.22LR not a good round for defense?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
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.

Rule of thumb is that if it will pierce a watermelon...

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
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.

Rule of thumb is that if it will pierce a watermelon...

Wrong. You are merely thinking of a straight on shot. Add a tiny bit of angle and even a high powered round might deflect. Of course the chance of deflection is greater with a smaller bullet. I actually know someone whos had a 7.62x39 round deflect off of the side of his head. Knocked him out cold but ended up with no permanent damage.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Your title and your first sentance condradict yourself. This isn't worth responding to.

Not really. If you read what I wrote, and my follow ups, it isn't contradicting. It is a perfectly capable round, and is good. That doesn't mean its the best choice.

Any how the heck did your friend manage to find himself the target of a glancing blow from a 7.62x39?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
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.

Rule of thumb is that if it will pierce a watermelon...

Wrong. You are merely thinking of a straight on shot. Add a tiny bit of angle and even a high powered round might deflect. Of course the chance of deflection is greater with a smaller bullet. I actually know someone whos had a 7.62x39 round deflect off of the side of his head. Knocked him out cold but ended up with no permanent damage.

Okay... that's great, but how did it prove me wrong? Are you saying that a .22 straight on wouldn't pierce a watermelon? Or are you arguing that ballistics experts don't test with watermelons?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth

Any how the heck did your friend manage to find himself the target of a glancing blow from a 7.62x39?

Not a friend, but thats what happens during wars. I actually know two people that have been shot in the head and were ok. The glancing blow, then in another instance a round struck the kevlar, rode the interior, and then sliced off a chunk of the back of his head. Just a flesh wound though. About a quarter of an inch lower and his head would have turned into sloppy joe.

 

[Ruptga]

Of course a .22 is lethal, but it doesn't stun the target very much, so while they may bleed out five minutes later, they still have four minutes of consciousness to stab you. Yes you could shoot them in the head, but juries and judges frown upon that.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
You know, everyone talks about penetrating power. But I need to ask, what is the likely hood that someone breaking into your house ISN'T going to get the hell out of there once you open fire with ANYTHING?

The man has a point here :laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
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.

IMO, because of the type of bullet it was, it just passed right on through without disipating it's force to him.

They manufacture a lot of different types of bullets, many intended to NOT just pass on through and so pass the full kinetic energy to the target.

But personally, I find the whole "knock down" thing an uneccessary distraction, prolly spawned by movie special effects. You don't need to knock somebody down to have an effective deterent, or incapacitate them, IMO.

Fern

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Vic

Okay... that's great, but how did it prove me wrong? Are you saying that a .22 straight on wouldn't pierce a watermelon? Or are you arguing that ballistics experts don't test with watermelons?

I'd like to see any articles with "ballistics experts" and watermelons. I agree, a .22LR will penetrate a watermelon at 15-20 feet. But human skulls are not watermelons, not even close. And home defense shots are not always perfect and straight on.

The thing about ballistics is that there are few certainties. Most of the physics involved change on every shot, so wound damage is impossible to predict.

Yes, a .22LR can and will kill, but is certainly not recommended by anyone as a home defense weapon. If thats the only weapon that you have, by all means, use it. But don't expect a miracle.

Do you know of any police or military agencies that carry a .22? Probably for a reason.

If you miss, is a robber going to be scared off by a .22? Probably wont even realize whats going on.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Yes you could shoot them in the head, but juries and judges frown upon that.

Now you are just rambling complete and total horse shit. Show me one case where a home defender got in trouble for a head shot. You wont. Unless he shot to disable, then walked up and fired another at point blank.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
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.

You can shoot 15 different people in the same way and get 15 completely different outcomes, regardless of the bullet used. But anything smaller then 9mm is generally not accepted as a personal defense round.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
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.

You can shoot 15 different people in the same way and get 15 completely different outcomes, regardless of the bullet used.

^ What he said.

Trooper Mark Coates - murdered with a .22 derringer. The attacker was struck with five shots from the Trooper's .357 Magnum and was conscious when paramedics arrived.

However, that doesn't mean I'll trade my .357Sig in for a .22lr.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Yes you could shoot them in the head, but juries and judges frown upon that.

Now you are just rambling complete and total horse shit. Show me one case where a home defender got in trouble for a head shot. You wont. Unless he shot to disable, then walked up and fired another at point blank.

Yeesh, maybe you should take some time off of gun threads, they seem to affect you too personally. A head is a smaller target than a torso, they could easily ask why you aimed in the head, and it would be just as easy to charge the defender with excessive force.

Myself, I'd aim at the torso not so much for any potential legal reasons, I just want to make sure I hit something while I'm shooting in the dark, a crappy hit is better than none.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Yes you could shoot them in the head, but juries and judges frown upon that.

Now you are just rambling complete and total horse shit. Show me one case where a home defender got in trouble for a head shot. You wont. Unless he shot to disable, then walked up and fired another at point blank.

Yeesh, maybe you should take some time off of gun threads, they seem to affect you too personally. A head is a smaller target than a torso, they could easily ask why you aimed in the head, and it would be just as easy to charge the defender with excessive force.

Myself, I'd aim at the torso not so much for any potential legal reasons, I just want to make sure I hit something while I'm shooting in the dark, a crappy hit is better than none.

Excessive force? Using a gun is lethal force. Shooting someone in the face instead of the torso isn't going to matter if you've decided you're going to kill them to stop them.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Yeesh, maybe you should take some time off of gun threads, they seem to affect you too personally. A head is a smaller target than a torso, they could easily ask why you aimed in the head, and it would be just as easy to charge the defender with excessive force.

Myself, I'd aim at the torso not so much for any potential legal reasons, I just want to make sure I hit something while I'm shooting in the dark, a crappy hit is better than none.

Reading misinformation won't affect me personally. I know better. I'm just trying to make sure that other people don't believe urban legends either.

Depending on if your state has the castle doctrine or not your answer would be "There was an unauthorized intruder in my home" or "There was an intruder in my home, I felt directly threatened, and utilized my firearm to stop the threat."

Shooting someone in the head is NOT excessive force. Heres a hint, firearms are not made to disable people. Granted, you might be shooting to "stop" but a round in the head will stop just fine.

Now, if you want to argue that a headshot is a poor shot choice, then thats an entirely different story. The only headshots that should ever be taken are by trained marksmen when absolute instant kill shots are necessary (suicide bomber, hostage taker, etc). For the rest of us the torso is the obvious point of aim. But hey, sometimes we miss. And sometimes we miss high.

 

[Dean]

The thing with 22's, is how they can be so unpredictable.

I think they are fine for home defense in 95% of cases, but being rimfire they have a tendency to misfire or jam more than say a 9MM.

That would be my only worry about them, as they can, even being so small, inflict considerable damage on a soft human torso.

I have a Remington Featherlight 20 Gauge semi, a Browning BAR 30:06 Semi, Savage 110E 30:06 Bolt Action and a Marlin .22LR semi. The 22 is what I would grab, if I suspected an intruder entering the house.

 

[LS20]

5 pages of arguments and i only need to propose my simple "turing" test to you:

i have a 22lr in my hand and a large diamond in my bedroom that you want, will you be able to get it?

 

[TallBill]

Oh, and just to rub dirt into your wounds, a civilian can't be guilty of "excessive force". Its a term related to police officers.

EXCESSIVE FORCE - A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.

Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: LS20
5 pages of arguments and i only need to propose my simple "turing" test to you:

i have a 22lr in my hand and a large diamond in my bedroom that you want, will you be able to get it?

Its 2007 man, increase your posts per page to 100. And if I knew ahead of time where you were and what you had, then yes I could get the diamond pretty easily.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Yeesh, maybe you should take some time off of gun threads, they seem to affect you too personally. A head is a smaller target than a torso, they could easily ask why you aimed in the head, and it would be just as easy to charge the defender with excessive force.

Myself, I'd aim at the torso not so much for any potential legal reasons, I just want to make sure I hit something while I'm shooting in the dark, a crappy hit is better than none.

Reading misinformation won't affect me personally. I know better. I'm just trying to make sure that other people don't believe urban legends either.

Depending on if your state has the castle doctrine or not your answer would be "There was an unauthorized intruder in my home" or "There was an intruder in my home, I felt directly threatened, and utilized my firearm to stop the threat."

Shooting someone in the head is NOT excessive force. Heres a hint, firearms are not made to disable people. Granted, you might be shooting to "stop" but a round in the head will stop just fine.

Now, if you want to argue that a headshot is a poor shot choice, then thats an entirely different story. The only headshots that should ever be taken are by trained marksmen when absolute instant kill shots are necessary (suicide bomber, hostage taker, etc). For the rest of us the torso is the obvious point of aim. But hey, sometimes we miss. And sometimes we miss high.

Aren't you told 2 to central mass, 1 to the head if its still there? For all we know, he could be wearing body armor.

EDIT: And yea, recoil would help someone miss high. Anyone who's tried rapid firing without training should be able to attest to this.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Dean
The thing with 22's, is how they can be so unpredictable.

I think they are fine for home defense in 95% of cases, but being rimfire they have a tendency to misfire or jam more than say a 9MM.

That would be my only worry about them, as they can, even being so small, inflict considerable damage on a soft human torso.

I have a Remington Featherlight 20 Gauge semi, a Browning BAR 30:06 Semi, Savage 110E 30:06 Bolt Action and a Marlin .22LR semi. The 22 is what I would grab, if I suspected an intruder entering the house.

then you are grabbing the wrong gun. Your 20 gauge would suit you much better with a slug in it.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: LS20
5 pages of arguments and i only need to propose my simple "turing" test to you:

i have a 22lr in my hand and a large diamond in my bedroom that you want, will you be able to get it?

Its 2007 man, increase your posts per page to 100. And if I knew ahead of time where you were and what you had, then yes I could get the diamond pretty easily.

:roll: :laugh:

Come on dude, you're not Jason Bourne.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Aren't you told 2 to central mass, 1 to the head if its still there? For all we know, he could be wearing body armor.

EDIT: And yea, recoil would help someone miss high. Anyone who's tried rapid firing without training should be able to attest to this.

"Officially" no, I've never been taught that. But those rules don't apply in the civilian world anyways. If 3 shots is what is necessary to stop an attacker/intruder, then so be it. But when they find a bullet entering the brain from the rear you can enjoy your time in prison, unless you can write a really creative sworn statement.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Yeesh, maybe you should take some time off of gun threads, they seem to affect you too personally. A head is a smaller target than a torso, they could easily ask why you aimed in the head, and it would be just as easy to charge the defender with excessive force.

Myself, I'd aim at the torso not so much for any potential legal reasons, I just want to make sure I hit something while I'm shooting in the dark, a crappy hit is better than none.

Reading misinformation won't affect me personally. I know better. I'm just trying to make sure that other people don't believe urban legends either.

Depending on if your state has the castle doctrine or not your answer would be "There was an unauthorized intruder in my home" or "There was an intruder in my home, I felt directly threatened, and utilized my firearm to stop the threat."

Shooting someone in the head is NOT excessive force. Heres a hint, firearms are not made to disable people. Granted, you might be shooting to "stop" but a round in the head will stop just fine.

Now, if you want to argue that a headshot is a poor shot choice, then thats an entirely different story. The only headshots that should ever be taken are by trained marksmen when absolute instant kill shots are necessary (suicide bomber, hostage taker, etc). For the rest of us the torso is the obvious point of aim. But hey, sometimes we miss. And sometimes we miss high.

lol

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: LS20
5 pages of arguments and i only need to propose my simple "turing" test to you:

i have a 22lr in my hand and a large diamond in my bedroom that you want, will you be able to get it?

Its 2007 man, increase your posts per page to 100. And if I knew ahead of time where you were and what you had, then yes I could get the diamond pretty easily.

:roll: :laugh:

Come on dude, you're not Jason Bourne.

Have you ever experienced a flashbang? For real, not counterstrike. Besides, I'd just wait till the guy left his house. Casing the joint FTW.