that's effective only part of the time.

I don't think anyone is saying you should carry a .22 over a center-fire round. I'm firmly in the camp that a conceal carry handgun should be a .38sp/.357mag/9mm/.40S&W/.45ACP, and sometimes a .380ACP. But I don't understand your argument that .22's are ineffective. The data doesn't support that, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.

Do you have any idea what the sample sizes were? Do you have any idea what the barrel lengths were? What was their exact definition of success? If the person runs away after being grazed in the arm, does that still count as a success? Or if the shooting was more of an execution than an actual fight, does that still make it into the sample pool?

Forget statistics. Just look at the myriad cases where a .22lr should have ended a fight and didn't, where there was a solid shot to the head or heart and the round didn't penetrate far enough.

Out of the handful of cases I can remember involving .22lr, all the success stories involved rifles with ~20'' barrels. And all the failures involved pistols. For a study to be useful, it would have to compare success and failure rates for various barrel lengths. What you're proposing is like saying that a 7.5'' AR is a good choice because 5.56 is a proven round, without stopping to mention that most of the data involves a 14-20'' barrel.

 

[Odd Job]

There are two major reasons not to use .22LR for self defense (unless that's all you can fire, or all you can get):

1) The greater risk of a failure to fire because it is rimfire ignition
2) The fact that the bullet is more prone to break-up upon impact, than a jacketed bullet

You could get past problem number one if your .22 was a revolver. And you could make the odds more in your favour by emptying that revolver into the assailant too. For a short time I carried a Llama .22 revolver in the house in South Africa. The only reason being, it was all I had access to. But I didn't carry it with any sense of pride!

I later carried a .25ACP and then upgraded to a 9mm pistol.

But these days, in places where CCW is an option, I would carry a SIG P238 if I wanted a pocket gun. The .22 wouldn't even be a consideration for me.

 

[jstert]

self defense is not combat or law enforcement. it is about avoiding and getting out of danger until the cavalry arrives. for most people, especially the ones who are likely to be preyed upon, i.e. seniors, women or the infirm, a handgun is absolutely much better than a knife because it can be usefully deployed at lawful self defense distances beyond arms' reach. a 22 is not a 45 or 38 or 9, but a 22 is a firearm. if a 22 is all that one can and wants to carry, practice enough with to be handy, then a 22 works when all else fails, including simple avoidance of dangerous situations as much as possible.

i enjoy rimfires alot. i enjoy single action centerfire revolvers alot. when i go to the range i take both. i cannot ccw a ruger blackhawk 45lc, but i can and do ccw a ruger lcr 22lr these days. loaded with yellow jackets i can reliably shred a 3" phone book at 3 yards in a 3" group, standing stationary or moving.

i have never shot anyone. i have seen people shot at on several occasions. nobody but nobody enjoys being shot at, i saw every character at the receiving end duck fast and most would scatter. i just once had to unholster my handgun (admittedly a 38 snubbie then in my younger days, my only choice) with the sincere intent to use it during a violent urban confrontation when i was riding in a vehicle. the surprised potential attacker made the simple calculation that my deployed handgun meant more immediate pain at his end than mine, and he and his associates exited immediately. i doubt that they factored in its caliber or capacity. at that close range multiple shots of any caliber to the alpha male potential attacker's face and upper torso would have given us enough time to drive out of danger. i clearly recall thanking god that i had a handgun, i didnt specifically mention 38 in my prayer.

more law-abiding people need to be peaceably armed, and comfortably proficient with what they are able to afford and carry. if that means a 22 so be it. "beware the old man with just one gun, he probably knows how to use it."

 

[bassjam]

Your chances of getting a headshot are bad enough, and your chances of getting it perfectly square to the skull are worse still. More likely than not, any shot you make in the real world is going to be coming in at an angle. It's moot though, because as stated many times (and yet somehow you don't seem to be registering this) headshots are rare in defensive situations. I'm not saying they don't happen, but they are in the extreme minority of cases.



Do you have any idea what the sample sizes were? Do you have any idea what the barrel lengths were? What was their exact definition of success? If the person runs away after being grazed in the arm, does that still count as a success? Or if the shooting was more of an execution than an actual fight, does that still make it into the sample pool?

Forget statistics. Just look at the myriad cases where a .22lr should have ended a fight and didn't, where there was a solid shot to the head or heart and the round didn't penetrate far enough.

Out of the handful of cases I can remember involving .22lr, all the success stories involved rifles with ~20'' barrels. And all the failures involved pistols. For a study to be useful, it would have to compare success and failure rates for various barrel lengths. What you're proposing is like saying that a 7.5'' AR is a good choice because 5.56 is a proven round, without stopping to mention that most of the data involves a 14-20'' barrel.

Sample size was given, and it was substantial for the .22. If you had bothered to read it, several statistics were given, from one hit incapacitate percentage, to average # of hits to incapacitate, to percentage that resulted in deaths. It even distinguished between vital hits and body hits.

And I could also point to a myriad of cases where a .357 mag SHOULD have ended a fight and didn't. Or 5.56. Or .308. Rounds shouldn't be judged by those singe instances.

I'll give you barrel length. The velocity of a .22 out of a 1-2 in barrel is pretty low. I'll still take it any day over a knife.

But for pistol length .22's in general, here's another good read for you. Seems our military thought the lowly .22 handgun was good enough to use. You like to focus on the times a .22 didn't work, but there are probably many more times when it DID work.

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1873

 

[a_canadian]

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1873

If gramps didn't bother reading the actual stats from the earlier linked article, didn't bother to note the sample sizes, it seems unlikely he's going to read this well written article with its various quotes from people actually involved in use of the suppressed .22lr Rugers in Vietnam. Why would he? He's taken a position, isn't debating, just lecturing us from his pedestal.

 

[grampajack]

Sample size was given, and it was substantial for the .22. If you had bothered to read it, several statistics were given, from one hit incapacitate percentage, to average # of hits to incapacitate, to percentage that resulted in deaths. It even distinguished between vital hits and body hits.

And I could also point to a myriad of cases where a .357 mag SHOULD have ended a fight and didn't. Or 5.56. Or .308. Rounds shouldn't be judged by those singe instances.

I'll give you barrel length. The velocity of a .22 out of a 1-2 in barrel is pretty low. I'll still take it any day over a knife.

But for pistol length .22's in general, here's another good read for you. Seems our military thought the lowly .22 handgun was good enough to use. You like to focus on the times a .22 didn't work, but there are probably many more times when it DID work.

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1873

Those were used for sneaking up behind someone and shooting them in the head, preferably behind the ear or in the base of the skull. Completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[jimbo555]

As stated many times already. 22 handguns are not the best choice in self defense. But for folks with recoil or hand strength issues they provide an option.

 

[grampajack]

As stated many times already. 22 handguns are not the best choice in self defense. But for folks with recoil or hand strength issues they provide an option.

If that's legitimately all a person can handle, then by all means. It's certainly better than being completely unarmed. With that said, I don't think there are that many people who can't handle a .32 ACP. For someone who legitimately can't handle a .32 ACP, they ought to at least have a longer barrel than 1-2''. I don't think it can be overstated that barrel length is critical with a .22lr. The longer barrel will also help mitigate the recoil for faster follow up shots and increase accuracy.

 

[jimbo555]

There is no appreciable recoil to effect follow up shots with a snub nose 22lr. I have a lcr 22lr and 8 rounds can be fired very fast and accurate at 7 yards. Also it's not hard to find rounds that will penetrate to the FBI minimum of 12 inches. That said my edc is a hkp2000sk 9mm.

 

[DT Guy]

OK, I tried. I'm out.

Enjoy, gentlemen.


Larry

 

[a_canadian]

Those were used for sneaking up behind someone and shooting them in the head, preferably behind the ear or in the base of the skull. Completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Once again, gramps failed to read. Much was said also about mid-range use, even scoped, including a references to effectiveness at way, WAY outside SD distances. But again, facts don't bother you do they?

 

[grampajack]

Once again, gramps failed to read. Much was said also about mid-range use, even scoped, including a references to effectiveness at way, WAY outside SD distances. But again, facts don't bother you do they?

I think we read two different articles. To be fair, everything was in regards to its accuracy, without one word about its ability to actually kill someone at those ranges. One guy claims to have used it 40 meters away, though he doesn't say on what, or if he was satisfied with its accuracy or effect, or both. It's unclear whether he was using it on people or animals at that range, or how many people he actually shot at that distance. And we're only talking about a little over 40 yards here, which is basically the distance from your front porch to your neighbor's across the street in a typical neighborhood. So we're probably talking around a 100 fps loss in velocity, if even that.

I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that all were head shots, and probably well placed ones at that. It was used on stationary targets, not moving ones trying to evade being shot. Again, I can't stress enough that head shots rarely happen in defensive scenarios, so I don't know what the use is talking about them. If your self defense plan is entirely predicated on you making head shots, and necessarily well placed ones, then you need a new plan.

 

[Bad Ninja]

But you advise the average person to choose a knife.

Over a gun.

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but ditch the .22 and get a good knife. Even .22 magnum is suspect from a tiny little barrel, and .22 long rifle is a downright joke in my not so humble opinion. And that's not even saying anything about the reliability of rimfire, which is coming from two different directions in your case (one from the unreliable feeding and another regarding the unreliability of rimfire primer ignition).

This is the quote you keep avoiding.
It's dangerously incorrect.

Amateur knife fighting isn't a better option than a .22.

 

[bassjam]

If gramps didn't bother reading the actual stats from the earlier linked article, didn't bother to note the sample sizes, it seems unlikely he's going to read this well written article with its various quotes from people actually involved in use of the suppressed .22lr Rugers in Vietnam. Why would he? He's taken a position, isn't debating, just lecturing us from his pedestal.

Dang, you're pretty prophetic! While he did read it, he clearly cherry picked and saw only what he wanted to see. Let's see if it happens again. Here's ANOTHER article and some statistics on .22 shootings.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/foghorn/ask-foghorn-22l-for-self-defense/

While gramps mind is made up regardless of the facts, I hope other readers don't ever take his advise and charge someone with a knife when they have a .22 pointed at you. There's a good chance you'll die.