Blowback, yes. I've certainly not shot every pcc out there but recoil was very minor with those I have.Originally Posted by Doc_Glock
I'm sure somebody out there can handle a .22 but not a 9mm. Just like I'm sure some folks legitimately can't rack a slide regardless of the technique. But I think that group is much smaller then many want to believe.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
As far as current production modern PCCs go, I believe the SIG MPX is the only one that isn't blowback, and of course it's on the expensive end of the spectrum, but it would be an option if a gas-operated PCC is needed.
There's also various H&K-94 clones by PTR and others, but those ain't cheap, either.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
I could not tell you. The 2-7 I was referring to was an older American made Burris compact. It is roughly 25 years old now. Probably not relevant for you but the Burris actually is pretty decent when used with a white light.
The Leupold pictured on the 10-22 was a fixed power that I had issues with not holding zero, then not adjusting/tracking properly. After repeated trips to Leupold, the last time with them stating they could not find any issue, I sold it. I let the guy know what I had issues with and he still wanted it.
I do have a 1.5-5 VX3 Leupold that I used for for years when I worked overseas
It has a illuminated reticle. However I have done a fair bit of white light training/shooting with the illuminated reticle turned off and I found the standard reticle at 1.5x to be very usable.
You are the one who is advancing the argument in this thread, so I am responding to you.
Chuck Haggard's .22 long long rifle killings were murders--where they are emptying the a .22 rifle into a victim who is surprised, scrared, shocked, may be held at gunpoint at the time. This is someone who is not a threat to the killer and non-combative. That doesn't translate into defensively using a .22 rifle against a violent home invader has who may be armed and is focused on killing you. BehindBluel's stated that he did not see the type of performance that you ascribe to a .22 rifle in 5.56 or 7.62 shootings. And we did not see Chuck suggesting that his police department replace their AR's and shotguns in their patrol cars with Ruger 10/22s.
Headhunter likes to be a contrarian and sometimes advocates some questionable things. He was fond of carrying a .22 Jennings pistol from a time when he lived in an NPE. His rationale was that it was small and easily concealable and cheap--so it was easier to toss away with no great financial loss if he needed. This is hardly something to build a defensive doctrine around when you can legally afford, own, carry, and operate much more suitable firearms.
There certainly are records of criminals confronted by citizens with .22 rifles who ran away. But the gun could have been unloaded and they still would have run away. There are also cases of criminals who got wounded, and even died after being shot by a citizen with a .22. But that doesn't mean it is an adequate caliber.
If I need to shoot a violent criminal to defend my life, I need want the terminal effects of a service caliber handgun or longarm, not a .22. At the point that I need to shoot a violent felon, by definition my life is at stake, and my needs are exactly those of a police officer who has to shoot the same violent felon.
You are recommending dealing with the type of violent criminals who require the use of deadly physical force with the weakest commonly available caliber, and hoping that they are going to run away. You are employing wishful thinking as a strategy for a defensive encounter when your life is on the line. You are mentally choreographing a situation that you have no control over and deciding that you only have to worry about a non-dedicated criminal and how they will behave. In reality you get no choice in who might break into your house or how many they will be.
And you won't find out until it is too late.
For all the non-dedicated criminals you want to focus on, I'm constantly reminded of William Aprill's lecture on violent criminals actors and how quickly they can go from calm to enraged when challenged. We read lots of stories about the serious injuries and death that they inflict on other criminals and innocent citizens who they encounter on the street or in the victims homes. Do you really want to be going against someone like this with a .22 rifle if you can afford and handle something more potent?
Last edited by Ed L; 10-07-2019 at 05:16 AM.
To this point, feet/fists/etc accomplish more murders then rifles and shotguns combined each year. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls if you're interested). I suppose to some that means feet are more dangerous than buckshot. It's largely useless information without context, though, as are more large groups of statistics stripped from incredibly varied situations.
I'm still waiting on some evidence that .22 is more lethal than pistol calibers as well, that seems to keep getting tossed aside in favor of wearing someone else's stripes and then accusing others of "appeal to authority" without apparently understanding why that's funny.
Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 10-07-2019 at 08:09 AM.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
The-efficacy-of-22-in-a-self-defense-role from way back.
David S.
Interesting quotes:
I guess someone should tell this Chuck Haggard guy to go tell Chuck Haggard he's wrong. It's almost like he's saying what I said. A .22 is better than nothing, will probably work, but isn't ideal. I must have missed the part where he said it was more lethal than a 9mm. Odd.
And that's the element that's often missing. How dedicated is the bad guy? Dedicated attackers need to be their own category. Random attacks, especially if the individual isn't high or mentally ill, can almost always be ended with a starter pistol. I know that because drawing alone and firing and missing have won over 50% vs random street crime (actually more like 2/3 IIRC, I'm not in front of my spreadsheet) in one on one encounters. Caliber and capacity are 100% irrelevant. A firearm that goes bang when you pull the trigger is all that's needed. However there's a subset of folks who don't flee and need a physical stop. That's when caliber starts to matter. When the ability to break bone, the ability to penetrate the skull at less than ideal angles, a quicker bleed out from a heart shot, etc. can matter. There are certainly cases where neither side survives the gunfight because the 'stop' took too long. I know of a cop vs bad guy instance and a couple bad guy on bad guy instances. Nothing like finding two guys dead in a car, both with empty guns, and zero bullet holes in the car itself. They took each other out and whoever got shot first lived long enough to shoot the other guy to the point neither even had the strength to exit the vehicle before they died.
As to "can't" vs "won't", sometimes I wonder how much of that is due to the noise of an AR.
That's a 10 year old girl managing the recoil and weight of an AR with no problem. Now, I 100% get there are some folks who are elderly or busted up to the point they can't. My dad is one. Wheelchair bound amputee with bad RA and tendons stuck in scar tissue so several fingers won't even open on their own. He lacks the manual dexterity to grip an AR properly and use the safety. There's no long gun he can use effectively and he's getting to the point there's no handgun he can use. A Ruger 22/45 is probably his last option and even that is going to be a challenge.
I also get the cost argument, as I've stated already.
I've repeatedly said it'll work more often then it fails, and for someone with a non-specific threat it's probably going to be fine to use a rimfire. I've posted the story before of how my grandmother successfully used a .22 revolver in a self defense situation. My sole point has always been a proper defense cartridge will expand the number of scenarios that can be successfully resolved, and those are the ones were terminal ballistics will matter. When you have a dedicated attacker and you get a marginal hit, a hit at a poor angle, a hit that goes through a forearm first, etc. that the rimfire will be defeated by but a duty pistol or centerfire rifle cartridge would have continued to have enough penetration or resistance to deflection to continue and hit vitals.
Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 10-07-2019 at 10:48 AM.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
This is an eight year old thread, so I don't know what's changed in the intervening years, but it's worth noting that Chuck Haggard does NOT say .22LR was a terminal ballistic equivalent or superior to duty calibers.
OTOH, I believe I've heard @Chuck Haggard endorse Claude Werner's research in this area within it's specific context.
Based on everything I've read and heard Claude say, I interpret him as claiming mouse guns are kind of a Pareto Principle gun. That is, it will solve 80% of the gun problem with 20% of the effort. Are there certain people for which that is very applicable? Certainly. Does it solve every problem? Does it solve the worst problems? Certainly not.
But, like OC spray, a .22LR can solve a lot of problems.
David S.
Fixed it for me.
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
Reply With Quote
