Is the .22LR enough bullet?

[karlmc10]

.22 required the lowest number of rounds to incapacitate an aggressor.

.25ACP

# of people shot - 68
# of hits - 150
% of hits that were fatal - 25%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.2
% of people who were not incapacitated - 35%
One-shot-stop % - 30%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 62%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 49%

.22 (short, long and long rifle)

# of people shot - 154
# of hits - 213
% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38
% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%
One-shot-stop % - 31%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%



.32 (both .32 Long and .32 ACP)

# of people shot - 25
# of hits - 38
% of hits that were fatal - 21%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.52
% of people who were not incapacitated - 40%
One-shot-stop % - 40%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 78%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 72%

.380 ACP

# of people shot - 85
# of hits - 150
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.76
% of people who were not incapacitated - 16%
One-shot-stop % - 44%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 62%



.38 Special

# of people shot - 199
# of hits - 373
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.87
% of people who were not incapacitated - 17%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 55%

9mm Luger

# of people shot - 456
# of hits - 1121
% of hits that were fatal - 24%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 34%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 74%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 47%



.357 (both magnum and Sig)

# of people shot - 105
# of hits - 179
% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.7
% of people who were not incapacitated - 9%
One-shot-stop % - 44%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 61%

.40 S&W

# of people shot - 188
# of hits - 443
% of hits that were fatal - 25%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.36
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 45%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 52%



.45 ACP

# of people shot - 209
# of hits - 436
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated - 14%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%

.44 Magnum

# of people shot - 24
# of hits - 41
% of hits that were fatal - 26%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.71
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 59%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 88%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 53%



Rifle (all Centerfire)

# of people shot - 126
# of hits - 176
% of hits that were fatal - 68%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.4
% of people who were not incapacitated - 9%
One-shot-stop % - 58%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 80%

Shotgun (All, but 90% of results were 12 gauge)

# of people shot - 146
# of hits - 178
% of hits that were fatal - 65%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.22
% of people who were not incapacitated - 12%
One-shot-stop % - 58%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 84%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 86%

 

[Dreamer]

It is because sometimes size plays a significant role.

Just like MOST things in life that matter, size onl plays a significant role when skill and control is lacking... :banana:

That said, my primary carry gun is a .45acp. Sometimes I carry a .22lr or a .25 as a BUG.

I'm not saying that EVERYONE should ONLY carry a .22. What I'm saying is that there is a lot of BS about "appropriate self defense" calibers. What it REALY boils down to is shot placement, confidence, and performance under pressure. If someone is only comfortable with (or due tophysical issues in only ABLE to handle) a .22, then it's WAY better than nothing.

Most BGs who are posing a deadly threat are gong to turn tail when you resent ANY firearm--even before a shot is fired. The stats bear this out. The vast majoirity of uses of a firearm for self-defense in the US do NOT involve shots being fired--the mere presence of a gun in the hands of the victim are enough to stop most attacks.

I always recommend that people carry the biggest caliber they can handle effectively. I carry a Para S-14 in .45acp (13+1) with a spare 15-rd mag, for chrissake...

But if all I had (or all I could handle) was a .22, I would not hesitate to carry it as a self-defense firearm, and I am confident that I could deploy it effectively if needed. That's all I'm saying...

 

[Dreamer]

karlmc10, this is interesting data, and seems to support what I've been saying all along. Where did you get it?

I'd venture a guess that there are two VERY important factors that are not included:

1) most common calibers with LEOs,

2) distance of shooting incident.


I'd also venture that the MAIN reason that 9mm and .40 S&W have such LOW hits-to-stop ratios is because they are the most common calibers used by cops--who are engaged in shootings under extreme strees, with people shooting back (or shooting first) and most cops aren't even that good of a shot.

And I'd further genture that one of the reasons why .22lr has such an astoundingly effective shot-to-hit ratio is that the majority of .22-related shootings occur at distances closer than 2 meters...

 

[HandyHamlet]

It is because sometimes size plays a significant role.

Use whatever cal you want.
What other people choose for personal protection is of no concern.
Refrain from making ridiculous comments you can't back up merely to stroke your own ego. Example:

If you're going to carry, make it AT LEAST.380 in some sort of HP load. Small quick rounds that over penetrate only lead to conscious drugged up BG's still standing and injured bystanders in walmart... both of which make the 2nd Amendment community look mighty silly.

TL;DR Get a single stack 9mm (or bigger) and be done with it

Jake8x7

Sad example...

Woman killed in accidental shooting
By John Hollenhorst
September 27th, 2009 @ 9:55pm

"As they went back to the car, he opened the car door and a .22 caliber revolver fell out. And when it did, it hit the ground and discharged," said Lt. Dave Caron with the Springville Police Department. "Then he looked at her and realized that something was wrong. She kind of lifted her shirt and looked down, and then fainted."

Case was taken to the hospital, where she later died.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=8083006

 

[HandyHamlet]

Jake's assassins...

Israeli Mossad .22 LRS

Posted by Nick Jacobellis. Author Archive »

Beretta Model 70 and 71—special purpose favorites of the Israeli Mossad and sky marshals.



The Beretta Model 70 and the functionally identical Model 71, both in .22 LR, have served with great distinction as the signature terminator pistol of the Mossad, the premiere intelligence agency of the State of Israel. The Beretta 70 was also carried by Israeli Sky Marshals.

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/tactical-weapons/israeli-mossad-22-lrs/

 

[09jisaac]

.22 (short, long and long rifle)

% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38
% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%
One-shot-stop % - 31%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%

.380 ACP

% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.76
% of people who were not incapacitated - 16%
One-shot-stop % - 44%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 62%

.38 Special

% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.87
% of people who were not incapacitated - 17%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 55%

9mm Luger

% of hits that were fatal - 24%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 34%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 74%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 47%

.357 (both magnum and Sig)

% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.7
% of people who were not incapacitated - 9%
One-shot-stop % - 44%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 61%

.40 S&W

% of hits that were fatal - 25%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.36
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 45%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 52%

.45 ACP

% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated - 14%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%

Cite your source next time. I did think you were on to something, until I read the whole article.

You do realize that if you continue reading the author will tell you the problems with his data don't you? The .22 isn't as effective as the data shows, according to the author. 1/3 (almost) people were not incapacitated by the .22. This would be very bad news if you were the one needing to incapacitate the threat.

Just like MOST things in life that matter, size onl plays a significant role when skill and control is lacking.

I'm not saying that EVERYONE should ONLY carry a .22. What I'm saying is that there is a lot of BS about "appropriate self defense" calibers. What it REALY boils down to is shot placement, confidence, and performance under pressure. If someone is only comfortable with (or due tophysical issues in only ABLE to handle) a .22, then it's WAY better than nothing.

I always recommend that people carry the biggest caliber they can handle effectively.

So you are implying that snipers/sharpshooters lack skill and control because they use a .308, the .300 win mag, the .338 lapua, .408 cheytec, or the .50 bmg? Or maybe it is because they need an effective round to send at their targets. Size does not overcome the need for skill, but skill can only reasonably be taken so far.

Shot placement is key, but you can be expected to send a bullet into a vital organ if it stops too soon. And, until it is too late none of us will know how we will react to a defensive situation. A larger caliber give you slightly more room to make a mistake in and still do the job effectively.

But you are right, use the best caliber you can use effectively. I have never said a .22 cannot be used as a self defense tool, I just said it isn't an idea one to use.

 

[HandyHamlet]

, I just said it isn't an idea one to use.

For you.

 

[marshaul]

So you are implying that snipers/sharpshooters lack skill and control because they use a .308, the .300 win mag, the .338 lapua, .408 cheytec, or the .50 bmg?

That's right, all snipers use >.308.

Way to cherry pick.

 

[09jisaac]

That's right, all snipers use >.308.

Way to cherry pick.

Huge difference what I said and cherry picking. Offering exceptions to someone's hypothesis is not cherry picking. I don't need to address all calibers that snipers have ever used in history, I just chose common calibers in modern sniping/sharpshooting.

But while we are on this subject, do you think that snipers can replace any of these calibers with a 5.56 if they weren't lacking skill? Do you know of ANY group of snipers/sharpshooters that use a .22LR for their main weapon? Do you know why most trained snipers use a .30 cal weapon?

I don't know why everyone acts like I am wrong with what I am saying but refuse to disprove any of it. I would love for one to disprove anything I have said here. Karl did better than any of you, at least he came with facts that discredited what I said.

 

[09jisaac]

For you.

Attack the person and not the argument. You have been incapable of making a rational argument from the beginning, I didn't expect much more from you.

Only special, elite groups use the .22lr as anything other than a training weapon. Take a wild guess why, please. I will tell you why, because they usually need rounds with more knockdown power. Are you, too, implying that anyone who prefers a more powerful round is less skilled? I believe many of the elite, who can out shoot all of us reading this, prefers to deal with more powerful rounds than the .22lr. So don't give me that bull that I am unskilled JUST because I prefer not to trust my life (on a regular basis) to a round so underpowered as the .22lr.

 

[marshaul]

"Knockdown power" is a myth. Even a sniper with a .50 BMG is going to have a hard time knocking you down when that bullet tears right through you at 3000 ft/sec.

It's not so much that I disagree with your premise, because I don't. All things being equal, bigger is better. It's more that I disagree with how you're making that point. I don't share all of your contentions along the way.

Problem is, all things aren't usually equal. Frankly, I think carrying a .22 is a great idea. From there, one should learn to handle larger calibers until one can use them effectively. But carrying a .22 is still a much, much, much better idea than carrying no gun, or gun you can barely use.

I disagree with the implication that it's a bad idea to carry a .22, simply because some guns are better.

Frankly, I see plenty of people who would probably be better off with a .22 WMR. At least, until they get some practice.

 

[09jisaac]

"Knockdown power" is a myth. Even a sniper with a .50 BMG is going to have a hard time knocking you down when that bullet tears right through you at 3000 ft/sec.

It's not so much that I disagree with your premise, because I don't. All things being equal, bigger is better. It's more that I disagree with how you're making that point. I don't share all of your contentions along the way.

Problem is, all things aren't usually equal. Frankly, I think carrying a .22 is a great idea. From there, one should learn to handle larger calibers until one can use them effectively. But carrying a .22 is still a much, much, much better idea than carrying no gun, or gun you can barely use.

I disagree with the implication that it's a bad idea to carry a .22, simply because some guns are better.

Frankly, I see plenty of people who would probably be better off with a .22 WMR. At least, until they get some practice.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I do not believe that anyone should be without a gun, if this means that everyone should carry a .22 then that is fine. I was just saying that the .22lr isn't IDEAL for a defensive gun. I am also not saying that there IS an ideal caliber. I would gladly carry 30rd .22 over a 6 rd .380 if they were comparable firearms.

This post is logical and thought out. It is leaps and bounds over a post just stating that I am wrong. Thanks for a sensible reply.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Attack the person and not the argument. .

How the hell is that an attack?

I was pointing out that that was your OPINION and nothing more. And yet you can't even process that. You can't identify your own opinion from facts. Facts which allude you as you provide not a one. From the start you have been unable to show any ability to follow a single thought anyone has presented to you. And you want a debate? That prospect would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Case and point:

Only special, elite groups use the .22lr as anything other than a training weapon.

You mean except for all those people who defend themselves, their family, and homes... As illustrated by the multiple examples posted here which you have no ability to comprehend. If you somehow magically acquire the power to back up what you spout off with facts wake me up.

 

[robert1970]

the 22

probably the 22 has killed more people than eny other caliber around.I just dont think a 22 is a good choice for self defense,but its better than nothing

 

[MainelyGlock]

Why is there so much arguing on this forum? Everybody has an opinion; there is no right and wrong. There is what works for you, and what works for another person, which can be two completely different things. Agree to disagree, and accept the fact that you are no more right with your answer than anyone else is.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Hyperbole. Caliber choice offers no guarantees in life or death. Someone may send a round or rounds into his assailant with a .22. And miss every single time with a .45.

One can find all of the articles they want with which to forward their argument, but the fact remains that you are not going to know if your selected SD caliber and load is going to work until the day comes that you have to use it and even then, you will only know how it worked for that specific event. I stand by my statement.

 

[09jisaac]

How the hell is that an attack?

I was pointing out that that was your OPINION and nothing more.

My apologies with this one. I was tired when I posted it and was combining your comment with that of another poster.

Case and point:


You mean except for all those people who defend themselves, their family, and homes... As illustrated by the multiple examples posted here which you have no ability to comprehend. If you somehow magically acquire the power to back up what you spout off with facts wake me up.

Also I was unclear by my point. I meant only elite militant groups. But you are right, I did not specify that.

I have written many papers and have always been told you do not need to cite "common knowledge".

Do you need me to cite that snipers/sharpshooters commonly use .30 cal+ weapons?
Do you need me to cite that 9mm nato, .40 s&w, .45acp, .38 spl, .357 mag/sig all have more kinetic energy than a .22?
Do you need me to cite that all these listed calibers, in some form, has more penetration that a .22LR in all forms?
Do you need me to cite that all these calibers have a larger diameter, therefore creating a larger permanent wound channel?
Do I need to explain the math and physics involved to show that the bigger the whole usually equates to more rapid blood loss?
Do I need to explain the math involved to show that, just statistically, the larger the bullet is in diameter the great its chances of hitting anything vital increases?

As I stated before, TWO out of the THREE examples you used to cite that a .22LR is suitable for home defense also supported my statement that the .22 does not immediately incapacitate a threat in a high number of cases. I do comprehend what you are saying. You have showed me three examples of a .22 immediately stopping a threat, all of which killed the threat. That is, ultimately, what you always want (the threat to end) but the way it was ended allows other, less desirable, ways it could have ended. Just because a pellet gun has been used to scare off multiple threats does not mean that it is suitable for self defense in other situations with other, more determined attackers.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Why is there so much arguing on this forum? Everybody has an opinion; there is no right and wrong. There is what works for you, and what works for another person, which can be two completely different things. Agree to disagree, and accept the fact that you are no more right with your answer than anyone else is.

Some folks get pretty visceral when their opinions and/or believed facts are challenged. My instinct is to ask those individuals how many people they have shot and can they articulate the incident(s) for the rest of us in order to back up their stance.

Suffice it to say that the one opinion that has permeated this thread that makes the most sense, barring personal experience with extreme encounters, is to carry a gun. I would add to that, to carry the most effective gun with which you can deliver rounds to target consistently, accurately, and confidently when called upon to do so. Be that a .22LR then that's what it will have to be. If it is a more commonly carried SD caliber, so be it. These are personal choices and the fact still remains that one is not going to know if they took the right decision until the time comes to use it.

 

[HandyHamlet]

I have written many papers and have always been told you do not need to cite "common knowledge".

Cite please.

Where I come from, and on this forum, words mean nothing without quotes, facts, sources and links to back up statements. And if you could back up your last examples with fact I would point out they have nothing to do with the thread. The thread is about the effectiveness of the .22 in a defensive situation. Since we have plenty of examples showing people defending themselves successfully with said caliber the answer is yes. Yes the .22 is enough bullet.

the .22 does not immediately incapacitate a threat in a high number of cases.

Once again this is your opinion, unless you cite please.

...all of which killed the threat.

Speak for yourself please. I was trained to stop the threat. Meaning stop the threat. As in the attack is over once I am forced to protect myself. The ultimate outcome has nothing to do with, or measured by "killing". It is all about me still walking the face of the earth for one more day.

....but the way it was ended allows other, less desirable, ways it could have ended. Just because a pellet gun has been used to scare off multiple threats does not mean that it is suitable for self defense in other situations with other, more determined attackers.

Again, this is hyperbole and nothing more. Hyperbole has no place in a debate.

 

[09jisaac]

Cite please.

I shouldn't have to cite common knowledge.

Where I come from, and on this forum, words mean nothing without quotes, facts, sources and links to back up statements.

Once again this is your opinion, unless you cite please.

3/4 cites here support my stance. Or did I forget to tell you that already? I also shouldn't have to cite something that has already been cited in the discussion. You remember the two cites that the threat was able to make it out of the house before they died? This would certainly imply that they were not incapacitated immediately. Then you have the long list of the effectiveness of various calibers. Almost 1/3 of people of the people shot with a .22LR was not incapacitated. That is arguably "a high number of cases." If you cannot keep up with the cites of the discussion then don't keep asking for them.

Speak for yourself please. I was trained to stop the threat. Meaning stop the threat. As in the attack is over once I am forced to protect myself. The ultimate outcome has nothing to do with, or measured by "killing". It is all about me still walking the face of the earth for one more day.

Do you even have a clue what you are replying to and what you are saying? Did I even imply that the best way to stop a threat was killing them? No, I said the threat was immediately stopped COMMA all of which resulted in the threats death. That would read like "The .22LR stopped the threat AND the threats were killed." Meaning they are two separate things. Killing a threat always stops the threat but killing doesn't always stop a threat and stopping a threat doesn't always result in death. So your training in use of deadly force was/is right. But your use of language is off.

Again, this is hyperbole and nothing more. Hyperbole has no place in a debate.

Please explain. I thought the discussion was the .22LR being enough bullet. Since this leaves the question about what it is enough bullet for then I do think it is appropriate to say the .22LR isn't enough bullet to immediately incapacitate/stop a threat in ever circumstance.