380 acp vs 22 magnum?

[lawnguy]

I'm considering a Ruger LCR 22 magnum. Is 22 magnum a better choice for conceal carry than 380 acp?

[Duelist]

Worse. Rim fire ignition vs center fire. If you end up with a light pocket revolver, get a .38 Special. If you want lighter recoil in a practice piece, get a second one in .22LR.

[BillSWPA]

Having fired tens of thousands of both rimfire and centerfire throughout my life, the idea that rimfire is less reliable is contrary to my experience. Either will be reliable if you buy good quality ammo. Either will be unreliable if you buy lesser quality ammo.

The only way a .22 magnum LCR makes sense is if one cannot handle .38 recoil. In that case, I would question the wisdom of a gun with a heavy DA trigger.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't know about the latest ammo but I had a SW 651 - very nice J frame in 22 Mag. I found that after a box of 50 rounds, it was so gummed up with residue from the rounds that I had to soak it in hydrochloric acid, heat in a furnance and pound it on an anvil to free the cylinder. Not really - but the cylinder did glue itself tight with junk. At 7 yards, it would leave cloud of soot and unburned powder on a paper target.

Now are the newer rounds like the Hornady Critical Defense better - they are supposedly optimized for the short barrel guns but never tested one.

I also have a NAA Mini in 22 Mag with a 1 5/8 barrel. It was cute and not a primary. It's a backup - when I want something very, very light in a coat or jacket pocket. It IS NOT optimal as a BUG.

It is also one of the loudest guns to shoot. I once shot it at an indoor range between two partitions. You can shoot a 9 or 45 easily. Well, when the mini went off - I thought I blew up. I felt a shock wave under my glasses and my hair felt (had hair once) felt it went flat back on my head. I slammed my eyes shut in reflex. Geez!

Could I shoot the gun accurately? I know we are taking about an LCR but just FYI, I shot the old DPS Texas CHL protocol with it. Here's a pictorial result. I put graphic dots on the target to show the hits. 10780

That being said - I really don't see the 22 mag revolver as a real EDC or BUG. There are better J or LCR options - like lower recoil 38s or the 32/327 types. You get 6 rounds with the 32s if capacity is an issue. Also, rimfire revolver triggers can suck.

I think from previous posts the OP is looking for a good pocket EDC - well, if you do get a revolver or 380 semi - you'd better practice with the thing. In fact, I packed up one of my 327 J frames for a match tomorrow (don't rain) to get some trigger time with it.

[Kyle Reese]

Buy a Walther PPS M2 and call it good, lawnguy.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[lawnguy]

Buy a Walther PPS M2 and call it good, lawnguy.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

I think you mentioned this before. What's so awesome about a Walther PPS M2,compared to other similar 9mm?

[Oukaapie]

Take a look at the PPS thread

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18823-Walther-PPS-M2

It looks like you are in learning mode, I suggest you start reading through the forum as the answers you seek are there already. In fact intelligent answers to questions you've not thought of are already there. To date you have focused on hardware, now consider looking at the mental and physical tools required to run that hardware.

[TiroFijo]

I would pick the 380 in a heartbeat over the 22 mag in a short barrel handgun:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/22mag.html

[jetfire]

I love the .22 Magnum, it is my favorite general purpose cartridge in a bolt gun for killing smallish things that need killing. With that in mind, out of a handgun it's...not so great. .380 ACP ammo is going to be easier to find, of better quality, and there is an abundance of excellent .380 handguns on the market right now.

[GJM]

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/using-the-22-for-self-defense

I am not advocating for either, but the founder of the shooting school with the initials RSS, carries a .22 magnum revolver as a BUG. His logic is more ammo than a .38, easier to shoot than a .38, and he figures he will be putting rounds into an eye socket anyway.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Maybe someone very well practiced can guarantee that shot. I don't think the snubbies are the world's easiest to shoot - and I trained and practiced with them. BTW, I posted a picture with the NAA mini but I also have a NAA 22S which was a 'just because it was cute' gun. In a similar test, I scored about a 150. Also, the rounds love to key hole.

Easier to shoot a 22 snubbie? I had a 317 and the trigger stunk as compared to my 38 or 32 J frames. Are the LCRs better? If you want more ammo, then the Glock 42s with 7 rounds make more sense.

The 32s have more rounds and are more respectable as a round. If the OP is dead set on a small gun, like a 380 or 22, then practice the crap out of it. Shoot it in a dynamic sense - like an IDPA match to see the reality of using it in more than Greg's psychological stop.

[BillSWPA]

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/using-the-22-for-self-defense

I am not advocating for either, but the founder of the shooting school with the initials RSS, carries a .22 magnum revolver as a BUG. His logic is more ammo than a .38, easier to shoot than a .38, and he figures he will be putting rounds into an eye socket anyway.

That is one of the most intelligent discussions of use of a .22 for self defense I have seen.

[BehindBlueI's]

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/using-the-22-for-self-defense

I am not advocating for either, but the founder of the shooting school with the initials RSS, carries a .22 magnum revolver as a BUG. His logic is more ammo than a .38, easier to shoot than a .38, and he figures he will be putting rounds into an eye socket anyway.

If he's putting rounds in the eye socket anyway, why is he concerned with more ammo?

[lawnguy]

I just watched a video on youtube of the Lehigh Defense & Underwood Ammo Xtreme Cavitator 32 acp. Very interesting! They also offer this ammo in many other calibers which include the 380acp that I mentioned in my original post. As someone who is new to all this and learning, I had read online where the 380 acp round doesn't penetrate as well in hollow point, which I found very interesting. The xtreme cavitator ammo seems very impressive in the 380acp in regards to optimum penetration in a self defense shootout.

[JAD]

Terminal ballistic performance is very easy to misrepresent. I am very wary of sources regarding performance; I will read a detailed study with a lot of transparency about method, but I have never heard of anything scientific being presented on YouTube.

Tl;dr version: everything about bullets on YouTube is bullshit.

[lawnguy]

I just thought it was interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-IF1emoJI

[Hambo]

I just thought it was interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-IF1emoJI

I laughed when I saw the title. You're not going to be as impressed as you'd like to be if you shoot somebody with an LCP. Choosing a less effective caliber will only make it worse.

[lawnguy]

Didn't quite understand what you ment? Did you say that shooting a LCP in protecting myself,I wouldn't be impressed with the results of the LCP 380 acp?

[BehindBlueI's]

Didn't quite understand what you ment? Did you say that shooting a LCP in protecting myself,I wouldn't be impressed with the results of the LCP 380 acp?

Due to the low price point and ease of concealment, the LCP is a pretty popular gun. I've seen quite a few real world shootings where it was used. It is not terribly impressive, but it's not useless. The .380 has enough punch to break large bone at close range. I suspect the .22 mag from a short barrel would not break a femur, but haven't seen it in person yet so it's speculation. The .380 will.

Somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of random violence encounters could be won with a starter pistol. Likely more. I say this based on the numbers of people who have won by either simply drawing the gun or by firing and missing but either result in the bad guy fleeing. A starter pistol firing blanks would have been just as effective, so caliber and capacity are completely irrelevant to those situations.

The next block is made up of people who stay in the fight, or shoot as they flee, until taking some sort of injury. Psychological stops are by far the most common. The bad guy COULD stay in the fight but chooses not to because of pain, panic, etc. While I've not kept hard stats, my impressions across hundreds of shootings is .22 rimfire is significantly less likely to do cause psychological stops, likely due to less tissue destruction. The .22 mag MAY work better due to noise and light, which I believe effects psychological stops, but can't prove.

Where your really in trouble is when someone is very dedicated to the fight. A shooting stemming from a domestic, for example, where the attacker doesn't mind eating a few rounds as long as they get to kill you. Then shot placement and blood loss start coming in to play. Bigger holes that are better placed beat smaller holes that are poorly placed, and they are likely to stay in the fight until a CNS hit or they bleed out.

In short, unless you have a specific and credible threat it really matters very little what gun you carry as long as you can quickly and consistently put it into action and get the first shot, although a center fire tilts the odds further in your favor. I would not waste money searching for the magic gun and magic bullet. If you have the LCP, the next purchase is a QUALITY holster, a case of ammo, and a training class. If you have a specific and credible threat, the next step is a duty sized 9mm, a quality holster, a case of ammo, and a training class.

[GJM]

If he's putting rounds in the eye socket anyway, why is he concerned with more ammo?

You would have to ask him, although he is pretty busy since he has designed about every good duty holster of the last 20-30 years.

[BehindBlueI's]

You would have to ask him, although he is pretty busy since he has designed about every good duty holster of the last 20-30 years.

I'm not interested in tracking someone down to ask, and if we want to play that game I've been pretty busy investigating shootings...so if that gives me more insight into the world of people shooting than designing holsters or not is up to you to decide.

I would not carry a revolver of any kind with the justification of capacity. If I want capacity, I'll get a gun that plays to that strength...and for the record, I really like revolvers.
I would not carry a .22 magnum because "easier to control" with the existence of .38 wadcutters.
I would not carry a .22 magnum out of a short barrel, which I strongly suspect will not break a femur and I suspect will glance off a skull easier than the above mentioned wadcutter or a quality hollowpoint.
I would not rely on "eye socket shooting" as a realistic possibility in a gunfight, although in some situations it may be possible...there's a lot where it won't be, or not for long.

Can it work? Sure. Again, a starter pistol would work a significant amount of the time. I just question the justification behind it, and would recommend anyone who's not an epic eye socket shooter to stick with the .38 and up.

[GJM]

I'm not interested in tracking someone down to ask, and if we want to play that game I've been pretty busy investigating shootings...so if that gives me more insight into the world of people shooting than designing holsters or not is up to you to decide.

I would not carry a revolver of any kind with the justification of capacity. If I want capacity, I'll get a gun that plays to that strength...and for the record, I really like revolvers.
I would not carry a .22 magnum because "easier to control" with the existence of .38 wadcutters.
I would not carry a .22 magnum out of a short barrel, which I strongly suspect will not break a femur and I suspect will glance off a skull easier than the above mentioned wadcutter or a quality hollowpoint.
I would not rely on "eye socket shooting" as a realistic possibility in a gunfight, although in some situations it may be possible...there's a lot where it won't be, or not for long.

Can it work? Sure. Again, a starter pistol would work a significant amount of the time. I just question the justification behind it, and would recommend anyone who's not an epic eye socket shooter to stick with the .38 and up.

You do know the person I am referring to?

I do know he tested the .22 magnum vs the .38 as a BUG on the Rogers School Range, and was able to consistently make hits on targets representing heads, faster under extreme time pressure with the .22 magnum than the .38. Last I checked, shot placement trumped caliber.

And no, I am not going to call my friend, Bill Rogers, and ask him why he prefers more rounds in a BUG.

[LSP972]

Bravo, BB! WELL stated... And 100% on the money.

.

[Leroy Suggs]

Bravo, BB! WELL stated... And 100% on the money.

.

Exactly

[LSP552]

You do know the person I am referring to?

I do know he tested the .22 magnum vs the .38 as a BUG on the Rogers School Range, and was able to consistently make hits on targets representing heads, faster under extreme time pressure with the .22 magnum than the .38. Last I checked, shot placement trumped caliber.

And no, I am not going to call my friend, Bill Rogers, and ask him why he prefers more rounds in a BUG.

I'd be the last person to tell Bill Rogers what he should carry. But most people aren't Bill Rogers. What he can do and get away with has no relationship to what normal mortals should do either.

Given a personal choice between a .380 and .22 mag in a small carry pistol, I'd pick the .380 every time.

[LSP972]

George... all due respect to Bill Rogers, he was an FBI agent... 20+ years ago.

A lot has changed since he was in the game. And while some of his holsters are indeed excellent... well, he's not the only holster maven out there.

And FWIW, those NAA revolver/derringer things are not exactly easy to be competent with... Regardless of how well one can handle a handgun.

Those things are finger guns, IMO. And I too had a S&W M-317. It was horrible. As BB stated, the trigger was abysmally hard... And mine shot tremendously high. Chuck Haggard told us that the current M-351 eight shot .22 J frame is useful, and I trust his opinion. Been meaning to get one for a while now, but just never got around to it. And now, of course, it's pretty much a moot point for me.

But the major reason for this rambling post is this... I have owned and shot three different S&W .22 revolvers, and every one of them was good for MAYBE 50 cartridges before it was time to take a break and clean out those cylinder charge holes. That's part of the reason why I have not purchased another one. They are a colossal PITA to keep operative.

Or, as one of the favorite terms here goes... The juice ain't nowhere near the squeeze, to me.

.

[GJM]

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/using-the-22-for-self-defense

I am not advocating for either, but the founder of the shooting school with the initials RSS, carries a .22 magnum revolver as a BUG. His logic is more ammo than a .38, easier to shoot than a .38, and he figures he will be putting rounds into an eye socket anyway.


I'd be the last person to tell Bill Rogers what he should carry. But most people aren't Bill Rogers. What he can do and get away with has no relationship to what normal mortals should do either.


To be clear. I posted a link to the active response info, and mentioned someone I respect greatly carried a .22 magnum as a BUG, not a primary. As Bill owns about every gun made, since he uses them to design holsters, and has access to the Rogers School Range to test his equipment choices, I can assure you he choose a .22 magnum revolver as a BUG to his service sized pistol for good reasons, borne out by multiple iterations of testing.

I did not suggest that is the right choice as a primary, or even as a BUG for others, but offered it as a data point in this discussion. What others do with that info is up to them. And for the record, I will put Bill's knowledge of what can be shot well under extreme time pressure against anyone else in the world, whether on this forum or not.

[41magfan]

To be clear ..... Bill Rogers puts his pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else, but he's likely forgotten more about the subject matter than most of the posters in this thread will ever know.

[GJM]

George... all due respect to Bill Rogers, he was an FBI agent... 20+ years ago.

A lot has changed since he was in the game. And while some of his holsters are indeed excellent... well, he's not the only holster maven out there.

And FWIW, those NAA revolver/derringer things are not exactly easy to be competent with... Regardless of how well one can handle a handgun.

Those things are finger guns, IMO. And I too had a S&W M-317. It was horrible. As BB stated, the trigger was abysmally hard... And mine shot tremendously high. Chuck Haggard told us that the current M-351 eight shot .22 J frame is useful, and I trust his opinion. Been meaning to get one for a while now, but just never got around to it. And now, of course, it's pretty much a moot point for me.

But the major reason for this rambling post is this... I have owned and shot three different S&W .22 revolvers, and every one of them was good for MAYBE 50 cartridges before it was time to take a break and clean out those cylinder charge holes. That's part of the reason why I have not purchased another one. They are a colossal PITA to keep operative.

Or, as one of the favorite terms here goes... The juice ain't nowhere near the squeeze, to me.

.

You do know that the Rogers School starts out every student in their intro course with a S&W 317, and they shoot that for two days, before transitioning to a semi-auto .22 M&P, before progressing to a 9mm. I have shot 25,000 +/- rounds through my training 317, and have never cleaned it, although even if cleaning was an issue, I am not sure what that has to do with a BUG that needs to go seven rounds between cleaning.

[Hauptmann]

The most important characteristic in a self defense weapon is that it go "bang" when you need it to go "bang". Then you take into account terminal effects, ease of handling......etc.

Rim-fire cartridges are not as reliable at going "bang" as centerfire cartridges. So, given the wide availability of good centerfire cartridges out there, I would not consider a rim-fire cartridge for self defense unless I had no other choice.

If I "had" to use a rim-fire setup, I would likely choose a 8-10rd .22lr revolver due to the unreliability of the of rim-fire priming. With a .22 revolver if you encounter a dud primer, you simply pull the trigger again and cycle to the next round. With virtually all .22lr auto loaders, you need two hands to cycle the action, because the slide is not attached to the rear sight......thus you cannot cycle it one-handed on an object. The exception would be .22lr semi autos which are modeled after their 9mm counterparts for training purposes, but usually they do not perform as well as a dedicated .22lr.

A S&W 317 kit gun would be the most ideal .22lr carry pistol in my mind. However, I still prefer the all steel S&W 63 as that extra weight allows for more steady shooting and trigger control.

[LSP552]

I did not suggest that is the right choice as a primary, or even as a BUG for others, but offered it as a data point in this discussion. What others do with that info is up to them. And for the record, I will put Bill's knowledge of what can be shot well under extreme time pressure against anyone else in the world, whether on this forum or not.

Understand that, I just wanted to point out what what works for Bill Rogers may not work for most others. I don't know him personally but I have the highest respect for him and his professional ability and knowledge.

There are reasons that the .22 mag is institutionally ignored. I know I'm better served using something larger because I can't guarantee a perfect hit under less than perfect conditions.

[GJM]

Understand that, I just wanted to point out what what works for Bill Rogers may not work for most others. I don't know him personally but I have the highest respect for him and his professional ability and knowledge.

There are reasons that the .22 mag is institutionally ignored. I know I'm better served using something larger because I can't guarantee a perfect hit under less than perfect conditions.

No slight taken, and these will get down to personal choices based on a number of objective and subjective criteria.

Bill Rogers, through his school, has a long training history with many of our elite military service members, as well as LE and civilians. He has made a thirty year plus commitment to quantifying performance, using his standardized school test to vet various firearms and techniques. When he does something, it is for good reason, supported by objective testing, and based on my personal experience with him and the school, I react strongly to the implication that he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to shooting fast and accurately. Oh, and in addition, in his spare time he has designed a few holsters. :)

[That Guy]

Having fired tens of thousands of both rimfire and centerfire throughout my life, the idea that rimfire is less reliable is contrary to my experience.

While the first part of that quote applies to me too, I've probably not fired anywhere near the amount of ammunition you have. That said, my experience is decidedly contrary. I have difficulty remembering the last time I encountered a bad primer in centerfire ammunition, but with rimfire ammo misfires seem pretty common place.

The most surprising failures occurred last year when I dug up an older 500 round case of CCI Mini-Mags from the back of my ammo cabinet. While this ammunition has normally been very reliable, I experienced multiple failures to fire with this batch. All rounds fired just fine when they were re-chambered so that the striker mark was well away from where the striker would hit (which is how things typically go with rimfire ammunition that didn't fire the first try, in my experience). This makes me wonder if there are simply quality fluctuations from batch to batch, or if rimfire ammunition simply doesn't age as well as centerfire ammo? This would certainly explain the differences in experiences, since I doubt rimfire ammunition travels to over here in much of a haste.



Tl;dr version: everything about bullets on YouTube is bullshit.

Awesome summary. :D

[LSP972]

You do know that the Rogers School starts out every student in their intro course with a S&W 317, and they shoot that for two days, before transitioning to a semi-auto .22 M&P, before progressing to a 9mm. I have shot 25,000 +/- rounds through my training 317, and have never cleaned it, although even if cleaning was an issue, I am not sure what that has to do with a BUG that needs to go seven rounds between cleaning.


No, I didn't. Nor do I care. But since you have fired 25K+ rounds of .22LR through your 317, with zero cleaning/maintenance, it would appear my information is old, out-dated, OBE, etc. So, sorry to have ruffled anyone's feathers or criticized their icons.

.

[GJM]

My 317 is an early, pre-lock one, and has been troublefree since new. I am not sure what vintage the 317 revolvers are, being used by the Rogers School, but they don't baby their gear. The school provides all the gear to students in the intro class, and reliability is a major consideration. For example, Bill would have rather used a Glock in 22 LR and a Glock 17, but the Glock conversions did not meet their reliability standard, so they went M&P 22, which with a little PM to the magazine lips and run with AR Tactical ammo, are very reliable.

I don't see the problem with different people having different opinions, especially when those opinions are based on significant experience.

[lawnguy]

This question takes us off course regarding my original question,but I will ask anyway. 380 acp vs 32 acp in having to shoot a bad guy?

[HCM]

You do know the person I am referring to?

I do know he tested the .22 magnum vs the .38 as a BUG on the Rogers School Range, and was able to consistently make hits on targets representing heads, faster under extreme time pressure with the .22 magnum than the .38. Last I checked, shot placement trumped caliber.

And no, I am not going to call my friend, Bill Rogers, and ask him why he prefers more rounds in a BUG.

But no one was shooting back at him - it makes a difference.

[JAD]

This question takes us off course regarding my original question,but I will ask anyway. 380 acp vs 32 acp in having to shoot a bad guy?

Both bad.

380 fmj > 380 jhp > 32 any > 22 any

None are a good choice in a primary handgun.

[Leroy Suggs]

380 bad
32 bad
22 bad

Get a 38 or 9mm for YOUR sake.

[TGS]

This question takes us off course regarding my original question,but I will ask anyway. 380 acp vs 32 acp in having to shoot a bad guy?

I personally don't see much of a difference between 32 ACP and 380 ACP in the context of shooting someone.

Both will penetrate greater than 12" in FMJ form. Both are iffy as a self-defense loading in JHPs, though there's a clear edge to the 380ACP where certain loadings will get close to 12", and their common failure point is not expanding vs underpenetration. The wound cavities between the two when shooting FMJ are not appreciably different.

One of the reasons a 380 ACP is arguably better is because the 32 can be subject to rim-lock. I never had it happen in either of my old 32 ACPs, but I didn't really shoot them a whole lot, either. Some 32 guns are very sensitive to the shape of the bullet...like the Seecamp, which I believe the manufacturer even says you have to shoot a certain JHP (making a poorly effective round even worse).

[Hauptmann]

This question takes us off course regarding my original question,but I will ask anyway. 380 acp vs 32 acp in having to shoot a bad guy?

A little point of reference....... WWII saw the largest, and most widespread use of pistol calibers history will ever see with its wide SMG use. There will never again be another conflict that can show the huge amount of observation effectivness(or lack there of) of pistol calibers. At the end of the war, virtually all countries that were using a caliber smaller than .36 caliber(9mm/.38) increased caliber size to 9mm. Allied countries using calibers larger than .36 caliber mostly went down to 9mm. Even the US Army ordinance considered the 9mm to be a superior cartridge for military use, and favored conversions.......but budget cuts at the end of the war and surpluses of .45acp SMGs, 1911s, and ammo made that impossible. Modern JHP ammo has only made the .36 caliber cartridges more effective.........but not so for the .380acp which is essentially a dead end cartridge for technological development.

You are pushing the limit using a .380acp as it is. Don't make it worse using anything smaller than that.

[lawnguy]

A little point of reference....... WWII saw the largest, and most widespread use of pistol calibers history will ever see with its wide SMG use. There will never again be another conflict that can show the huge amount of observation effectivness(or lack there of) of pistol calibers. At the end of the war, virtually all countries that were using a caliber smaller than .36 caliber(9mm/.38) increased caliber size to 9mm. Allied countries using calibers larger than .36 caliber mostly went down to 9mm. Even the US Army ordinance considered the 9mm to be a superior cartridge for military use, and favored conversions.......but budget cuts at the end of the war and surpluses of .45acp SMGs, 1911s, and ammo made that impossible. Modern JHP ammo has only made the .36 caliber cartridges more effective.........but not so for the .380acp which is essentially a dead end cartridge for technological development.

You are pushing the limit using a .380acp as it is. Don't make it worse using anything smaller than that.


Very Interesting! Thanks for sharing the info.

[Velo Dog]

Carry whatever...

10800
10801
10802
10803

...Practice eye shooting

[john c]

You do know that the Rogers School starts out every student in their intro course with a S&W 317, and they shoot that for two days, before transitioning to a semi-auto .22 M&P, before progressing to a 9mm. I have shot 25,000 +/- rounds through my training 317, and have never cleaned it, although even if cleaning was an issue, I am not sure what that has to do with a BUG that needs to go seven rounds between cleaning.

Are the initial 317s 1 7/8ths barrels, or 3 inch barrels? What sights, if any?

[Duelist]

A little point of reference....... WWII saw the largest, and most widespread use of pistol calibers history will ever see with its wide SMG use. There will never again be another conflict that can show the huge amount of observation effectivness(or lack there of) of pistol calibers. At the end of the war, virtually all countries that were using a caliber smaller than .36 caliber(9mm/.38) increased caliber size to 9mm. Allied countries using calibers larger than .36 caliber mostly went down to 9mm. Even the US Army ordinance considered the 9mm to be a superior cartridge for military use, and favored conversions.......but budget cuts at the end of the war and surpluses of .45acp SMGs, 1911s, and ammo made that impossible. Modern JHP ammo has only made the .36 caliber cartridges more effective.........but not so for the .380acp which is essentially a dead end cartridge for technological development.

You are pushing the limit using a .380acp as it is. Don't make it worse using anything smaller than that.

I assumed everyone knew that the .380ACP (9x17, 9mm Kurz) is exactly the same diameter as the 9mm Parabellum (9x19) and the .38 ACP and the .38 Super, and the 9x21, and 9x23, and 9mm Largo. But not quite the same diameter as the 9mm Makarov (9x18), which instead of being .355" like the bulk of 9mm cartridges, is .363, and was adopted after WWII (and served for decades) by one of the major powers, and was theoretically a slight increase in power over the .380. Slight. Very slight.

There is only one truth: hit the target. All the rest may be interesting, but if the fundamental one truth does not happen, none of the rest matters. At all.

[GJM]

Are the initial 317s 1 7/8ths barrels, or 3 inch barrels? What sights, if any?

I believe RSS Is using the 3 1/8 inch barrel, with FO front and adjustable rear. Mine is that configuration, but with a solid front, that I painted orange.

[RichY]

Deleted. See below.

[RichY]

While the first part of that quote applies to me too, I've probably not fired anywhere near the amount of ammunition you have. That said, my experience is decidedly contrary. I have difficulty remembering the last time I encountered a bad primer in centerfire ammunition, but with rimfire ammo misfires seem pretty common place.

The most surprising failures occurred last year when I dug up an older 500 round case of CCI Mini-Mags from the back of my ammo cabinet. While this ammunition has normally been very reliable, I experienced multiple failures to fire with this batch. All rounds fired just fine when they were re-chambered so that the striker mark was well away from where the striker would hit (which is how things typically go with rimfire ammunition that didn't fire the first try, in my experience). This makes me wonder if there are simply quality fluctuations from batch to batch, or if rimfire ammunition simply doesn't age as well as centerfire ammo? This would certainly explain the differences in experiences, since I doubt rimfire ammunition travels to over here in much of a haste.



Awesome summary. :D

A few years ago a friend back where we used to live gave me a box of 50 Remington Mohawk 22's made in the 60's. The original owner had bought a lot of it back then, got out of shooting for decades, and then decided to get back into it. I saw them shoot a lot of it at the range prior to giving me a box of it, and I put it away, as we were in the process of retiring to another part of the country. I have no idea how he stored it over the years, but he does live in a very humid part of the country. Earlier this year I found that box of ammo and took I took it out in the national forest to see how it shot. It went bang every single time -- just like the rest of it I watched them shoot sox to eight years earlier. Seems to me it works fine after decades of storage. It's possible that quality control today isn't what it once was, but in this one case, it worked fine.

Additionally, I secured some 22's my grandfather kept in his garage. I got them sometime around the time he passed away, which would have been 1983. They were very old boxes, and my guess is they were from back in the early to mid-50's. Included in these boxes was an old box of Winchester 25 acp. To my knowledge, and that of relatives alive at the time, my grandfather never owned a 25 automatic. Based on the box, they were also made sometime in the early to mid-50's. Like the 22'a they were stored with, they go bang every time! Since they were kept in a drawer in a garage in southern Illinois for who knows how long, it always amazed me they still fired.

Finally, my father-in-law, now deceased for nearly twenty years, left behind some very old boxes of 22 Long Rifle, 22 Long, and 9mm. The 9mm appears to have been made shortly after WWII. The 22 Longs? Who knows? They no longer look very good. They do still shoot! Look bad, but shoot! They were all stored in a leaky basement in NW Indiana, and I do not remember ever getting a misfire from any of this old ammo. I still have a little of it left and sometime in the near future will finally shoot is all, but I keep them primarily for the old, long out of print, boxes they came in.

[RichY]

A little point of reference....... WWII saw the largest, and most widespread use of pistol calibers history will ever see with its wide SMG use. There will never again be another conflict that can show the huge amount of observation effectivness(or lack there of) of pistol calibers. At the end of the war, virtually all countries that were using a caliber smaller than .36 caliber(9mm/.38) increased caliber size to 9mm. Allied countries using calibers larger than .36 caliber mostly went down to 9mm. Even the US Army ordinance considered the 9mm to be a superior cartridge for military use, and favored conversions.......but budget cuts at the end of the war and surpluses of .45acp SMGs, 1911s, and ammo made that impossible. Modern JHP ammo has only made the .36 caliber cartridges more effective.........but not so for the .380acp which is essentially a dead end cartridge for technological development.

You are pushing the limit using a .380acp as it is. Don't make it worse using anything smaller than that.

True, but not all their police forces changed over. While in Germany and Austria in 1985, I remember seeing the officers at the border crossing all wearing Walther PP's or PPk's. Not sure what caliber they were in, as I had learned by then not to ask, even though I spoke German fairly fluently.

[Tamara]

Having fired tens of thousands of both rimfire and centerfire throughout my life, the idea that rimfire is less reliable is contrary to my experience.

It's not to mine.

[Tamara]

I react strongly to the implication that he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to shooting fast and accurately.

I have enormous respect for Rogers as a Fast & Accurate SME, but I checked to see which .22 WMR rounds are on our Holes In Stuff SME's list and didn't find any.

(I'm trolling, of course. Mostly.)

[41magfan]

When I was a cop, concerned citizens were routinely requesting that we pick up ammo they had found in their garages and basements out of fear it would "blow-up", so I've shot all manner of dated rimfire and centerfire ammo without issue.

I have however, experienced some migration of the priming compound in some .22 Long Rifle ammo that was improperly stored in an metal outdoor shed. I suspect the temps in that shed easily exceeded 120 degrees or more for several months at a time.

The failure rate with that batch of ammo was probably close to 40% but every round fired on subsequent attempts when the dud round was rotated 180 degrees from the first firing pin strike.

If I were personally going to rely on a rimfire firearm for anything of consequence, I'd just replace the ammo every 6 months or so as precautionary measure.

[BehindBlueI's]

You do know the person I am referring to?

I do know he tested the .22 magnum vs the .38 as a BUG on the Rogers School Range, and was able to consistently make hits on targets representing heads, faster under extreme time pressure with the .22 magnum than the .38. Last I checked, shot placement trumped caliber.

And no, I am not going to call my friend, Bill Rogers, and ask him why he prefers more rounds in a BUG.

I'll repeat myself.


I just question the justification behind it, and would recommend anyone who's not an epic eye socket shooter to stick with the .38 and up.

Lawnguy isn't Bill Rogers. In the context of this thread, what Bill Rogers can do is irrelevant, what Lawnguy can do is very relevant. I guaran-fucking-tee that someone who just bought a Ruger LCP and is now debating if it would be better to get a .22 magnum instead is not an epic eyeball shooter. I will not recommend a rimfire anything for a carry gun to someone who is physically capable of firing something larger. What is a good training gun is a different question. How to train new shooters is a different question.

There is no one I agree with 100% of the time, and that includes me. That said, I will *not* trade a more effective round for more capacity, period. Why?

How many gunfights are lost because the good guy ran out of bullets?
Now how many gun fights result in a hit through the arm that then goes in to the chest? How many hit the skull at steep angles and glance off or tunnel under the skin?

Find those answers and it's self explanatory.

If I want capacity, I'll have my cake and eat it to with a Shield or Glock Jr. As for placement, I suspect you'll find most non-Bill Rogers will shoot those better than a rimfire j-frame/LCR revolver as well.

[Hambo]

I'm not Bill Rogers, but I'd put .22 combat effectiveness in BBI's "starter pistol will work" category.

[TiroFijo]

For the vast majority of users, myself included, we have probably more chance of winning the lottery than producing the fabled "eye socket shot" in a combat situation :rolleyes:...

Now, I can plink with the best of them in a good day, but I realize that hitting small stuff in the range could be a bit different than when surprise, stress, and movement (both target and shooter) are involved.

[JHC]

You do know the person I am referring to?

I do know he tested the .22 magnum vs the .38 as a BUG on the Rogers School Range, and was able to consistently make hits on targets representing heads, faster under extreme time pressure with the .22 magnum than the .38. Last I checked, shot placement trumped caliber.

And no, I am not going to call my friend, Bill Rogers, and ask him why he prefers more rounds in a BUG.

Pure speculation, but I imagine one seeking to carry one of the absolute lightest J frames; down in the 10-11 oz range as a pocket gun in purely BUG role, based partly on the penetration of .22 mag FMJ loads (I've seen 15" of gel penetration recorded in a few tests).

Followed by their shooting performance with a chambering that would not torture the shooter if shot for 1000+ rounds to develop the most skill in delivering the hits.

[GJM]

Pure speculation, but I imagine one seeking to carry one of the absolute lightest J frames; down in the 10-11 oz range as a pocket gun in purely BUG role, based partly on the penetration of .22 mag FMJ loads (I've seen 15" of gel penetration recorded in a few tests).

Followed by their shooting performance with a chambering that would not torture the shooter if shot for 1000+ rounds to develop the most skill in delivering the hits.

Here is some penetration data on .22 magnum. Looks like out of a J frame it penetrates as well as out of a .22 magnum rifle with a 22 inch barrel, but without the expansion you get from the rifle. So, if your objective is to poke holes in a head, you will get about 13 inches of penetration with a .22 caliber hole.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/6/8/the-22-magnum-for-self-defense/

[TiroFijo]

Compare the mythical power of a 22 mag vs a humble 22 LR out of a 2" barrel:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/22mag.html

887-946 fps out of a 2" barrel, 40 gr bullet

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/22.html

856-862-882 fps out of a 2" barrel, 40 gr bullet

[SWAT Lt.]

It's not to mine.


Mine either.

[BehindBlueI's]

Here is some penetration data on .22 magnum. Looks like out of a J frame it penetrates as well as out of a .22 magnum rifle with a 22 inch barrel, but without the expansion you get from the rifle. So, if your objective is to poke holes in a head, you will get about 13 inches of penetration with a .22 caliber hole.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/6/8/the-22-magnum-for-self-defense/

Serious question, why not carry a .22 mag as a primary, then? Is the threat you're facing with a BUG somehow different than the threat you're facing with a primary? Do the same benefits somehow not apply?


This question takes us off course regarding my original question,but I will ask anyway. 380 acp vs 32 acp in having to shoot a bad guy?

.32 is the floor for a reliable suicide gun. If you wish to off yourself, a .32 under the chin is more reliable than a .25 under the chin. If you wish to shoot someone else...ask if they'll let you shoot them under the chin.

If you wish to shoot people who intend you harm, .380 is the absolute floor for a pistol IMO. I'd strongly suggest a 9mm once you get some training under your belt.

[GJM]

Serious question, why not carry a .22 mag as a primary, then? Is the threat you're facing with a BUG somehow different than the threat you're facing with a primary? Do the same benefits somehow not apply?


The threat is likely the same, although the considerations for a BUG are surely different, or we would all just carry a duplicate of our primary?

The criteria Bill used, led to a revolver that he could carry in his support side front pocket. He trains extensively with a revolver, demoing for the Rogers basic class. His testing confirmed that his ability to place a shot to a head box, in the time constraints that he believes in and are programmed into the Rogers range, caused him to choose the S&W .22 magnum revolver over the S&W .38, as his performance was enough better that it made sense to him. That was a personal decision based on his own assessment of risk, his ability, and confirmed by his testing. He was not offering up that advice to you or anyone else. How many people do you know, that routinely carry a BUG, train extensively with a BUG, and have benchmarked their performance to reach a decision on their BUG.


I just hung with with Bill an hour ago, and change is constant down there. In their intro program (and Advanced if their clientele would allow), they believe in the value of .22 for learning to steer the sights and press the trigger. Per Bill, the school has modified their intro program, and now is using the LCR .22 to start, as it has a better trigger than the 317, and runs and runs. After the student shoots a certain score, they migrate to the LCR 9mm, which is attractive as it is much easier to load than the .22. After that, they go M&P .22 and M&P 9.

Bill says the LCR .38 shoots high left (they have a dozen) but the LCR .22 and 9mm hit POA/POI. He doesn't like the stocks on the 9mm, but has designed and made replacement ones, and very low profile speed loaders. Personally, he has migrated from the Smith .22 magnum to the LCR 9 as a BUG, based on how easily he can shoot and reload the LCR.

[BehindBlueI's]

The threat is likely the same, although the considerations for a BUG are surely different, or we would all just carry a duplicate of our primary?


Drifting off topic a bit and into BUGs...

It depends. I believe that *IS* the ideal set up for LE, or at least the close approximation of something like a Glock 26 that shares mags with the duty gun. If your primary shits the bed, the threat isn't any less threatening. I know of at least two incidents on my department off the top of my head where an officer's gun took a round and was out of the fight, but the officer himself was still capable of staying in it. I will now fully admit to my own hypocrisy by saying I carry a P226/LCR combo. When we go to the 9mm, I may change that, but the P224 in .40 doesn't do it for me. Because of crooked fingers from breaking my hand twice, finger groove Glocks and I don't get along.

For civilian carry, I tend to treat BUGs as a secondary primary. The guns are interchangeable as primary, in other words. If your primary shits the bed, it's doubtful you can employ a BUG before the fight is over one way or the other...however carrying two guns in two different carry positions gives you more options. If you carry appendix and pocket, for example, you've got a gun that you can draw on the sly in nearly any situation. If you only carry appendix, it's tough to hide the draw under direct observation by a mugger. Carrying strong side hip and ankle, hip carry sucks when seat belted in in a suit coat. Ankle carry is much easier to access in that situation.

Now, if he's gone to the 9mm it seems like perhaps capacity wasn't the actual reason for the .22 mag, which was one of my major contentions if you'll recall. This is one reason I don't care to argue via second hand info. If capacity were truly the underlying issue, there's no reason to migrate to the LCR 9mm.

FWIW, I've never fired a LCR in .38, but my .357 is accurate enough to keep a 2" circle at 15y freehand for me when I do my part. Folks I trust have stated that it is not as inherently accurate as the SP101 or steel j-frames, but I don't own any of those to really test it against.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I recall a study years ago - so if someone knows it, I would appreciate it - that supposedly compared final outcomes on officers who started training on a K frame 22 LR and transitioned to a 38 SPL (the issued gun at the time) or a group that did the same amount of time starting on the 38. They found either there was no difference or the 22 LR starters were a little poorer in final performance. The explanation (if I got this right) was that learning experience was very specific to the task and the switch - not matching platforms was not helpful. Supposedly, this had been found in other training domains. Train on system A and switch to B. The A experience wasn't that useful. Thinking about though, do you want to start a pilot in an F-35? But they do try to have jet trainers similar to the fighters. I dunno.

If they ditch the crappy 317 trigger, that makes more sense to me.

[luckyman]

...
I just hung with with Bill an hour ago, and change is constant down there. In their intro program (and Advanced if their clientele would allow), they believe in the value of .22 for learning to steer the sights and press the trigger. Per Bill, the school has modified their intro program, and now is using the LCR .22 to start, as it has a better trigger than the 317, and runs and runs. After the student shoots a certain score, they migrate to the LCR 9mm, which is attractive as it is much easier to load than the .22. After that, they go M&P .22 and M&P 9.




They start with an LCR snubby with standard sights??? I don't see 22 listed as an option for the LCRx.

[GJM]

I recall a study years ago - so if someone knows it, I would appreciate it - that supposedly compared final outcomes on officers who started training on a K frame 22 LR and transitioned to a 38 SPL (the issued gun at the time) or a group that did the same amount of time starting on the 38. They found either there was no difference or the 22 LR starters were a little poorer in final performance. The explanation (if I got this right) was that learning experience was very specific to the task and the switch - not matching platforms was not helpful. Supposedly, this had been found in other training domains. Train on system A and switch to B. The A experience wasn't that useful. Thinking about though, do you want to start a pilot in an F-35? But they do try to have jet trainers similar to the fighters. I dunno.

If they ditch the crappy 317 trigger, that makes more sense to me.

The Rogers school intro class shoots 2,500 round in the week. They first want to teach new shooters how to steer the sights while pressing the trigger. Recoil can mask trigger and sights, and concussion fatigues students quicker. Bill says he always shooters better center fire the week after demoing so much with .22, as it is pure sights and trigger.

[flyrodr]

Don't own a .380 or .22 mag. Nor have I ever been to a Rogers class. Take the following accordingly.

Have shot a lot of .22LR, 9mm and .45ACP. I do think starting out with a .22, and occasionally reverting back to it, on the range immensely helps a shooter establish confidence in, and then serve as a reminder of, what s/he's capable of. Recoil, and let's not forget noise, can largely be taken out of the equation, and, as was said earlier, attention can be placed on the sights and trigger. Plus, everybody needs a .22 pistol, for any number of reasons. Here, it's obviously inexpensive to operate, lending itself to lots of range time.

Having some degree of confidence with the smaller caliber, the shooter can then apply that to selecting a carry gun. With a ranking of criteria (size, capacity, caliber, reliability/customer service, how well "I" can shoot it, budget, etc.), evaluate rentals, friends' guns, whatever.

Personally, and based largely on feedback from sites such as PF, established trainers, what LEOs/mil use, and personal observation of totally non-scientific "data" such as falling plates, 5-gallon jugs of water, etc., I'd not go lower than 9mm. When a solid hit on a big jug of water with a .22 causes little more than a jiggle and a slow leak, it does not boost one's confidence in that caliber's stopping ability. And let me not reignite a caliber debate by bringing up the response of steel to other calibers.

Carried a Kahr PM9 for years, and mine was very reliable, accurate and concealable, although I short-stroked the trigger occasionally (rarely, but enough to be concerned). Switched to a Shield, which I can shoot as well, if not better, and certainly faster. It doesn't conceal quite as well, but well enough. And I have yet to be sliced by the HD sights, which I like.

End of ramble . . .

[Buckshot]

If he's putting rounds in the eye socket anyway, why is he concerned with more ammo?

More eye sockets!

[LSP972]

Yeah. This thread definitely jumped the shark.

.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Can you hit the shark in the eye when you jump it? I'd bet the Fonz could.

The OP wants a little gun - go for it, already.

[Buckshot]

In looking at what the Critical Defense & Gold Dot loadings of 22 mag is capable of, I'd think its roughly analagous to a good 380 load. That is to say, they're both at the upper end of "I sure hope this works" rather than something I'd choose as a primary. I do recognize that a 2" 22 Mag revolver is probably a reasonable compromise for certain people.

[Hambo]

That is to say, they're both at the upper end of "I sure hope this works" rather than "I have confidence this will work."

FIFY, except that a lot of people don't understand the difference between the two, so they're sure anything will work.

[UNK]

I think a .22 mag would be an excellent self defense rifle for the average person.

I love the .22 Magnum, it is my favorite general purpose cartridge in a bolt gun for killing smallish things that need killing. With that in mind, out of a handgun it's...not so great. .380 ACP ammo is going to be easier to find, of better quality, and there is an abundance of excellent .380 handguns on the market right now.

[UNK]

Just did some research an a .22 WMR semi auto rifle. Turns out it's not such a great idea.


I think a .22 mag would be an excellent self defense rifle for the average person.

[jetfire]

Just did some research an a .22 WMR semi auto rifle. Turns out it's not such a great idea.

The Ruger 10/22 Magnum was about the only .22 WMR semi-auto that was worth a crap, but it was relatively expensive to make and was a low interest item, so they stopped making them. It was a cool little gun, but just never sold that well. I still have a Marlin 25M bolt gun in .22 Magnum that I've killed a lot of things with, and on anything up to a small coyote, .22 WMR is hot death.

Out of a 22 inch long rifle barrel, mind you.

[Joe in PNG]

The Ruger 10/22 Magnum was about the only .22 WMR semi-auto that was worth a crap, but it was relatively expensive to make and was a low interest item, so they stopped making them. It was a cool little gun, but just never sold that well. I still have a Marlin 25M bolt gun in .22 Magnum that I've killed a lot of things with, and on anything up to a small coyote, .22 WMR is hot death.
Out of a 22 inch long rifle barrel, mind you.

Making prairie dogs blow up real good!

[SJC3081]

The Ruger 10/22 Magnum was about the only .22 WMR semi-auto that was worth a crap, but it was relatively expensive to make and was a low interest item, so they stopped making them. It was a cool little gun, but just never sold that well. I still have a Marlin 25M bolt gun in .22 Magnum that I've killed a lot of things with, and on anything up to a small coyote, .22 WMR is hot death.

Out of a 22 inch long rifle barrel, mind you.
The Ruger 10/22 mag sold like hot cakes, but had extraction issues and broken bolt problems. I had single extractor model and sold it to get a Greek G3.

[GJM]

I think a .22 mag would be an excellent self defense rifle for the average person.


The Ruger 10/22 Magnum was about the only .22 WMR semi-auto that was worth a crap, but it was relatively expensive to make and was a low interest item, so they stopped making them. It was a cool little gun, but just never sold that well. I still have a Marlin 25M bolt gun in .22 Magnum that I've killed a lot of things with, and on anything up to a small coyote, .22 WMR is hot death.

Out of a 22 inch long rifle barrel, mind you.


Just did some research an a .22 WMR semi auto rifle. Turns out it's not such a great idea.

Reading this article, I am not see material difference between .22 magnum out of a J frame vs a 22 inch barrel?

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/6/8/the-22-magnum-for-self-defense/

[Tamara]

The Ruger 10/22 Magnum was about the only .22 WMR semi-auto that was worth a crap...

The problem with straight blowback .22WMR guns is folks treat them like regular .22LR guns, cleaning them hardly ever and firing them at the cyclic.

A slightly out-of-battery discharge in a .22LR is moderately exciting, but in a .22WMR gun it can get mighty sporty. :o

[UNK]

I didn't bother to read the article but that's not possible. http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/22mag.html
CZ and Savage both have a .22 magnum semi auto rifle using a delayed blowback.


Reading this article, I am not see material difference between .22 magnum out of a J frame vs a 22 inch barrel?

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/6/8/the-22-magnum-for-self-defense/

[GJM]

I didn't bother to read the article but that's not possible. http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/22mag.html
CZ and Savage both have a .22 magnum semi auto rifle using a delayed blowback.

I am referring to penetration, not velocity.

[JHC]

I am referring to penetration, not velocity.

Yeah it was like the added velocity just delivered more bullet upset which countered the penetration. The FMJ loads were most interesting. Just one clueless opinion but once I go to calibers below 9mm, a remote "icepick" is about all I can reasonably expect.

[Buckshot]

The Ruger 10/22 Magnum was about the only .22 WMR semi-auto that was worth a crap, but it was relatively expensive to make and was a low interest item, so they stopped making them. It was a cool little gun, but just never sold that well. I still have a Marlin 25M bolt gun in .22 Magnum that I've killed a lot of things with, and on anything up to a small coyote, .22 WMR is hot death.

Out of a 22 inch long rifle barrel, mind you.

I've been told that Ruger's decision to dump the Magnum 10/22 was due to a large number of them being unsuccessfully converted to 17 HMR, becoming profoundly damaged. Then their owner would re-install the 22 Mag barrel and sending them back to Ruger for warranty repair. That's why we can't have nice things!

[Buckshot]

delete please

[KeithH]

While I love the Ruger LCR, the spring is too much for my fingers in the rimfire version to do any realistic training at all. It's one stiff spring.

[Buckshot]

Yeah, the rimfire LCR is almost as heavy as a centerfire J frame :confused:

[Chuck Haggard]

This first question I'd ask the OP, is "why those two choices?"


I have a pretty good idea why Bill Rogers went with the .22mag for several years. Shooting as much as he does gets tough on the body.

Anyway, if a guy wants to get a low recoil, easy to shoot handgun then the G42 would be an easier system to get into than a .22mag revolver. Ammo availability alone would make that an easy choice.