.22 for self-defense...?
- Thread starter halfdar
- Start date
The vast majority of self defense situations don't require a shot to be fired. They require a gun to be brandished (with intent, and authority). You think that the villain looks at your gun and says "Oh, I ain't scared, that ain't a .45"??? If he was even that smart, he probably wouldn't be the villain in the first place. So - a .22lr pistol would do it's job admirably for something like 90-95% of all encounters - the ones where no shooting is necessary. And no, a replica doesn't work because YOU know its fake and the villain MAY recognize it, and certainly sees it in your wimpy demeanor.
If shooting IS necessary? Well, 22lr is the most deadly round in the US. More people killed with .22 than any other round.
As far as the old "stopping power" myth - the reality is that virtually none of the pistol calibers have such significant stopping power (or lethality, for that matter). I can't link to the study right now, but there was a pretty large one done in the US with police reports correlating caliber and number of shots to aggressors giving up their attacks (literally, "stopping an attack or advance"). The first thing is that on average it took at least 2 hits from either a 9mm or 45acp before the attacker realized he/she had been shot. That seems to be important - adrenaline and the mind plays a big part in "stopping power." For .22lr it took 3 shots. Yup - on average you had to shoot an aggressor TWICE with that big, powerful 45acp or 3 times with wimpy .22lr before they realized they were shot and started to think "hey, this sucks!"
If memory serves, the study found that those 2 shots of 9mm or 45acp, or 3 shots of 22lr, stopped roughly 70% of attackers. So those other 30% required still MORE. But from a self defense situation, you are now talking about stopping 70% of the 5% who weren't deterred by the mere presence of a firearm. And your likelihood of being in that situation isn't that high in the first place, unless you are talking military or police.
I won't touch the urban legends of the PCP-heads, as eventually people will be claiming that, like Superman, they survive multiple point blank shotgun blasts, 100's of rounds of 223, and several LAW rockets.
And if we are talking home defense from invaders, a study of inmates in the US found that they were more afraid of a homeowner wielding a machete than a firearm. Apparently many couldn't imagine being shot, but they could easily imagine being cut/hacked. I think it comes from watching too many stupid Hollywood movies. The upshot is - meet a home invader with a gun in one hand and a machete in the other. Assuming any response other than lubricating your butt and bending over are legal in Canada.
If shooting IS necessary? Well, 22lr is the most deadly round in the US. More people killed with .22 than any other round.
As far as the old "stopping power" myth - the reality is that virtually none of the pistol calibers have such significant stopping power (or lethality, for that matter). I can't link to the study right now, but there was a pretty large one done in the US with police reports correlating caliber and number of shots to aggressors giving up their attacks (literally, "stopping an attack or advance"). The first thing is that on average it took at least 2 hits from either a 9mm or 45acp before the attacker realized he/she had been shot. That seems to be important - adrenaline and the mind plays a big part in "stopping power." For .22lr it took 3 shots. Yup - on average you had to shoot an aggressor TWICE with that big, powerful 45acp or 3 times with wimpy .22lr before they realized they were shot and started to think "hey, this sucks!"
If memory serves, the study found that those 2 shots of 9mm or 45acp, or 3 shots of 22lr, stopped roughly 70% of attackers. So those other 30% required still MORE. But from a self defense situation, you are now talking about stopping 70% of the 5% who weren't deterred by the mere presence of a firearm. And your likelihood of being in that situation isn't that high in the first place, unless you are talking military or police.
I won't touch the urban legends of the PCP-heads, as eventually people will be claiming that, like Superman, they survive multiple point blank shotgun blasts, 100's of rounds of 223, and several LAW rockets.
And if we are talking home defense from invaders, a study of inmates in the US found that they were more afraid of a homeowner wielding a machete than a firearm. Apparently many couldn't imagine being shot, but they could easily imagine being cut/hacked. I think it comes from watching too many stupid Hollywood movies. The upshot is - meet a home invader with a gun in one hand and a machete in the other. Assuming any response other than lubricating your butt and bending over are legal in Canada.
A nice S&W 686 staibless with a 6" barrel would make a better self-defense weapon than a polymer pistol... These revolvers have a high intimidation factor!! You just say: You better start running now! Hahaha
The Ulster Defense Regiment were issued .22LR pistols for personal protection. You could get a BHP, but they were kinda bulky. One part time UDR guy was a plumber, and a PIRA guy cycled across the border and shot him at his work site. The UDR guy rolled to cover and shot the PIRA guy in the leg with the 22. They both sat and waited for the p0lice and ambulance to arrive. That's the problem with a bicycle as an international getaway vehicle.
CCI segmented hollow points would sure make a mess of the inside of your head... otherwise the only benefit for a trained trigger hand would be excellent recoil control for unloading a mag in a hurry, and it would be pretty quiet, relatively speaking.
might as well just stick with 9mm.
might as well just stick with 9mm.
A la Bill Burr, i think if i had to rely on a .22 for self defense, I would limit myself to a DA revolver and premium .22 ammo for reliability (think Ruger SP101 and CCI). IF it has anything going for it, it won't blow your eardrums out if fired in the bedroom, and follow up shots are not really affected by it's minimal recoil.
Now if I was legal to carry, I'd want something lighter and easier to CCW like a Glock.
Now if I was legal to carry, I'd want something lighter and easier to CCW like a Glock.
if I had to do a 22 on a 2 way range i'd use a "double 22"- it's big enough for knock down power and comes out of a great big bore- for those who can't figure out what a double 22 is 22x2=well let's just say harry Callahan carries one..
Aside from the "Stopping power" discussion, the main problem with rim fire for defence has always been reliability.
Misfires in a revolver or feeding/cycling issues in a semi. There are tons of You tube videos that argue for the 22's effectiveness.
If they do go bang.... they're gonna leave a mark! Still not my first choice.
Misfires in a revolver or feeding/cycling issues in a semi. There are tons of You tube videos that argue for the 22's effectiveness.
If they do go bang.... they're gonna leave a mark! Still not my first choice.
This gets brought up regularly on US forums (1911, S&W etc.), where it is less of a theoretical question.
The problem is not whether a .22 will stop someone intent on doing something lethal to you, but when. Lots of people have been killed by 22s, but a self-defence scenario is not about killing- it is about stopping the threat before it stops you, and that demands shot placement and penetration. Head shot? On a paper target on the range, no problem. On a moving target, possibly armed, with your heartbeat at 180? Maybe... But there are lots of stories of .22s and even much more capable calibres, skating around inside the skull. A .22 may be "better than a pointy stick" but only if nothing else is available.
As someone else stated, often the mere presence of a defensive weapon may well stop things from getting worse (until you get into court, anyway) but if it doesn't, a .22 may not save you in time.
Fortunately, few, if any of us, are likely to have the misfortune to find out.
The problem is not whether a .22 will stop someone intent on doing something lethal to you, but when. Lots of people have been killed by 22s, but a self-defence scenario is not about killing- it is about stopping the threat before it stops you, and that demands shot placement and penetration. Head shot? On a paper target on the range, no problem. On a moving target, possibly armed, with your heartbeat at 180? Maybe... But there are lots of stories of .22s and even much more capable calibres, skating around inside the skull. A .22 may be "better than a pointy stick" but only if nothing else is available.
As someone else stated, often the mere presence of a defensive weapon may well stop things from getting worse (until you get into court, anyway) but if it doesn't, a .22 may not save you in time.
Fortunately, few, if any of us, are likely to have the misfortune to find out.
Well, this thread has certainly been interesting. I have got far more response to my OP than I anticipated, and the information here is fascinating.
I have read about 'stopping power' tests done in the past, and conclusion seems to be that .357 Magnum is the best fight stopper going. But I digress.
I guess the practical upshot of all this is that YMMV. You can do everything right and have a 'serious' calibre handgun, and miss with the whole mag in the dark and panic. Or you can get off one lucky shot with your .22 and kill the attacker (who is now short a carotid, and approaching room temperature in 3, 2,...).
I guess I'll think it over some more and focus on obtaining my RPAL.
thanks again.
I have read about 'stopping power' tests done in the past, and conclusion seems to be that .357 Magnum is the best fight stopper going. But I digress.
I guess the practical upshot of all this is that YMMV. You can do everything right and have a 'serious' calibre handgun, and miss with the whole mag in the dark and panic. Or you can get off one lucky shot with your .22 and kill the attacker (who is now short a carotid, and approaching room temperature in 3, 2,...).
I guess I'll think it over some more and focus on obtaining my RPAL.
thanks again.
There are enough horror stories about getting several good hits even with a serious calibre and still having the attacker on his feet and dangerous. As to "discharging "the whole mag in the dark..." !?!!!!!!!!!!!!? You're living in fantasy land, m'boy.
In any case, this is 99.8% irrelevant in Canada. Get your RPAL and enjoy your time at the range. And don't even be thinking of any of this when you're doing your RPAL or speaking with a CFO!
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
There is nothing good about being shot with anything, but if I'm doing the shooting I want a round that has the capacity to penetrate into the chest with a point of the shoulder shot, or that can break the hip or pelvis of an attacker. I don't own a .22 handgun, but I do have a choice of .38, 357, 9mm, .44 magnum and .45 auto if I can't get to a shotgun or rifle. With respect to knock down power, ya gotta love Clint Smith's take on the subject, "Knock down power? Think wheels and a lanyard."
OldFrankHog
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Gatineau QC
Not if you want to convince someone it wasn't premeditated if it ever happens...
Halger280HVMag
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- B.C. XMU Local .454
Ask yourself this:
If you were a soldier going into battle. Would you carry a .22 Rimfire?
If you were a Peace Officer Charged with defending others and yourself. Would you carry a .22 Rimfire?
The only defensive use that I can see. Is as a back-up gun.
To be used at belly gun ranges and aiming for a facial shot.
If that is all that is available.....It IS better than a sharp stick!
If you were a soldier going into battle. Would you carry a .22 Rimfire?
If you were a Peace Officer Charged with defending others and yourself. Would you carry a .22 Rimfire?
The only defensive use that I can see. Is as a back-up gun.
To be used at belly gun ranges and aiming for a facial shot.
If that is all that is available.....It IS better than a sharp stick!
