Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Airlite backup: .38 vs. .22 Magnum

  1. #21
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    A new Federal .22 LR load that gets to magnum velocity from a 2" barrel albeit by skinnying down to 29 grains; a solid flat point. I think the mousegun defense loads should emphasize solids and stop trying to chase expansion. However it's not clear to me this penetrates much more than conventional .22LR

    https://www.guns.com/news/2021/04/15...eral_22lr&.com


    Name:  12244759464053898545.jpg
Views: 443
Size:  55.1 KB
    Last edited by JHC; 04-23-2021 at 07:09 AM.
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais

  2. #22
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Southern NV

    NPE/BUG thoughts since 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by JAD View Post
    I generally support the position of doc Roberts:
    https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....0-ACP-vs-38-Sp

    380 is inadequate to the task of self defense. .38 special is barely acceptable as a BUG or NPE. Anything smaller is a poor choice, particularly if a weapon chambered in .38 having the same (exact) form factor is available.

    .32 and .22 don’t have a seat at the table.
    I'm curious if you realize that post you linked is a collection of posts written before 2012; DocGKR has weighed in on NPE/BUG selection since then. Have you read any of those more recent posts? The introduction of the G42 has changed things since it is both reliable and shootable. I interpreted reliability/shootability were the biggest drawback to a .380 NPE/BUG pre G42 as the terminal ballistics of .38 snub w/target wadcutters & .380 ball are both marginal through barriers.

    The way I interpret what DocGKR has posted more recently: 9mm or better is still recommended for NPE/BUG, but for whatever reason, if a 9mm or better is not an option, the floor is a .38 snub with target wadcutters or G42 with appropriate ammo.

    DocGKR in 2018:

    While I would far prefer a 9 mm, a .380 FMJ in a G42 would be my bottom line minimum defensive handgun, given that having a firearm available is always a better option than not having one when tragically involved in an unexpected lethal force encounter.
    Additional:

    In the past, lot's of .380 pistols have had reliability and functional issues, especially after being carried in a pocket full of lint or on an ankle--in those scenarios, a lightweight J-frame was a better option.

    For a dedicated BUG and for folks that cannot handle the recoil or operation of .38 or 9 mm, a G42 shooting ball (including Lehigh XP) is acceptable; a poorly expanding .380 JHP like XTP or Hydra Shok will also work.
    The .38 wadcutter will cut a larger diameter wound track than a .380 FMJ; the revolver can be fired from a pocket, but the G42 is typically easier to shoot and more rapidly reloads--call it a wash. Other less reliable and harder to shoot .380's don't match a J-frame--as always, YMMV...
    But Rule 1 applies—having a .380 Auto beats not having a firearm. So if a sub-compact .380 is what you must go with due to size issues or limitations on limb function, so be it. Just make sure your .380 Auto handgun is reliable.
    Last edited by SiriusBlunder; 04-26-2021 at 06:16 AM. Reason: grammar

  3. #23
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    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.
    When I was a kid, I was a wannabe groundhog assassin armed with a .22. I never went pro because those little bastards absorbed 40gr bullets like sponges. I'm sure that colors my feelings on trying to stop humans with .22. Still, at some point you just have to say, "I wouldn't do that" and let people follow their own path.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

    Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •