5 rounds of .38 or 7 rounds of 22 mag?

[Wheeler]

I find it interesting that a lot of the detractors of the concept of carrying a rimfire say they respect Claude and his research, then go on to express their feelings and beliefs about why they think a rimfire isn't suitable.

Here's the rub, regardless of what you carry you've got to be proficient with it. That means you have to get out and run the crap out of it and see what it's limitations are as well as your own. Only then can you really speak with any authority on the issue.

I carry a 43c as my EDC. I shoot it every trip I make to the range, which is usually three to four times per month at a minimum. I've run a crap tonne of bulk ammo through it and a fair bit of CCI Stingers. Of the 300+ rounds of Stingers I've fired this year, not a single one has failed to go bang.

Should you choose a mousegun caliber, run it hard. Shoot the drills and learn what you can and can't do. If you're worried about the trigger you can put in a standard weight mainspring like that of a 642, or shoot it a lot and learn to handle the factory trigger. Buy Claude's e-book on drills.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would also say, to repeat myself, that one needs to shoot the gun in more dynamic situations than the range. Of course, range fundamentals are useful but competition is useful. Varying distances, mandatory head shots with only one allowed, reloads under time pressure, etc. Using the sights quickly is not the same as a square range exercise. Drawing from your carry method is good (if allowed).

There are two close paper targets and then a steel plate at a distance. Reload, then a target with a head shot with only one allowed and if you miss a big time penalty. When I hit the plate with a 642, I got a round of applause. Haha.

The idea of the J being a one bad guy gun vs. a more intense incident friendly semi will show up in an IDPA match. Claude shoots his snubbies very well in IDPA matches. I've shot the SW 632 quite a few times.

[BehindBlueI's]

If someone is put to flight by the sight or sound of a gun, what did capacity gain you? Make them run faster?

Unless physically incapable, carry something that will consistently and reliably break an adult's bones, which in my observations puts the floor at .380.

[Scal]

I have a 43c that I have stopped carrying, and just use it for practice/training. I was using Stingers in it, but after somewhere north of 500 rounds of them, my gun developed very bad fore/aft cylinder play....to the point where I could make the cylinder contact the barrel. That issue has since been remedied, but I believe more of that ammo will keep causing accelerated wear in the gun. Velocitor does not reliably fire in the gun, and as silly as it might sound to worry about in .22lr, I don’t know how many other loads besides those two will get 12” of penetration in ballistic media out of a short barrel.

Since then, I have gotten a 442, and I have found that I can deal with the few ounces of extra weight, and manage the recoil well enough to not want to go back to a .22 wheel gun, except as a practice gun with standard velocity ammo only.

I don’t know if other folks have had this experience with the 43c, but for me, the lack of durability in my gun wasn’t worth added convenience and saving a few ounces of weight.

[SiriusBlunder]

The OP may get something out of this thread:

The efficacy of .22 in a self defense role
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....f-defense-role

ToddG and SLG made lots of great points.

[TGS]

The ideas discussed here are an effort to make reality conform to a persons thoughts on how a fight should go.....and not making your choices conform to reality.

[BehindBlueI's]

Let me flip the question. Rimfire advocates keep asking "when did terminal ballistics matter..." in both threads, this one and the 2011 one. Fine. When did capacity matter in the same situation? When did 5 rounds of .38 fail to work when an additional few rounds of rimfire would have saved the day?

Most random attacker, the vast majority in fact, are not dedicated to the assault. Stipulated. Then what does an extra 3, or 50, rounds get you? They ran at the first sign of the draw, they ran at the first sound of gunfire, they ran at the first injury. I've often said that based on my stats you can win about 1/3 of these encounters with a starter pistol.

The problem is the dedicated attacker or the attacker who *can't* flee. He's cornered in the business, etc. and has to shoot his way out. He's high and doesn't realize what's going on and just continues his actions (people have been shot and INGORED THE SHOOTER TO CONTINUE THEIR "MISSION", particularly the violently mentally ill) Maybe you're such a fantastic shooter that you can, on demand and under fight or flight response, ear canal/eye socket shot the bad guy. But most of us aren't, and most of the people who read this aren't, and most of the people we recommend guns to aren't. Hence I want a gun that can break bones because I get that I might not have a head shot available even if I can make those shots on demand. I might have to shoot someone in the back and their spine or back of the skull is my best target while they are murdering someone else. I might have to shoot at a shin from under a car or a forearm that's sticking around a corner because that's all the target I have of someone actively murdering others or trying to murder me. Center mass is center of whatever the target is. Neither a .38 nor a .22 is likely to kill via an extremity injury, but which degrades the opponent's ability to fight more, a small hole through the meat, or a small hole through the meat and a broken bone?

How many bad guys flee but fire a shot or two as they leave? I'm not in front of my stats, but more than zero. From memory, maybe 15%-ish. Want to roll the dice? You put them to flight, it's un-aimed fire and you're *probably* not going to get hit. How much degradation of their ability to fire those shots would you like if your life and/or the people you are protecting's life is up to the random chance of where those bullets go.

It's in the "better than nothing" and "more likely to work then not" camp if you are not the target of a dedicated attacker. However the supposed benefit of extra capacity is much less likely to be useful in a real world fight then the ability to degrade an opponent via crippling injury that a .38/.380 + can provide.

The .22 is for people who are physically incapable of shooting larger calibers. Severe arthritis has set in and it's painful and flinch inducing to shoot something else. Tendons are damaged and the hand is impaired to the point recoil is physically damaging to the shooter. Etc.

[TGS]

The ideas discussed here are an effort to make reality conform to a persons thoughts on how a fight should go.....and not making your choices conform to reality.

Just to expand on this:

I was listening to Claude Werner on a podcast recently and he made the point that for private citizens the actual requirement is disengagement, not stopping. Any use of the gun, from mere display to shooting the perp with a small caliber, that allows you to disengage from the perp is a success. This differentiates our need from that of a cop as they have a different mission, which is to apprehend, not mere disengagement.

If I shoot someone, it's not to arrest them. I get that a LEO shooting someone can legally be framed as a seizure under the 4th Amendment, but I'm not shooting them to seize them: I'm shooting them to stop them from causing greivous bodily harm to myself or another person. Similarly, when I wasnt a LEO I didn't carry a goddamned gun to ward off muggers; I carried a gun to do the same thing I carry a gun now as a LEO: to incapacitate someone as rapidly and reliably as possible so they don't kill me or mine. Before I go on, one of the reasons this whole train of thought on scaring off the attacker is bullshit is because it's framed on the idea of warding off muggers. That's disingenious bullshit; we don't get to choose what their motivations or dedication to follow-through is. By virtue of carrying a gun, can we all agree that to begin with we're not in the business of planning for best possible scenario?

Back to LEO vs civilian; Ain't no different for Joe Civilian. If you have to shoot someone, then you should be using something that has a well defined modicum of ability to incapacitate as extremely well studied and established by people like Martin Fackler, @DocGKR, the IWBA and FBI.

If Joe Scumbag decides to class himself in the category of "psychological stop", then that's his choice and merrier all around. That doesn't mean we should be basing our choices around it and assuming he will be....we, both LEOs and private citizens, should still seek to carry something that will reliably stop him physiologically. We don't get to choose for him to give up; sometimes we have to make them give up by way of cardiovascular decompression, lack of oxygenation, or a disruption of the CNS.

To suggest otherwise is just naieve and irresponsible, regardless of who says it.

[Wheeler]

Just to expand on this:





If I shoot someone, it's not to arrest them. I get that a LEO shooting someone can legally be framed as a seizure under the 4th Amendment, but I'm not shooting them to seize them: I'm shooting them to stop them from causing greivous bodily harm to myself or another person. Similarly, when I wasnt a LEO I didn't carry a goddamned gun to ward off muggers; I carried a gun to do the same thing I carry a gun now as a LEO: to incapacitate someone as rapidly and reliably as possible so they don't kill me or mine. Before I go on, one of the reasons this whole train of thought on scaring off the attacker is bullshit is because it's framed on the idea of warding off muggers. That's disingenious bullshit; we don't get to choose what their motivations or dedication to follow-through is. By virtue of carrying a gun, can we all agree that to begin with we're not in the business of planning for best possible scenario?

Back to LEO vs civilian; Ain't no different for Joe Civilian. If you have to shoot someone, then you should be using something that has a well defined modicum of ability to incapacitate as extremely well studied and established by people like Martin Fackler, @DocGKR, the IWBA and FBI.

If Joe Scumbag decides to class himself in the category of "psychological stop", then that's his choice and merrier all around. That doesn't mean we should be basing our choices around it and assuming he will be....we, both LEOs and private citizens, should still seek to carry something that will reliably stop him physiologically. We don't get to choose for him to give up; sometimes we have to make them give up by way of cardiovascular decompression, lack of oxygenation, or a disruption of the CNS.

To suggest otherwise is just naieve and irresponsible, regardless of who says it.

There's a preponderance of evidence that disagrees with your opinion. Especially when you presume your opinion is the only reality that matters.

[LSP552]

BBl’s post is spot on. I was in a shooting where the other guy took a .38 Spl 125 +P Rem HP from a J-frame to the forearm just above the elbow. Dude was wearing a leather jacket. The bullet fell out of the sleeve later, having penetrated one side and shattered both bones then stopped against the other side of the sleeve. The bullet did not penetrate through to the chest. But, he also didn’t fire a shot while I was able to fire a couple more.

Would a .22 have shattered both bones in the forearm? I wonder, pretty sure not. Would the drug dealer trying to rip me off in the UC buy have gotten a round off if I hadn’t shattered his forearm early in the fight, probably so. I’d been a hard target to miss since we were both in the front seat of a UC ride.