.22 Self Defense Handgun

[m82mike]

Taurus Rev. with Stingers. THE main thing is to have the weapon.

I love my 3"Kimber but it's too big sometimes.

Have the weapon and hit the target!

Mike

 

[Hoosier45]

Beretta 87 Cheetah (not target model)

 

[ChalupaCabras]

The .22LR can do the job, as long as you have at least 3" inch barrel, and use modern high velocity ammo.

This is brass fetchers results for the P-22 with various ammo:
Walther P22 versus ballistic gelatin block

This is the data from that test, penetration numbers cut in half to reflect real world penetration, layed over a human torso cross section.

As you can see, even Federal bulk pack is capable of penetrating PAST the heart from a 3" barrel. Velocitors can reach the spine. It is important to note that these rounds have no expansion at these velocities.

The 22LR and the P22 can do the job if you can place the rounds... But you have little or no margin of error.

And for those of you recommending a 22mag Snubby, check out the 22 magnum page:
.22 Magnum

These are fired from a 2" snubby revolver. There is no expansion present, and the penetration is no better than the .22lr from a 3" auto. Between the cylinder gap and the snub barrel, too much gas is lost to offer any sort of improvement.

I would not want to get hit with any round, however if I was to carry I would go with .22 mag. You are looking at depending on your load 800+ more fps. I would carry the heaviest load you can find.

This is not the case. The figures you are reading are from a rifle. From a short pistol barrel, there is no discernible difference in velocity.

 

[Redskinsfan]

S&W 317

As said above I would use a S&W 317. My wife has one with crimson trace laser grips on it. I weighs 11 oz. empty and is 8-shot. The gun is pricey though.

Terry

 

[hntrdav]

Beretta model 21a is a good small pocket pistol.

 

[Mgderf]

Whether you want to hear it or not, here it comes.

It is MY opinion that carrying a .22 is NOT carrying a "self-defense" weapon, unless you're talking about a dog-sized opponent.

Yes, with proper shot placement, and a .22, you COULD kill an assailant.
At the same time, a BADLY placed shot with a .45acp CAN rip a persons arm half off!

I personally know more than one person that has been shot with a .22.

One took a .22Lr square in the sternum (center mass in the chest). He said, "Yeah, it hurt", but it "felt more like a bad bee-sting"! It did penetrate the chest, and was lodged inside. He stayed on his feet, walked himself to a vehicle, and drove himself to a hospital. Released the same day, and drove himself home! This is a 160lb man!

There is a VERY good reason that MOST people carry a .38 or larger!

Sure, I would NOT want to get hit with a .22 round, but by the same train of thought, I don't want to be hit by a BB-gun, and I wouldn't trust my life to either. If it's all you have, then use what you've got, but I would NOT make that choice if I had another.

Look at it like this. If you had NO gun, and were attacked, would you grab the fly-swatter, or the baseball bat for protection?

Just my

 

[ChalupaCabras]

Read this:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/165gr Federal Personal Defense Hydra-Shok (Glock 30).html

I don't know about you... but that doesn't exactly scream "rip a persons arm half off!" to me. In fact, they fall several inches short of the FBI minimum. The size of your bullet will not save you from a poorly placed shot, as you claim. These are handguns, not belted magnums.

 

[DHolder]

I carry a Beretta 21A as a BUG. Mag loaded with .40gr Vipers. Not my first choice of BUG, but its better than nothing.

 

[Mgderf]

Read this:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/165gr Federal Personal Defense Hydra-Shok (Glock 30).html

I don't know about you... but that doesn't exactly scream "rip a persons arm half off!" to me. In fact, they fall several inches short of the FBI minimum. The size of your bullet will not save you from a poorly placed shot, as you claim. These are handguns, not belted magnums.

I did NOT claim that a larger projectile would "save you from a poorly placed shot." We all know shot placement is paramount.

I said a "badly placed shot (from a .45acp), CAN rip a persons arm half-off"
A hit in the arm (with a .45acp), especially if it hits bone, can and WILL do severe damage to a limb, and has enough force to knock a person down.

The same hit with a .22Lr is more likely to enrage an assailant than to "stop him in his tracks", and will likely do minimal damage, resulting in considerably diminished stopping power.

 

[jwglock]

Whether you want to hear it or not, here it comes.

It is MY opinion that carrying a .22 is NOT carrying a "self-defense" weapon, unless you're talking about a dog-sized opponent.

Yes, with proper shot placement, and a .22, you COULD kill an assailant.
At the same time, a BADLY placed shot with a .45acp CAN rip a persons arm half off!

I personally know more than one person that has been shot with a .22.

One took a .22Lr square in the sternum (center mass in the chest). He said, "Yeah, it hurt", but it "felt more like a bad bee-sting"! It did penetrate the chest, and was lodged inside. He stayed on his feet, walked himself to a vehicle, and drove himself to a hospital. Released the same day, and drove himself home! This is a 160lb man!

There is a VERY good reason that MOST people carry a .38 or larger!

Sure, I would NOT want to get hit with a .22 round, but by the same train of thought, I don't want to be hit by a BB-gun, and I wouldn't trust my life to either. If it's all you have, then use what you've got, but I would NOT make that choice if I had another.

Look at it like this. If you had NO gun, and were attacked, would you grab the fly-swatter, or the baseball bat for protection?

Just my

Make that

 

[ChalupaCabras]

I said a "badly placed shot (from a .45acp), CAN rip a persons arm half-off"
A hit in the arm (with a .45acp), especially if it hits bone, can and WILL do severe damage to a limb, and has enough force to knock a person down.

With all do respect sir, I'm not understanding you logic.

How can you explain the statements that I have underlined as anything other than claiming shot placement doesn't matter with a .45? If a poorly placed shot from a .45 will cause an assailants limbs to be "ripped half-off" and "knocked down" why would shot placement matter?

The statements you have made are very air tight; they don't allow for many different interpretations. At the same time, they are in direct opposition to the laws of physics.

I'm sure that I'm just missing something. If you have the time, I would like to hear your reasoning behind these statements.

 

[boman]

I often times drop a 22mag hi-standard derringer in my pocket when I go out---it is 2 shot DA only no safety"palm pistol". I am confident I can hit someone in the face at 8 to 10 feet and that works for me.

Steve

 

[Mgderf]

With all do respect sir, I'm not understanding you logic.

How can you explain the statements that I have underlined as anything other than claiming shot placement doesn't matter with a .45? If a poorly placed shot from a .45 will cause an assailants limbs to be "ripped half-off" and "knocked down" why would shot placement matter?

The statements you have made are very air tight; they don't allow for many different interpretations. At the same time, they are in direct opposition to the laws of physics. Is this MURPHY's law you speak of?

I'm sure that I'm just missing something. If you have the time, I would like to hear your reasoning behind these statements.

I guess you're looking to talk semantics

As Rush Limbaugh says, "Words mean things".

Can, and will, are two different words, with different meanings.

I can drive my car off a cliff. I don't believe I will.
A .22 CAN kill a deer. That doesn't mean it always will!
Shot placement is (read will be paramount) with a handgun (single projectile). Not so much with a shotgun (read- you CAN be "a little off" in your placement)

An errant shot with a .45acp can, if it hits bone, "rip a persons arm half off". That does NOT mean it will, at least not every time.

It is my contention that a .22, under the same criteria as listed for the .45, is INCAPABLE of causing such damage. A .22 will NOT "knock a person down", not from shot impact anyway.

Maybe I did not articulate my thoughts as clearly as I had assumed.

My contention is that with the larger caliber (.45acp) your shot placement matters a WHOLE lot less.

Look at it this way. If a .22 were sufficient to repel or stop an assailant RELIABLY, then why wouldn't LE and the military's of the world carry them? Cheaper to shoot, and MUCH lighter weight?

 

[bwframe]

Not wanting to get into the ".22 is not adequate" debate here. But, if you had to carry a .22 for SD what would you choose? What ammunition?

OK, I'll stay away from the ".22 is not adequate" debate.

Buy the gun and ammo that are being advertised as "for self defense." You won't find this combination for reasons that go beyond whether the cartridge is adequate or not.

 

[ChalupaCabras]

An errant shot with a .45acp can, if it hits bone, "rip a persons arm half off". That does NOT mean it will, at least not every time.

It is my contention that a .22, under the same criteria as listed for the .45, is INCAPABLE of causing such damage. A .22 will NOT "knock a person down", not from shot impact anyway.

You see, that's just not what my experience has shown me. Many forums have posts containing pictures of ND's. I'm thinking of a specific thread on THR where a man shot himself in the leg, point blank with his 1911. There was no tissue damage, excepting where the bullet physically touched, and some bruising immediate surrounding the wound channel.

A hollow point allows the bullet to come into contact with more tissue, causing greater damage... but it still wont cause any significant damage to tissue that it doesn't make contact with.

Energy transfer to surrounding tissues is so minimal with any normal handgun as to be a non-factor. This is what I mean when I say that "ripping and arm off" violates the laws of physics. At best, with a good .45 hollow point, you can punch 3/4" hole.

A .22 will NOT "knock a person down", not from shot impact anyway.

Maybe I did not articulate my thoughts as clearly as I had assumed.

My contention is that with the larger caliber (.45acp) your shot placement matters a WHOLE lot less.

Barring tiny rodents hit with center fire rifles, I've never seen any living thing "knocked down" by any gun; not even a 4lb musk rat shot from 7 yards with a 45. Even if you had a bullet capable of the near 100% energy transfer you would need to physically knock down an adult human, would not the recoil of such a beast be capable of knocking you down too?

Look at it this way. If a .22 were sufficient to repel or stop an assailant RELIABLY, then why wouldn't LE and the military's of the world carry them? Cheaper to shoot, and MUCH lighter weight?

I don't think this is a legitimate analogy. The .22LR is not capable of penetrating any serious protection, and it sheds its energy in flight like a baseball. It wont reliably penetrate a flak jacket or vehicles (important for Mil/LEO), and its long range ballistics are so bad, you need riser rails to get your shots to reach 300 yards (another important factor for MIL).

The requirements for Military / Law Enforcement combat are vastly different from your average CCW application.

Maybe I'm just arguing semantics again... But even El Rushbo recognizes that he who wins the battle of semantics controls the definitions, and as such you must argue your points on his terms. He is an expert at that, and its why he normally wins arguments.

 

[22lr]

*2 cent warning*

.22 rim-fire has the highest dud rate of any round ive ever shot (even with the premium rounds). Revolvers allow you to just pull the trigger again incase it is a dud. I just think that revolvers might be a more reliable option if carrying for self defense. Purely my opinion, but I figured I should at least bring it up. And yes ive been known to carry around a 22lr myself, good little cartridge just cursed by the rim-fire miss-fire curse.

 

[JohnP82]

if i had to have a 22 i would go for an 8 or 9 shot revolver. i have a walther p22 and i enjoy it for what i bought it for which is cheap range fun. i would just prefer a revolver for reliability in a 22. my walther requires high velocity ammo in order to reliably cycle the action. not saying that is a bad thing i would just prefer a handgun that wasnt so picky if i had to choose just one.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Just buy a larger caliber. So the debate will end!

 

[bigbore]

.22 rim-fire has the highest dud rate of any round i've ever shot (even with the premium rounds).

I think this the the major barrier to the .22 for self defense. Rimfires are just not as reliable as centerfires. Plenty of people have been killed via .22. It is all about placement and the 22 allows you to keep the muzzle on target after each round. I would try to find the most reliable and accurate ammo for your gun.

 

[jpo117]

And for those of you recommending a 22mag Snubby, check out the 22 magnum page:
.22 Magnum

These are fired from a 2" snubby revolver. There is no expansion present, and the penetration is no better than the .22lr from a 3" auto. Between the cylinder gap and the snub barrel, too much gas is lost to offer any sort of improvement.

I've developed this weird sort of compulsion to get one of those NAA mini-revolvers lately (no, not to serve as the carry gun I've been looking for in some other threads) and I was interested in seeing the results for 22lr vs 22 magnum as shot out of a mini. Check out these links:

Various .22 Magnum from NAA Mini-Revolver
Various .22lr from NAA 'mini-revolver'

It would seem that, in these tests anyway, the 22 magnum rounds out of a 1 1/8" barrel outperformed the 22lr out of a similar gun. I don't know a thing about ballistics so I can't really offer much of an opinion about those results, and this isn't quite the same scenario as a 2" snub vs. a 3" semi-auto. They do seem to indicate to my uneducated mind that, all else being equal and out of a very short barrel, the magnum wins. Am I reading that right, and what do those tests demonstrate about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of this gun for defensive purposes?