What is the best and most capable .22lr handgun for concealed carry?

[Baron66]

Originally, I bought a .40 as my concealed carry weapon. It had manageable recoil and, with modern self defense cartridges, it was just as capable as the .45. Eventually though, I switched over to the 9mm because with modern self defense cartridges it was just as capable as the .40, but I could get one more round in each magazine. There was also less recoil for better follow up shots.

The .380 was even better, they are just as capable as the 9mm and the gun is smaller and easier to conceal. The recoil was also less.

Now, I am looking at the .22lr. Since "stopping power" is really just a myth, and technically the 22lr cartridge has killed more american civilians that any other cartridge in modern history, I think it's the perfect cartridge for concealed carry. With modern ammunition the 22lr can be just as powerful as a .380 and I should be able to have a double stack magazine and tons of rounds in each magazine. The recoil should be minimal and I can practice with it frequently without worrying about the cost of ammo. Yes, I have lots of 22lr. I honestly cannot think of any down sides.

Finally, to my question: What is the best and most capable .22lr handgun for concealed carry?

 

[Cee Zee]

A .45. Well maybe a .40.

 

[Odd Job]

Since "stopping power" is really just a myth, and technically the 22lr cartridge has killed more american civilians that any other cartridge in modern history, I think it's the perfect cartridge for concealed carry. With modern ammunition the 22lr can be just as powerful as a .380 and I should be able to have a double stack magazine and tons of rounds in each magazine. The recoil should be minimal and I can practice with it frequently without worrying about the cost of ammo. Yes, I have lots of 22lr. I honestly cannot think of any down sides.

You have to rethink this.
Unless you can only shoot a .22 for health reasons, or the .22 is all you have, then it's not a good choice. The .22 rimfire is inherently less reliable than centrefire ammunition and is lacking in terminal performance in a self defence scenario.

You will be better off with a .380 or a small 9mm.

 

[joneb]

What is the best and most capable .22lr handgun for concealed carry?

I do not agree with your logic, that said I would look to a double action revolver.

 

[herrwalther]

I honestly cannot think of any down sides.

There are a ton of downsides. Well just heavy handed and important ones already mentioned. Rimfire ammunition is less reliable than center fire. And .22LR is not a very good caliber for self defense, ballistically.

Your other points have merit. Recoil, cost of practice etc are good reasons to practice with .22LR and why it has been used for decades. If you really want to practice with a .22, many companies make either conversion kits to shoot .22 or make rimfire models based off popular carry choices like from S&W.

 

[Baron66]

NAA makes a nice little revolver but I like the Glock 22 better since it holds 15 rounds. It's alot bigger than the NAA revolver though...

 

[Bobson]

This thread is a joke, right?

 

[JohnKSa]

It is generally true that calibers within a general performance class tend to perform pretty similarly in terms of terminal performance.

So .40S&W performs pretty similarly to 9mm sinced they are both in the same general performance class.

However, that doesn't mean one can keep stepping from caliber to caliber indiscriminately and assume that no matter how many steps one takes from the original caliber that the final endpoint will still be a caliber that is pretty similar in terms of terminal performance.

It's like saying that taking small steps can't change one's position significantly no matter how many steps are taken. With enough steps, even small steps, eventually the distance traveled becomes significant. That fact does not contradict the truth that if one takes a single small step his/her position does not change significantly.

So while a .45ACP and a .40S&W perform pretty much alike, one can keep stepping from caliber to caliber in small steps and eventually end up at the .22LR. One could also start with the .45ACP, take small steps and just as easily end with a .460S&W Magnum instead of a .22LR.

Does that mean that the .22LR and the .460S&W perform the same because we can move from one to the other by taking a number of very small steps in performance? No, of course not.

It might mean that we didn't understand the basic concept of performance classes and how to apply that concept.

More likely it means that by taking a reasonable concept to an extreme we are hoping to impugn the original reasonable concept and that no one will notice that the ridiculous conclusion is actually the result of a ridiculous process; not a problem with the original concept at all.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

NAA makes a nice little revolver but I like the Glock 22 better since it holds 15 rounds.

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Baron66]

Wow. I was posting for gun recommendations... not to get made fun of.

What's the problem with NAA and Glock?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

As you certainly know, the Glock 22 is a .40 S&W. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you're saying you want a .22lr, but then compare a NAA revolver to a full-size .40S&W?

 

[JohnKSa]

What's the problem with NAA and Glock?

Nothing at all. No more than there's a problem with a Vespa or an F150. It's only when one tries to compare the two of them that derision becomes likely. It's pretty rare to have someone honestly compare a full-sized .40S&W service pistol with a .22LR mini-revolver.

 

[Bobson]

He's playing dumb, John.

 

[Baron66]

I must have the model number wrong. I am looking for the Glock 22lr, not a .40.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Glock doesn't make a gun chambered in .22lr. There are some conversion kits and ISSC makes a Glock look alike.

There aren't many .22lr pistols with double stack magazines, either. Likewise, the ballistics of a .22lr out of any pistol is much less than a .380.

 

[Baron66]

Glock doesn't make a gun chambered in .22lr. There are some conversion kits and ISSC makes a Glock look alike.

There aren't many .22lr pistols with double stack magazines, either. Likewise, the ballistics of a .22lr out of any pistol is much less than a .380.

Jorg, thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar. I have to get some sleep now since it's almost 5am here.

 

[JohnKSa]

I must have the model number wrong.

Ah yes. Great recovery.

 

[leadcounsel]

I'll also say that unless you are artificially restricted to a 22LR, it's a poor choice.

It is cool to dumb 30 rounds in an instant with no recoil, I'll grant that. But I've seen a LOT of .22LR duds and my 22LR Walther and CZ uppers are very unreliable if that means anything.

I suppose if you insist, I'd suggest a .22LR revolver so you have no jams, just pull the trigger again to rotate the cylinder.

Or how about a step up to a .22 magnum. Keltec makes a darn cool - albeit pricey - .22 magnum that holds 30 rounds. And the .22 magnum is similar to the 5.7 if I'm not mistaken. http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pmr-30/pistol/

Or just go with an FN 5.7 ... if you have money to burn. Both of these would be legit SD pistols in my view. Far from ideal - for most people I'd recommend minimum .380, and ideally a 9x19/40/45.

 

[wtr100]

I guess a .22 is better than a stout stick and harsh language.

Maybe a Ruger LCR in .22 mag?

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Since "stopping power" is really just a myth, and technically the 22lr cartridge has killed more american civilians that any other cartridge in modern history, I think it's the perfect cartridge for concealed carry. ... I honestly cannot think of any down sides.....

Really now? It looks like you haven't seriously studied the subject. So let's have a look at some real data and see why you're wrong.

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:

...the perfect cartridge for concealed carry,....

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" (yes, the very study referenced by boltomatic) 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.

 

[C0untZer0]

I think you're heading in the right direction but why stop at the .22LR?

The Umarex S&W 586 is even more controllable than a .22LR and quieter. It has a 10-shot cylinder and you can put rounds on target super-fast.

I know its deadly because I have killed squirrels and black birds with the venerable .177

As far as stopping power goes - yes it stopped those squirrels from destroying my mom's pricey bird feeders. And it stopped those aggressive black birds from dive-bombing her little dog.

 

[MedWheeler]

It appears posts four, six, and twenty, are (so far) the only ones that even attempt to answer the OP's question.

I'll put the Taurus PT-22 or its polymer version, the PLY-22, out there.

There. Now post 23 does as well.

(Though I do admit that I would not be surprised if I'd seen this thread started on April 1st.)

 

[jrdolall]

If recoil is truly the issue then a .22 MAY be a viable option. If MOST attackers stop at the mere sight of a gun then the caliber matters not a whit so a .22 is as good as a .45. The problem with this line of thinking is that we need to stop the ones that aren't in that "Most" category. If 98% of attackers will leave because of the sight of a gun or the sound of a gun then a 22 will be just fine. They are loud and look like any other pistol. I don't recall anyone ever saying "He shot me but it was only a 22 so I wasn't scared".
Yes, maybe the 22 has killed more people than any other cartridge but how many of them died quickly and how many died after they left the scene of the crime? The object of self defense and home defense is to get the criminal to stop what he is doing. It is not to kill him or maim him but to get him to STOP, preferably before he can hurt you or your loved ones. If you get in a gunfight with a person that is shooting back and not retreating then I don't think the 22 is your best option.
IF you still need/want a rimfire then I would second the recommendation of the 22 magnum. It isn't really cheap to shoot but it is more powerful than the 22 LR. The Kel Tec PMR-30 holds 30 rounds and has virtually no recoil. It is similar in size to a 1911 or other fullsize gun so pocket carry isn't much of an option but, being made mostly of plastic, it is very light. There are also some small revolvers in 22 LR that will conceal easily.
Rimfire rounds are inherently more prone to failure than are center fire rounds so I would stay away from MOST semi 22's. I have several and all are fun to shoot but none of the true "pocket sized" 22 LRs I own are dependable enough for carry.

 

[Warp]

Now, I am looking at the .22lr. Since "stopping power" is really just a myth, and technically the 22lr cartridge has killed more american civilians that any other cartridge in modern history, I think it's the perfect cartridge for concealed carry.

It's not.

I honestly cannot think of any down sides.

That indicates to me that you don't have a whole lot of rimfire experience and that you have not done your due diligence regarding what it takes to stop a determined attacker.

You want a centerfire round. Preferably .38spl/9x19 or higher, but a .380 or even a .32 ACP would be preferable to a .22lr.

It appears posts four, six, and twenty, are (so far) the only ones that even attempt to answer the OP's question.

Sometimes other issues are more important to address, in the opinions of the responders.

When this many of the responses are saying the same thing...there's a reason. I think it's a good reason, but that is up to the OP to decide, in the end.

 

[Jim K]

Thanks, Frank Ettin, for an excellent review and rationale for much of what most of us think we know but can't always support with facts.

Can .22 LR kill a person? Yes.. Can .22 LR stop an attacker? Yes. Is the .22 LR powerful enough to kill a person or stop an attack reliably and do so before the attacker can kill his victim? No. Having your attacker die a week later in the hospital is not good enough if you died at the scene.

Jim