gun freaks: will a .22 rifle do some damage?

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

SithSolo1

Diamond Member
Mar 19, 2001
7,740
11
81
Hey, are Marlin .22s any good? I want a bolt-action .22 in the sub $200 range.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Originally posted by: Jimbo
I would rather be shot by an M-16 with a FMJ round that I would with a .22 long rifle w/a hollow point.

I dont think you know much about guns.

The FMJ would kill you much easier then the hollow point.

Check the muzzle energy.


What AlienCraft said. FMJ leaves a much cleaner wound even with a higher velocity round.
 

Mandrill

Golden Member
Feb 7, 2000
1,009
0
0
Originally posted by: Spikesoldier
wow look at the responses,

well it's purpose is for shooting that pesky bird that always eats the fish in my pond.

i am using .22 winchester hollow point bullets. :) (i guess it does some damage)

dont worry guys i am 'sponsable with guns.


What kid of bird? If it is a heron or such you are in Federal Violation.
 

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Yes, the FMJ leaves a clean wound, but nonetheless has more ME, and also alot worse shock wave. The wound itself may be "clean" but the surrounding tissue is still all screwed up just from the force of the shockwave as the bullet passes. The .22 HP wont have enough omph to really do the damage a .223 would. Now, drop the hoolow point into a bigger caliber...Well, then it gets very very ugly.

Speaking of....Anyone know where I could find some Black Talons?
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: Spikesoldier
?

If you can take out 1 of 2, ball-wise that is, you my friend have succeeded in aquiring victory.



Or you could do the same by pointing it at the French...
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Seriously, I must admit I mearned a little about ammunition just now. I was not aware that the M16 round packed so much poweder and was so close in size to the 'puny' .22


BY the way I was amazing with a m1 carbine and a .22 last time I tried.
25/25 bulleys from a few hundred yards(?) no scope
 

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Mannlicher-Carcano is an absolute piece of garbage and I am surprised Oswald hit ANYTHING with it.
Its nick name with the Italian army was the "Humane Gun" because they never hurt anyone.

{edit}: An M-1 would have been a MUCH better choice.

He said M1 carbine, not M1 Garand, which is what you are referring to. Actually, the M1 carbine is an inaccurate short range weapon, so it would NOT be a better choice at all.
 

MooseKnuckle

Golden Member
Oct 24, 1999
1,392
0
0
Originally posted by: notfred


There is a HUGE difference between a .22 and a .223 Have you ever fired either one? A .223 has about 10 times more powder behind it than a .22 rimfire cartridge.

You mean there was no problem with my RRA M4, I sent it back cuz those little buggers just dropped down through the barrel. I couldn't figure out why, thanks.

 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Mannlicher-Carcano is an absolute piece of garbage and I am surprised Oswald hit ANYTHING with it.
Its nick name with the Italian army was the "Humane Gun" because they never hurt anyone.

{edit}: An M-1 would have been a MUCH better choice.

He said M1 carbine, not M1 Garand, which is what you are referring to. Actually, the M1 carbine is an inaccurate short range weapon, so it would NOT be a better choice at all.

You are right that is what I meant. An M-1 carbine still could have easily made that shot. It has an effective range of 300 yards.

 

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Originally posted by: Jimbo
The Mannlicher-Carcano is an absolute piece of garbage and I am surprised Oswald hit ANYTHING with it.
Its nick name with the Italian army was the "Humane Gun" because they never hurt anyone.

{edit}: An M-1 would have been a MUCH better choice.

He said M1 carbine, not M1 Garand, which is what you are referring to. Actually, the M1 carbine is an inaccurate short range weapon, so it would NOT be a better choice at all.

You are right that is what I meant. An M-1 carbine still could have easily made that shot. It has an effective range of 300 yards.

heh, you mean the bullet can travel 300 yards. I've shot the carbine, and its really a joke. Have you ever looked at carbine ammo? Its round nosed like pistol ammo, you'd be lucky to get much accuracy @ 100 yards, especially with the short sight radius of the weapon. Also, it is not capable of optics, whereas the M1-C and the M1-D Garands are both sniper variations of M1 Rifle.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Yes, the FMJ leaves a clean wound, but nonetheless has more ME, and also alot worse shock wave. The wound itself may be "clean" but the surrounding tissue is still all screwed up just from the force of the shockwave as the bullet passes. The .22 HP wont have enough omph to really do the damage a .223 would. Now, drop the hoolow point into a bigger caliber...Well, then it gets very very ugly.

Speaking of....Anyone know where I could find some Black Talons?

Its not so much the shockwave, and its not the ME alone. If the 5.56 bullet just went absolutely straight through, there wouldnt but a noticable difference between it and a 22LR that penetrated straight through. The key is fragmentation, and to a lesser extent, tumbling, which most moderm FMJ rounds will do at high enough velocity. The twist rate for stability in flesh is like 100+ revolutions per inch, which would make most bullets tear themselves apart immediately after exiting the gun, besides, this is a postive benefit (as seen by the designers) so you wont see a bullet engineered to be stable in flesh. Usually, when a 5.56 NATO round enters flesh at 2,700fps+, it will fragment. Lower than that, no assurances. When it fragments it obviously creates several (smaller) wound channels, increasing the targets loss of blood.

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/#m193orm855
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Yes, the FMJ leaves a clean wound, but nonetheless has more ME, and also alot worse shock wave. The wound itself may be "clean" but the surrounding tissue is still all screwed up just from the force of the shockwave as the bullet passes. The .22 HP wont have enough omph to really do the damage a .223 would. Now, drop the hoolow point into a bigger caliber...Well, then it gets very very ugly.

Speaking of....Anyone know where I could find some Black Talons?


The .223 Remington in FMJ is designed to tumble when it hits anything. It does not need to fragment. A hollow point .22 LR will fragment immediately and would cause little real damage to anything larger than a rabbit.

The first 5.56 NATO round was a stretched .222 Remingtom. The .223 Remington was the civilian equivalent and they were the same round. The current 5.56 NATO round uses a 62 grain bullet. A steel penetrator is embedded in the tip as the old 55 grain bullet was not a good round for penetration.

Both are designed to tumble upon hitting soft tissue.

Black Talons are for sale at nearly any gun show and you can order just the bullets and load your own. This was the first bullet ever banned because of marketing. The finished round is banned from manfacter but the bullet itself is still being made. They were no more lethal than anyother hollowpoint round but 'The Ripping Bullet' slogan attracked the idiot gun-grabbers.
 

js1973

Senior member
Dec 8, 2000
824
0
0
Originally posted by: Colt45
Damage?

yes it will kill a person if you hit them in the right spot.

but it's really designed for vermin, there is a reason why armies don't equip .22's.

Actually, the Israeli special forces use a suppressed Ruger 10/22. And if memory serves, Chechen rebels would use a .22lr for groin shots to demoralize Russian soldiers on guard duty.



Interesting page that mentions .22lr in Chechnya

Israeli 10/22
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: jemcam
Originally posted by: Kaieye
RFK was killed by a .22 bullet in the head...

No, he was "officially" shot by an M1 carbine, which is a .30 caliber.

(edit, my bad, I first read JFK, not RFK)


Neither was JFK.

JFK was shot with a 6.5mm bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano.
Only if you go with the Lone Gunman Theory.

Read and learn

Bogus Buff Ballistics

Hmmm, odd. This page doesn't mention the fact that JFK WAS SHOT IN THE FACE. The Zapruto (sp?) film clearly shows a shot to the right forehead/temple area, resulting in a backwards and to the left motion of his body. Physics states that he was shot from the front, thereby negating the Lone Gunman theory (if you believe that Oswald also shot him, which I'm not arguing about here.)
 

KDOG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,525
14
81
Alright, enough. a .22 will kill ya just as dead as any other gun. Especially LR hollowpoints. All these ".22 suck" assheads in here sure wouldn't be shot with one though would ya? 'nuff said...


.22 is actually one of the mafia's favorite weapons as well, goes far and accurate, and even if it doesn't kill the person if its a head shot, it'll turn 'em into a vegetable, which is worse...
 

jemcam

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
3,676
0
0
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: jemcam
Originally posted by: Kaieye
RFK was killed by a .22 bullet in the head...

No, he was "officially" shot by an M1 carbine, which is a .30 caliber.

(edit, my bad, I first read JFK, not RFK)


Neither was JFK.

JFK was shot with a 6.5mm bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano.
Only if you go with the Lone Gunman Theory.

Read and learn

Bogus Buff Ballistics

Hmmm, odd. This page doesn't mention the fact that JFK WAS SHOT IN THE FACE. The Zapruto (sp?) film clearly shows a shot to the right forehead/temple area, resulting in a backwards and to the left motion of his body. Physics states that he was shot from the front, thereby negating the Lone Gunman theory (if you believe that Oswald also shot him, which I'm not arguing about here.)



Here's autopsy photos of JFK. It clearly shows him being hit in the right temple with the bullet exiting out what's left of the back of his head. It's graphic, you've been warned.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
btw, bullets don't go cleanly through no matter how fast they go. as they go through they tear and stretch the organs they go by:)
 

SithSolo1

Diamond Member
Mar 19, 2001
7,740
11
81
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Varminter

Budget? We don't need no stinkin' BUDGET!

The Ultimate Varmint shooter. :eek:

Yeah I looked at that one. A little out of my bum bum bum bah ... BUDGET.

If I had the moeny I also like these:

Law Enforcement only I believe 10FPXP-LE

Model 70, Stealth

Model 70, Super Shadow

Granted these look cool but I would have no use for them nor would I know how to use them properly. Besides, they're not .22's either.

This is the one I've been eyeing for a while <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.savagearms.com/rimfire/mark11_series/mark11fvxp.htm">Model MARK II-FVXP WIth Scope and Rings
</a> but i haven't found it anywhere around here. :(