LynnKCircle
Member
I offer this for your consideration: with any handgun under .40, shot placement is as important (if not more so) than caliber. (The assumption is that a .45, for example, hitting in the center of a person's thigh might well break the bone and disable him, whereas a smaller caliber in the same area likely won't slow him down at all.)
(Also note I am NOT suggesting carrying a mouse gun when you have the alternative of carrying a larger caliber. As a Texas CHL holder, I carry a .45 in an IWB holster whenever possible. But sometimes during really hot weather that becomes impractical, and so I need something far smaller and more concealable.)
It is far more difficult to shoot a mouse gun accurately than it is a larger handgun. Therefore, it stands to reason that it will take far more practice to become proficient with a diminutive handgun than with a service pistol.
If someone is flush with money, cost of ammunition is no issue, so of course he should buy the largest caliber he can comfortably shoot in a small gun. In that case there is no argument -- a larger bullet will generally beat a smaller one any day of the week, and someone with money to burn is limited only by his time available to practice.
BUT, for the rest of us (like me), ammo costs is very much a consideration in how much we can practice. I can afford to practice for hours with .22 ammo, whereas the same amount of money burned might buy me half a box of .45 ammo. If the choice is between .22, .25, .32, or .380, I think it can be argued that it's better to hit what you aim at with a .22 than miss (or almost miss) what you're shooting at with a .380. Therefore, I think a reasonable case can be made for carrying a .22 as a pocket gun -- again, if and only if you cannot afford the large amount of center fire ammo needed to become proficient with it.
A lot has been made of the greater reliability of centerfire ammo over rimfire. My own experience has been that high quality rimfire ammo such as CCI Stingers is as reliable as any centerfire ammo -- with one caution. Rimfire is more susceptible to oil contamination than centerfire ammo, so after cleaning and lubricating, you have to very careful to ensure there's no excess leaking into your magazine from a lubricated action. I've carried a magazine of .22 Stingers for three months in a Taurus PT22, then fired it off without a hitch at the range. With proper maintenance my Taurus PT22 was 100% reliable, too, at least for the first couple of hundred of rounds or so. Once it got pretty dirtied up, it tended to hiccup, but I cannot imagine ever shooting more than one mag in a defensive situation, so that's not an issue. (Either the bad guy will be down or have gone away, or I'll be dead and no longer have any care about reliability).
But the Taurus PT22 couldn't be carried in a tight jeans pocket without seriously printing through the cloth, so I sold it and got an NAA Black Widow with .22lr/.22 magnum cylinders. That little gun limits me to five rounds in an emergency but again, I figure either those five will decide the situation in my favor or I won't be in a position to worry about it.
With the .22lr cylinder, I've been able to spend hours practicing, until I am confident of my ability to hit what I'm aiming at, at ten yards. (Again, I figure if the threat is more than ten yards away, my best odds arer to avoid it entirely, so the furthest I practice is ten yards.) I've proven that the .22 magnums hit two inches higher at that distance so I know how to adjust the site picture.
So again, this is the claim I'm tossing out for discussion: shot placement is more important than caliber in a tiny handgun. A well-placed .22 magnum beats an ill-placed .380. Of course, I expect a lot of disagreement, but that's the fun of it!
(Also note I am NOT suggesting carrying a mouse gun when you have the alternative of carrying a larger caliber. As a Texas CHL holder, I carry a .45 in an IWB holster whenever possible. But sometimes during really hot weather that becomes impractical, and so I need something far smaller and more concealable.)
It is far more difficult to shoot a mouse gun accurately than it is a larger handgun. Therefore, it stands to reason that it will take far more practice to become proficient with a diminutive handgun than with a service pistol.
If someone is flush with money, cost of ammunition is no issue, so of course he should buy the largest caliber he can comfortably shoot in a small gun. In that case there is no argument -- a larger bullet will generally beat a smaller one any day of the week, and someone with money to burn is limited only by his time available to practice.
BUT, for the rest of us (like me), ammo costs is very much a consideration in how much we can practice. I can afford to practice for hours with .22 ammo, whereas the same amount of money burned might buy me half a box of .45 ammo. If the choice is between .22, .25, .32, or .380, I think it can be argued that it's better to hit what you aim at with a .22 than miss (or almost miss) what you're shooting at with a .380. Therefore, I think a reasonable case can be made for carrying a .22 as a pocket gun -- again, if and only if you cannot afford the large amount of center fire ammo needed to become proficient with it.
A lot has been made of the greater reliability of centerfire ammo over rimfire. My own experience has been that high quality rimfire ammo such as CCI Stingers is as reliable as any centerfire ammo -- with one caution. Rimfire is more susceptible to oil contamination than centerfire ammo, so after cleaning and lubricating, you have to very careful to ensure there's no excess leaking into your magazine from a lubricated action. I've carried a magazine of .22 Stingers for three months in a Taurus PT22, then fired it off without a hitch at the range. With proper maintenance my Taurus PT22 was 100% reliable, too, at least for the first couple of hundred of rounds or so. Once it got pretty dirtied up, it tended to hiccup, but I cannot imagine ever shooting more than one mag in a defensive situation, so that's not an issue. (Either the bad guy will be down or have gone away, or I'll be dead and no longer have any care about reliability).
But the Taurus PT22 couldn't be carried in a tight jeans pocket without seriously printing through the cloth, so I sold it and got an NAA Black Widow with .22lr/.22 magnum cylinders. That little gun limits me to five rounds in an emergency but again, I figure either those five will decide the situation in my favor or I won't be in a position to worry about it.
With the .22lr cylinder, I've been able to spend hours practicing, until I am confident of my ability to hit what I'm aiming at, at ten yards. (Again, I figure if the threat is more than ten yards away, my best odds arer to avoid it entirely, so the furthest I practice is ten yards.) I've proven that the .22 magnums hit two inches higher at that distance so I know how to adjust the site picture.
So again, this is the claim I'm tossing out for discussion: shot placement is more important than caliber in a tiny handgun. A well-placed .22 magnum beats an ill-placed .380. Of course, I expect a lot of disagreement, but that's the fun of it!
