The efficacy of .22 in a self defense role

[SLG]

Why? It's based on the assumption that a single .38 will produce more results than a single round of .22, which is an assumption.


That's a common problem I have encountered in the course of my research.

To each his own.

Not an assumption. Small sample, no question about it, but having seen .22's fail to "stop" people, and having seen people shot with .38's who went down right away, I do have more faith in .38's. I sent a message to DocGKR, who might be better able to address the issue of terminal ballistics.

As I said above, what you consider effective, and what I consider luck, seem to be closely related. Effectiveness, for me, relates to just how fast an attacker ceases to be able to continue his attack. If an attacker chooses to leave, that's not good enough. If you attack me, you lose the ability to choose your actions, just as fast as I can make that happen.

[HeadHunter]

It happened to work out for the lady, but if the wounded guy had chosen to fight, he obviously had enough steam left to do so.

Therein lies the rub. What everyone who has replied to me cites as "failures" are what I call SWC; Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda. "She Shoulda had a bigger gun, because if he Woulda been a more determined attacker, it Coulda turned out a lot worse for her." I haven't bothered to name the antithesis of that paradigm since no one has been able to provide any such incidents. I did find one on my own that occurred in Florida in 1996.

I don't have a ready visual for the 317's accuracy but here's my Taurus PLY22. I don't think of either as field guns. My Beretta Puma would be my choice for that type of work.

[HeadHunter]

Now bear in mind, I'm a small guy, and I manage to carry a railed, magwell equipped, steel 5" 1911 anytime I'm dressed.

In the consulting divison of a Big Four accounting firm while you are with clients 10 hours a day?

[SLG]

In the consulting divison of a Big Four accounting firm while you are with clients 10 hours a day?

Thankfully no.

I have carried in very similar environments, for extended periods of time, with no issue. I won't go into details about it here, but suffice it to say that it probably is not an exact parallel, for several reasons.

I've also carried in extremely non permissive environments, also for extended periods of time, with no one wiser. I'm not saying that therefor it can be done no matter what, but I do find that many people give up trying, or just decide they can't do it, because their circumstances are so unique.

In a coat-less business environment, there are at least a couple of good choices for carrying more serious guns. A full size 1911 is not needed, I can shoot every bit as effectively with a G19/Sig229, and I can carry those guns very easily.


Is the target shown above a slow-fire affair? If so, the potential accuracy of the gun seems pretty dismal, and certainly makes me wonder what would happen if shot at the speed of life.

[Prdator]

If you attack me, you lose the ability to choose your actions, just as fast as I can make that happen.

Freaking Quote of the month right there!!!!!!!

[Wheeler]

SLG,

Do you have empirical evidence of a would-be attacker getting shot by a potential victim with a .22 and continuing the attack/mugging? That really strikes me as something from a TV show or internet commando speculation. Not to imply that you are an internet commando, but if the same BS is stated enough people start to believe it.

I wonder if the two instructors (HH and he-who-shall-not-be-named) have a confidence edge? What I mean to say by that is they have confidence in their individual abilities rather than their caliber choice.

[SLG]

SLG,

Do you have empirical evidence of a would-be attacker getting shot by a potential victim with a .22 and continuing the attack/mugging? That really strikes me as something from a TV show or internet commando speculation. Not to imply that you are an internet commando, but if the same BS is stated enough people start to believe it.

I wonder if the two instructors (HH and he-who-shall-not-be-named) have a confidence edge? What I mean to say by that is they have confidence in their individual abilities rather than their caliber choice.

As I said, I don't have stats like that. I have absolutely no idea if that has happened, or how often, with a .22. If you're only concerned with muggers, then I suppose any hit is a good hit. I prefer to hold myself to a higher standard. I'm also not very concerned about muggings in general. Muggers don't pick people like me, unless they're not very good at victim selection. (How's that for confidence? That's based on street experience, not range results.)

On the other hand, I know many (and of many, many more) guys who have been shot with greater calibers, who continued to fight and ultimately win. Law enforcement and military organizations get new examples of that all the time. Don't run away, get mad, crush your adversary. You can count on needing to do nothing less.

What it comes down to is this: If you believe in preparing for the best case scenario, then you can hang your hat on catchy slogans like SWC. I believe in preparing for the worst case scenario, so the fact that someone didn't continue a fight, when they were obviously capable of it, does not count as more than luck.

Another thought about confidence occurred to me. HH and the other instructor have a lot of time shooting on a target system that rewards shootable guns. I daresay that neither of them can shoot the same scores with a 2" .22 revolver. Put another way, I'm sure I'm more than qualified to feel confident about my j frame shooting ability. I feel more confident still with a full size gun in my hand. Since the attackers I'm worried about are more motivated and skilled than the average mugger, I'm not going to give them another advantage. They already get to choose the time and place.

[Ed L]

We can find many situations where larger caliber handguns failed to stop determined criminals where they had to be shot repeatedly. Why should we assume that a .22 would have been more effective at ending the situation?

Further, we have a good number of incidents where smaller calibers skidded around the skull rather than penetrated. Check with any emergency room that sees a fair number of gunshot wounds.

It's impressive to see precise shots to the eyes delivered against paper targets, but in the end they are just paper targets shot on the shooting range who were not disruptively attacking anyone so no life and death stress was present.

Many criminals when facing a .22 might indeed run.

But many criminals are bumbling idiots.

I'm not content preparing myself to face just bumbling idiots when tools that are capable of inflicting more harm against more serious threats are available in the form of a J frame chambered in .38 special or a small autoloader in 9mm like a Kahr PM-9.

Go to a police department and propose a patrol rifle program in .22 long rifle or a new sidearm in that caliber and see what type of response you get.

[HeadHunter]

We can find many situations where larger caliber handguns failed to stop determined criminals where they had to be shot repeatedly. Why should we assume that a .22 would have been more effective at ending the situation?

Further, we have a good number of incidents where smaller calibers skidded around the skull rather than penetrated. Check with any emergency room that sees a fair number of gunshot wounds.

I am still waiting for specific documented incidents that fit within the parameters of my original query.

[Wheeler]

As I said, I don't have stats like that. I have absolutely no idea if that has happened, or how often, with a .22. If you're only concerned with muggers, then I suppose any hit is a good hit. I prefer to hold myself to a higher standard. I'm also not very concerned about muggings in general. Muggers don't pick people like me, unless they're not very good at victim selection. (How's that for confidence? That's based on street experience, not range results.)

On the other hand, I know many (and of many, many more) guys who have been shot with greater calibers, who continued to fight and ultimately win. Law enforcement and military organizations get new examples of that all the time. Don't run away, get mad, crush your adversary. You can count on needing to do nothing less.

What it comes down to is this: If you believe in preparing for the best case scenario, then you can hang your hat on catchy slogans like SWC. I believe in preparing for the worst case scenario, so the fact that someone didn't continue a fight, when they were obviously capable of it, does not count as more than luck.

Another thought about confidence occurred to me. HH and the other instructor have a lot of time shooting on a target system that rewards shootable guns. I daresay that neither of them can shoot the same scores with a 2" .22 revolver. Put another way, I'm sure I'm more than qualified to feel confident about my j frame shooting ability. I feel more confident still with a full size gun in my hand. Since the attackers I'm worried about are more motivated and skilled than the average mugger, I'm not going to give them another advantage. They already get to choose the time and place.

What does SWC mean?