380 acp vs 22 magnum?

[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.ne...r-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.