• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

.22LR not a good round for defense?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Superwormy

Golden Member
Feb 7, 2001
1,637
0
0

The general thought is:

A .22 caliber bullet doesn't have enough impact force to stop a human being, *especially* if they're on an adrenaline high. There are documented cases of people being shot with 22s or 9mm handguns 20 or 30 times and *still* reaching the person with the gun and hurting them.

Most police departments now are moving to 44 or 45s because they *stop* people who are running toward them because the impact force tends to knock people over or spin them around.


Statistically, *most* gunshots happen within something like 30 feet, and that gives a person with, say, a knife, *more* than enough time to run at you before you get enough 22 shots into them to stop them. An interesting read on this is the book "On Killing" by a Lt.
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: Superwormy

The general thought is:

A .22 caliber bullet doesn't have enough impact force to stop a human being, *especially* if they're on an adrenaline high. There are documented cases of people being shot with 22s or 9mm handguns 20 or 30 times and *still* reaching the person with the gun and hurting them.

Most police departments now are moving to 44 or 45s because they *stop* people who are running toward them because the impact force tends to knock people over or spin them around.


Statistically, *most* gunshots happen within something like 30 feet, and that gives a person with, say, a knife, *more* than enough time to run at you before you get enough 22 shots into them to stop them. An interesting read on this is the book "On Killing" by a Lt.
Col. Dave Grossman. Finished it for you...and its a REALLY good read.
 

thepd7

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2005
9,429
0
0
Originally posted by: Superwormy

The general thought is:

A .22 caliber bullet doesn't have enough impact force to stop a human being, *especially* if they're on an adrenaline high. There are documented cases of people being shot with 22s or 9mm handguns 20 or 30 times and *still* reaching the person with the gun and hurting them.

Most police departments now are moving to 44 or 45s because they *stop* people who are running toward them because the impact force tends to knock people over or spin them around.


Statistically, *most* gunshots happen within something like 30 feet, and that gives a person with, say, a knife, *more* than enough time to run at you before you get enough 22 shots into them to stop them. An interesting read on this is the book "On Killing" by a Lt. David Grossman.
Shens.
Show me the documented cases where someone not on PCP was shot with a .22 or 9 mm 20-30 times and kept coming.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
Originally posted by: sponge008
The problem I see is that even a large caliber wouldn't instantly stop a determined assailant unless the central nervous system or heart were hit, correct?
The heart won't even stop someone.

Comparing handgun calibers is like two guys trying to argue who has the bigger pecker compared to an elephant. Handgun rounds just aren't going to immediately incapacitate someone unless you hit a CNS spot at the brain/spine. Even a shot through the heart can give someone enough time to make a shot at you. A mortal would will still take seconds for someone to bleed out to the point of becoming immobile.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,491
9,435
126
For all the movie afficionados here, "real life" is being English Bob's biographer pissing his pants to Little Bill's unloaded gun.

Even most cops go their entire careers without ever even so much as drawing their guns, much less firing them on an armed assailant.

I'm as pro-gun rights as they come, but the caliber, "stopping power," and "drug-crazed assailant on a adrenaline rush" BS is just not fully in line with reality. Sure, it might happen, and you want the right tool for the job, of course... but when you start saying that a .22 can't kill and is as effective as a salad fork for home defense, well... you're just letting your pride act to discourage normal folks from owning guns by telling them it's a cannon or nothing. Something is better than nothing.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,491
9,435
126
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: sponge008
The problem I see is that even a large caliber wouldn't instantly stop a determined assailant unless the central nervous system or heart were hit, correct?
The heart won't even stop someone.

Comparing handgun calibers is like two guys trying to argue who has the bigger pecker compared to an elephant. Handgun rounds just aren't going to immediately incapacitate someone unless you hit a CNS spot at the brain/spine. Even a shot through the heart can give someone enough time to make a shot at you. A mortal would will still take seconds for someone to bleed out to the point of becoming immobile.
Exactly! Thank you.

I swear these caliber arguments drive me crazy, with nonsense like how a .22 will somehow bounce off human flesh while a .45 will somehow knock someone down and/or send them flying backwards.

BS and BS.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: sponge008
The problem I see is that even a large caliber wouldn't instantly stop a determined assailant unless the central nervous system or heart were hit, correct?
The heart won't even stop someone.

Comparing handgun calibers is like two guys trying to argue who has the bigger pecker compared to an elephant. Handgun rounds just aren't going to immediately incapacitate someone unless you hit a CNS spot at the brain/spine. Even a shot through the heart can give someone enough time to make a shot at you. A mortal would will still take seconds for someone to bleed out to the point of becoming immobile.
Exactly! Thank you.

I swear these caliber arguments drive me crazy, with nonsense like how a .22 will somehow bounce off human flesh while a .45 will somehow knock someone down and/or send them flying backwards.

BS and BS.
Hahaha. Agreed. I don't know THAT much about guns, but I don't believe for a second that getting shot with a .22 is just something you'd brush off after a few seconds like you were just hit by a baseball thrown by a MLB pitcher... or that a .45 is So much more powerful that it creates a backlash of momentum and physics hell on people.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: sponge008
The problem I see is that even a large caliber wouldn't instantly stop a determined assailant unless the central nervous system or heart were hit, correct?
The heart won't even stop someone.

Comparing handgun calibers is like two guys trying to argue who has the bigger pecker compared to an elephant. Handgun rounds just aren't going to immediately incapacitate someone unless you hit a CNS spot at the brain/spine. Even a shot through the heart can give someone enough time to make a shot at you. A mortal would will still take seconds for someone to bleed out to the point of becoming immobile.
Exactly! Thank you.

I swear these caliber arguments drive me crazy, with nonsense like how a .22 will somehow bounce off human flesh while a .45 will somehow knock someone down and/or send them flying backwards.

BS and BS.
Hahaha. Agreed. I don't know THAT much about guns, but I don't believe for a second that getting shot with a .22 is just something you'd brush off after a few seconds like you were just hit by a baseball thrown by a MLB pitcher... or that a .45 is So much more powerful that it creates a backlash of momentum and physics hell on people.
but but hollywood says its true!
 

Unheard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2003
3,773
9
81
A trend I keep seeing is people saying you don't want a round that can go through multiple layers of drywall. The issue is, if it wont pierce drywall, its gonna have a tough time going through clothes. SHOT PLACEMENT is key. A .22 will kill as quick as a .50 cal will, but you've got a better chance of a kill w/ a .50 cal round if you slip and miss your shot (aiming for chest, hit their arm for example.) It's all about the right tool for the right job.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/ does quite a bit of testing on all different rounds, and has examples w/ clothing and drywall. Check them out.
 

Kelvrick

Lifer
Feb 14, 2001
18,438
5
81
I'm just going to chime in my own two cents and not bothering to argue with the rest of you.

.22lr will kill someone and it hurts like a mother.

In what situations will you need to use it? Most likely in the home or if you're carrying, within 20 yards, right? How long does it take for an adult to cover 20 yards, like 5 seconds?

Plus you can get banana magazines. 25 rounds per magazine, and they are back to back, giving you 50 rounds, and it only takes about 3 seconds or less to flip the magazine over.
How many accurate shots can you get off in that 5 seconds? If you're getting mugged, I'd say the guy is within 5 yards of you, much less 20. That gives you time to get off 1, 2, maybe three shots. As much as I love my browning buckmark, in those shots, I'd much rather have my mp 9mm or sig p229 .40 then my buckmark.

It can be lethal, it can do the job, but I don't think its a good choise. It is a good basis to start on firearms and is better then nothing, but I don't consider it a good round for personal defense.

Just my 2c.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Fern
I think they are OK for self defense.

A .22 short is a completely different matter though. IMO, a .25 is not much good either.

I have a CC permit and own many handguns ranging from .357 mag, .38 special and .22LRs (and a .22 magnum).

Around the office I use a .22LR. I fear the other calibers have too much penetration (possibility of passing through too many walls into adjacent offices etc).

Fern
Really?
Thats funny, because experts across the globe will disagree with you, as well as the OP.

Your not argueing against a few fanatics here, your argueing against some of the top bellistics testers in the world and years of compiled data.
Really, that's funny because not one of those ballistics testers will allow me to shoot them with a .22LR.

If the point of their "math" is to show that larger caliber bullets, with larger loads produce more ft-lbs, yeah big whoop, I already know that.

Many here are acting like we've said that a .22LR is the best frickin self defense weapon ever manufactured.

I just said it was "OK", and went on to describe a situation where I belive it is suitable - inside my (professional) office complex. There aren't going to be any rampaging PCP hyped up Rambo's attacking anybody here.

At home, with no fear of my shot penetrating a few walls and possibly injuring an innocent person I use .357 mags.

Also, all this talk of 100 yards etc is BS. If you're shooting at something more than a few feet away you better hunting, not claiming self defense. Those of you with a CC permit and thus trained in the state laws regarding claims of self defense know that the "risk" better be damn close to you.

Fern
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
44
91
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Because nobody considers a 10/22 to be a self defense weapon.

Viper GTS
It could be. If I put my banana clip on my 10/22 the media would call it an assault rifle, and if I put the banana clip, a scope, and a bipod on it the state of California would call it an assault rifle. Also, after shooting someone 10 or 30 times, I could beat them to death with the stock by utilizing it as a club.
and therein lies your problem. you shouln't have to shoot someone 10-30 times to put them down. thats the whole point.
Getting shot ONCE with a .22 would hurt like hell. Enough to get most people to turn and run.
yes, most sane people. but what about the guy who is determined to kill you or is hopped up on drugs?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,491
9,435
126
Hell, I'd be more concerned if they were just plain drunk rather than hopped up on drugs.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Because it takes such an extremely well placed shot to disable someone. I once saw a guy shot 7-8 times with a 25cal handgun and he was still running, leaving a trail of blood but still running.
Running *away* though right?

...did you actually see that?
 

SilthDraeth

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2003
2,635
0
71
I know this has gotten a bit off topic.

There are a lot of good posts here, the main thing I was trying to address is the misconception that a 22LR can't kill, or even incapacitate a human.

Of course there are several better tools for the job. And as also pointed out, a rifle is not ideal for home defense, no matter the caliber.

A shotgun, (arguably a rifle) is a good home defense weapon, given the type of discharge, bearing in mind you do not need a precise shot, collateral damage and the possibility of a shotgun discharge going through a wall, or two and killing someone is slim.

Again, this isn't about the merits of a home defense weapon.

I was merely pointing out that a 22LR round is very very dangerous, against an unarmored person, especially at the distance you would be firing it in a home defense scenario.
 

imported_Baloo

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2006
1,782
0
0
Originally posted by: Superwormy

The general thought is:
Most police departments now are moving to 44 or 45s because they *stop* people who are running toward them because the impact force tends to knock people over or spin them around.
These myths never die. Any shot that would impact a person such that it would "knock people over or spin them around" is going to do even more to the shooter. It would take a bullet a whole lot bigger than a 45 to do that. I don't see that that would be a good defensive weapon if firing it is lethal to the shooter.
 

tfinch2

Lifer
Feb 3, 2004
22,114
1
0
I bought a Beretta U22 for target shooting a few months ago, and I feel comfortable for now having a few clips of Stinger hollow points around in case I need to defend myself. It's better than throwing rocks, plus I don't have a ton of money to spend on guns. It's nice for my first pistol. I think I'll be getting an 870 Express soon though.
 

potato28

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
8,964
0
0
A 12 gauge would work much better for home defense, a .22 is really good for long range and hunting.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
Originally posted by: Baloo
Originally posted by: Superwormy

The general thought is:
Most police departments now are moving to 44 or 45s because they *stop* people who are running toward them because the impact force tends to knock people over or spin them around.
These myths never die. Any shot that would impact a person such that it would "knock people over or spin them around" is going to do even more to the shooter. It would take a bullet a whole lot bigger than a 45 to do that. I don't see that that would be a good defensive weapon if firing it is lethal to the shooter.
Yeah. I never can find the link anymore, but ArmyTimes or one of those online publications has an accident listings report.

One was after a day of live fire training, they were loading M2s into the back of trucks to take them back to the base. Clearing the M2 requires the operator to charge the weapon twice with no links inserted. Well apparently the operator only did one charge, thus leaving a live round in the chamber.

When loading the M2 into the truck, the soldier used the palm of his hand on the end of the barrel to push it into the truck bed. The trigger caught on something, discharging the .50BMG round through his hand and into his chest.

The report recounts that the guy stood there for several seconds, kind of looking around, taking in what had happened, before collapsing to the ground. He actually lived a few minutes, but obviously nothing could be done to save him.

So even the mighty ma deuce won't do anything in regards to movement, even at point blank.
 

SilthDraeth

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2003
2,635
0
71
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I'm just going to chime in my own two cents and not bothering to argue with the rest of you.

.22lr will kill someone and it hurts like a mother.

In what situations will you need to use it? Most likely in the home or if you're carrying, within 20 yards, right? How long does it take for an adult to cover 20 yards, like 5 seconds?

Plus you can get banana magazines. 25 rounds per magazine, and they are back to back, giving you 50 rounds, and it only takes about 3 seconds or less to flip the magazine over.
How many accurate shots can you get off in that 5 seconds? If you're getting mugged, I'd say the guy is within 5 yards of you, much less 20. That gives you time to get off 1, 2, maybe three shots. As much as I love my browning buckmark, in those shots, I'd much rather have my mp 9mm or sig p229 .40 then my buckmark.

It can be lethal, it can do the job, but I don't think its a good choise. It is a good basis to start on firearms and is better then nothing, but I don't consider it a good round for personal defense.

Just my 2c.
Sorry part of my write up, I copy and pasted from another thread. Actually most of it. The round thing was meant for a guy wanting to know the difference between buying a 10/22 Ruger and a few other 22LR carbines. I believe that was also my reasoning for putting the accuracy in there. The guy also mentioned about being only allowed 1 firearm in the house, and so it would double as home defense if needed. Everyone was berating the guy, saying it was pretty much worthless as home defense. Which it isn't. It just isn't the best choice, if money and considering the opinions of your wife, etc are of no concern.

I apologize if part of it was ambiguous.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

Here is how I think about it...

Having a pistol in 22LR is a LOT better than having a stick. Say a stick is a +10, a .22 is a +50 in self defense. That said, I think it is a proven fact that a .40 is going to do more damage per shot than a .22. Let's say that a near-aorta hit with a .22 becomes a lethal aorta hit with a .40 in 10% of such cases. Call the .40 a +60 to self defense.

Bottom line: for a few hundred extra dollars in ammo/gun costs, I would rather have a .40 if I had any choice in the matter.

But again, a .22 is better than nothing.

If I were giving advice to my mom, I would tell her that a .22 would be better than not having a gun, but learning to use a .40 would be better advice. And in a life or death situation, why not always give the best advice.
 

SoulAssassin

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
6,135
2
0
I'm not taking sides here but, correct me if I'm wrong, if you have a direct headshot from across the room I can't see how a .22 wouldn't drop anyone. I find it hard to believe it wouldn't pierce the skull.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Your title and your first sentance condradict yourself. This isn't worth responding to.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY