.22 for self defense

[Timthinker]

I believe all of us agree that the larger and heavier .38 Special is superior to the .22 long rifle cartridge when fired from a handgun. In this instance, the .38 provides for better penetration and tissue damage, two factors critical for handgun "stopping power". Having said that, I would like to make a few comments about the use of the .22 for self-defense.

If I were to select a .22 firearm for self-defense purposes, I would prefer a semi-automatic carbine/rifle equipped with a reliable high capacity magazine. Why? As other have noted, the .22 long rifle cartridge is not the best round available for self-defense. I do not think I need to belabor that point. So, to get the best ballistic performance out of a .22, one must select a firearm with a longer barrel to gain greater velocity and improved muzzle energy. This argues in favor of a carbine/rifle or a longer barreled handgun such as the new Ruger Charger. Next, a semi-automatic action is preferable since it allows for rapid firepower capabilities. Finally, a high capacity magazine provides an individual with additional rounds if they are required in a self-defense situation. I hope this lengthy explanation is useful to the OP.


Timthinker

 

[moph759fl]

Taurus all Titanium .357MAG 2" Snub @ 15oz. Mine is most always in my pocket, very easy to conceal. I keep it loaded w/.38SPL+P

 

[22-rimfire]

My personal opinion is that the 22 would be just fine for self defense if you are looking for a low recoil gun. The Smith 317 would be my choice as well.

Of the light weight 38's, I like the 642 or 442 Smith. I have a 442 as my pocket carry gun. It is pretty snappy with 38spl+P's, but doable. The 38 is in general a better choice for self defense due to it being center fire, has a larger bullet, and probably better penetration.

So, unless you just want a 22, I'd opt for the Smith myself.

Note: Many put down the 22LR as an adequate self defense round from a handgun. I think it is adequate if that is what you own. But when you are buying something special for the purpose, I'd go with the 442/642 in 38spl even if you stoke it with regular 38spl rounds.

Another option would be the Ruger LCP pistol in 380ACP. I hear they are pretty reliable.

 

[goon]

I just helped a friend buy and function test her first gun - a Walther P22.
It works pretty well with most ammo and perfect with CCI mini-mags.
It isn't a big gun in a real caliber and it isn't really what I'd want to carry.
But it is light and small, the recoil is light, and she can handle it.
So...
It is the right gun for her.

 

[tube_ee]

A bit of confusion here...

as 22LR is far inferior to 22WMR out of any gun.

So there's a bit of apples 'n oranges at play here.

I'd take a 22 Magnum over a .25 ACP.

Now, if the question was .22 Magnum vs 38 Special in a snub-nosed revolver, It's an easy decision...

The biggest caliber you can shoot well in the smallest gun you'd want to carry.

For me, that's the .38 Special in a lightweight snubby. But the .22 Magnum is a darned fine kit-gun cartridge. A 4 3/4" Single Six or a 4" double-action .22 WMR will serve most needs that one might encounter afield, if not hunting with the handgun.

And I'd bet that a 22 Magnum to the chest will recalibrate the intentions of damned near every would-be robber or rapist on earth.

--Shannon

 

[theNoid]

I agree with what everyone has said as well...the 22lr will suffice if that is all you have and you are well practiced with the gun and high-stress situations. Shoot the 22lr has probably killed more people in violent crimes than any other caliber would be my guess. The 22mag even better ballistically and woundly speaking. Is woundly even a word? IS now...HA!!! But if buying a gun specifically for SD and CC, then the lightweight, small 38 sure seems the way to go. Or as at least one person has mentioned, the biggest/bestest caliber vs smallest, lightest gun combo that YOU can shoot well.

Noidster

 

[cliffy]

Everything less than .45 ACP is playing games with your life

HOWEVER, if a .22 LR pistol comes to hand in a desparate sitiuation, USE CCI VELOCITORs as a first line of defense. All ammunition is NOT born equal. A .22 rimfire firearm is not the equivalent of any .45 ACP, but IT can save one's life. I'm sure I could develop a .380 Auto load to stop most threats, but I've not yet found the incentive to do so. Since I am over two-hundred pounds, I realize that if I was extremely MAD, I'd be damned hard to stop. Anything twixt .22 LR and .45 ACP would be a crap-shot as a MAN-STOPPER. cliffy

 

[Carl Levitian]

Andy, since you already have a compact .357 in the Ruger, why not get a compact .22 as a trail gun. That way you have one of each. We have a 317 with the 3 inch barrel and adjustable sights, and its very surprisingly accurite. Way more accurite than my modle 60 S&W .38. The thing with a .22 revolver is, that with bulk box ammo from the 'mart its cheap as peanuts to shoot, giving you alot more practice thats easier on the hand than a airweight .38 is going to be. I had a lightweight .38, and sold it off because it was a chore to shoot. Noticably more difficult to shoot accuritly than my all steel model 60.

Also with a .22 revolver as a trail gun, you can carry some shorts with you if you come across a nice plinking spot, and don't want to alert everyone in a 2 mile radius of you.

In short, the 317 will give you a more accurite gun, thats easier to shoot, cheaper to practice with, and usable in more places due to low noise report.

As for a self defence situation, a 317 loaded up with CCI's will do. I seriously doubt you are going to run into the mythical 250 pound crack addict while hiking in the woods, and there ain't too many people around that can take 8 CCI hollow points in the center of mass and still give you trouble. Yes a .38 is better, but a .22 used by somebody who has practiced alot with it is nothing to sneeze at either. It will stop people like Gary Hilton.

Ask around and see if someone you know has a 317 for you to try. They are very nice guns to take on a hike.

 

[DMZ]

Andy, since you already have a compact .357 in the Ruger, why not get a compact .22 as a trail gun. That way you have one of each. We have a 317 with the 3 inch barrel and adjustable sights, and its very surprisingly accurite. Way more accurite than my modle 60 S&W .38. The thing with a .22 revolver is, that with bulk box ammo from the 'mart its cheap as peanuts to shoot, giving you alot more practice thats easier on the hand than a airweight .38 is going to be. I had a lightweight .38, and sold it off because it was a chore to shoot. Noticably more difficult to shoot accuritly than my all steel model 60.

Also with a .22 revolver as a trail gun, you can carry some shorts with you if you come across a nice plinking spot, and don't want to alert everyone in a 2 mile radius of you.

In short, the 317 will give you a more accurite gun, thats easier to shoot, cheaper to practice with, and usable in more places due to low noise report.

As for a self defence situation, a 317 loaded up with CCI's will do. I seriously doubt you are going to run into the mythical 250 pound crack addict while hiking in the woods, and there ain't too many people around that can take 8 CCI hollow points in the center of mass and still give you trouble. Yes a .38 is better, but a .22 used by somebody who has practiced alot with it is nothing to sneeze at either. It will stop people like Gary Hilton.

Ask around and see if someone you know has a 317 for you to try. They are very nice guns to take on a hike.

You make some good points Carl. I often carry a snub .357 and a small .22 in my back pack. But there were many times I carried only a Ruger MK II and never felt underarmed (until I had a nasty little encounter with a black bear).

But, I can not recall ever hearing of a armed hiker in the PNW, getting molested or killed. There are a good deal of tragic stories of unarmed hikers, mostly women, being kidnapped, brutalized, and/or murdered, over the years. I am retired US Forest Service, so I have some personal knowledge, and even some personal experience with, such incidents. I think most of those could have been prevented if the victims had been armed, with most anythingthing.

 

[Webbj0219]

Ive heard an assassins prefered method of killing is a .22 shot to the back of the head. If you can shoot an attacker in the back of the head with it, its a guranteed instant kill. But in the chest, which is alot more likely is a different story. Even hitting the heart isnt going to drop them everytime. Think its the brain or spinal cord that are the only guaranteed intant stoppers. So other than that the bigger and deeper the hole the better your chances anywhere else on the body.

Ive also heard the .22 pistol was the weopon of choice for the special millitary men that explored the tunnels in vietnam. The tunnels where so small they could usually only send in one person at a time to clear it out. Shooting a gun inside a dark cave just big enough for one person to crawl through would have destroyed their hearing. And it would be even more dangerous to go in with earplugs on, cause their hearing was their most important sense in these tunnels. So they had .22 pistols with built in silencers. They found these to be plenty effective in fighting theyre way through these tunnels. But these men where also well trained in hand to hand. So they probable just used the .22 to tenderize their enemy a bit before using their knife to finish the job.

 

[Carl Levitian]

Thank you, DMZ.

Sometimes we just have to examine what we really need vs the gun magazine fueled fantacies.

As a senior citizen who has spent a lifetime camping, backpacking, canoe camping, and hiking, I've yet to encounter a drug crazed horde of bikers, or killer zombies in any of the national/state parks I've been in in most of the continental U.S.

On the only two times I encountered someone up to no good, a warning shot from a S&W model 63 kit gun sent them running, and on the other time on a remote trail in Yellowstone an agressive black bear got a snoot full of Fox labs pepper spray that sent him yowling off.

I guess at 67 I'm an old fart now, but I don't understand the change in gun enthusiasts over the last 20 to 25 years. It seems like if its not got the word magnum after it, or it has not been used by the latest fad Holliweird movie shoot em up, it ain't no good. It seems as if the gun world is as rife with fads as any Paris fashion show.

I had the good fortune to grow up in an age where one could carry a gun without a permit. My dad lived his whole life with one single gun. His Old Colt Woodsman he bought new in 1937. He carried it on hikes and campouts in a plain brown leather Hunter brand holster, and it did everything from putting a few squirrels in the stew pot, to defending his family in a picnic ground just outside Front Royal Virginia in 1952. No, it wasn't a one shot stop, it was a three shot stop, of a large drunk redneck type with a large hunting knife who wanted money for more beer and didn't care how he got it. The shootie did not survive the encounter.

Too many new shooters get into a center fire before really learning how to shoot well. I see them at the range all the time. A good accurite .22 will do most of what you need to do, and you'll learn to be a better shot by shooting more. A new shooter should not be usiing a lightweight .38 for a very long time. In fact, a new shooter should spend at least a year with a nice accurite Ruger or Smith before getting a centerfire.

I seriously doubt in the lower contenental U.S. if you are going to encounter anything on the hiking trail that can't be handled with a good .22. If you want criminal types, you have to go to a suburban shopping mall parking garage.

Then you use a .38.

 

[Marcus5aurelius]

I wouldn't want a 22 for that purpose, if you were serious about defense, 9mm is probably the minimum you'de want. Just preference but why take a chance?

 

[mbt2001]

Listen, if the .22 is the best you can do on a concealment level (I live in Texas and during the summer there ain't much that you can conceal) then go with it. But if you have an option to carry something bigger, you should consider it seriously. I carry NAA .22 and Lorcin .25's on walks and as back up guns. SOMETIMES even as primary guns, but again, that is only when what I am wearing gives me not a lot of other options.

The Bersa .380 or CZ 82 / 83 models are great guns, accurate and firing a rounds that should take care of business. They are both small enough to conceal but large enough to handle.

Revolvers are nice in rural areas, areas and / or where you have layered garments, but I have never been able to get one to conceal as well as an auto. I do prefer revolvers though, but you can't always have what you want.

Sometimes we just have to examine what we really need vs the gun magazine fueled fantacies.

+1 on that... I am tired of hearing, "DO YOU WANT TO BET YOUR LIFE ON A (cheap gun, small gun, whathaveya)" My universal response is that in the final analysis, I am betting my life that a $0.01 primer will pop and a $0.05 spring will function. No matter how expensive the gun, it boils down to those variables.

Ive heard an assassins prefered method of killing is a .22 shot to the back of the head.

"Assassins" would prefer a .22 because it is relatively quote, the bullets usually fragment making ballistics a pain and they are usually small and light. Gangsters use them because they are cheap, I doubt they have thought of the above... But it is interesting that few people pay any kind of lip service to the record of the .22 the .25 and the .32 in the Urban street war that we have been fighting since the 60's.

 

[goon]

In rereading your OP, I think a pocket sized .38 makes a lot of sense.
But... Can you handle the recoil of much .38 Spl out of a gun that small and light? I've owned a couple and I don't think they're terrible but they are also not nearly as gentle as .38's out of a full sized revolver.
The .38 would be a better choice for defensive use IF you can handle it well.
But if you shoot a .22 better you'd probably be better off to go with that.

Also, IMO you are best off to stick with RELIABLE, High velocity solids. The .22 may not penetrate far enough with expanding ammo but it probably will with solids.

 

[johnnylaw53]

Seem to me you are already getting a good ccw weapon with the sp 101. It also makes a fine trail gun. If you looking for something that you can carry at times when the ruger too big you might want to look at the naa mini's. My carry weapon is a 642 and my default is a NAA 22lr for those times i cant hide the 642 or don't want to. While working dope quite awhile ago lots of times the NAA was all I had on and never felt bad about it since it was that or no weapon at all. Of course the back up team normally had shotguns so i wasn't completely putting all my trust in the 22.

Be safe

 

[Double Naught Spy]

My opinion? If I am going up against an attacker with a gun, I hope that it is just a .22 because I know my chances for survival and getting myself to a hospital are much greater than if he uses something bigger like a .38 spl.

For that reason, a .22 lr is not a good choice for defense in my book.

 

[woad_yurt]

HOWEVER, if a .22 LR pistol comes to hand in a desparate sitiuation, USE CCI VELOCITORs as a first line of defense.

Cliffy: I disagree. I took Velocitors and Aguila Supermaximums and shot them both from the same 2 guns (4" and 6" barrels) and the same distances (14 inches) into 2x4 stacks and the Aguilas penetrated just a bit more each time. However, out of a rifle, the Velocitors did better. Also, at the rifle range, the Aguilas drop more and don't hit as hard at 100 yards as do the Velocitors.

 

[22-rimfire]

I have read every post and find this thread interesting. I feel a 22 revolver is adequate for self defense. Good guy or bad guy, no body wants to be shot with a 22. I don't care if you weight 250 lbs, I don't want somebody peppering me with up to 8 rounds of 22LR at close range. The 22 will put them down. I would choose CCI HV solids versus HP's.

Once they go down, it is up to you to decide what you want to do next... run, finish the job, call police and hope they take their good old time getting there while you are holding the gun on the perp....

Chances are you will be faced with the same choice whether you have the 38 or 22LR. So which one is better?

Nobody knows what they will do in a crisis for sure without extensive training. For me, I would probaly be in shock and just hold the gun on them until the police arrived. It is one of the reasons that dialing 911 is so good. Easy to remember.

You have the SP101 which you can shoot 38's in it. A 642/442 will kick more. It won't be as much as the gun in 357 however. Shoot that revolver and make your decision about recoil and your ability to shoot a gun with that recoil well enough for self defense.

I would probably go with the 642/442 choice which I did. Why? Bigger hole and I know I won't practice much with that gun. It just isn't that much fun to shoot compared to other handguns. Some say it's painful. But how good a shot do you have to be to hit center of mass at 5 yards?

BUT, you need a 22 also. Anyone who shoots needs one. Should it be a easily concealable self defense sized weapon or something designed to shoot pleasurably? I lean toward a steel framed revolver with a 4" barrel to start unless you run onto a really nice 6" double action revolver you can't live without. Which one? Probably a 4" Colt Diamondback or Smith Model 18 for me. The current 617 is a real nice 22 revolver.

Once you have that, I'm willing to bet that after you shoot it a bit, you will feel comfortable with a 22 for self defense (not a war). Why? Because you hit what you aim at and you shoot it more. That takes you back to the Smiith Model 317 again in my opinion. So, do you want to choose the 317 as your second gun or get it as your fourth gun?

I still carry my 442. But I would be perfectly comfortable with the Smith 317 in my pocket. The harder choice is what barrel length to choose once you are at that decision point. You'll probably hit better with the 3". You will never know until you shoot a while. It is a personal choice.

 

[Webbj0219]

After doing some research I would consider the .22 Long Rifle the minimum for a lethal round. So yes I would consider a .22 lr sufficient for self defense. While I wouldnt consider a .25 acp. It preformed considerable less than the .22 lr.

So for my personal rating of self defense rounds in the most common calibers. It would start with .22 lr. Followed by .38 spcl.. Then 357 Mag.. and finally the King would be the .45 acp.. These would be the main four rounds for a handgun I'd choose from. I wouldnt consider the .50 cal or the .44 mag or the .25 acp practical. The .50 and .44 mag just seemed over kill, with too much kick. Ive heard that if your in a shoot out with a .44 mag and you miss, by the time you bring the gun back down, reacquire the target and fire again your enemy could peg you with 2 or 3 shots from a .22 lr.. The .25 acp. seemed too under powered, didnt quite penetrate to what ppl would consider lethal depths consistantly. The .22 lr penetrated just over what would be considered lethal. So the .25 acp is probable good for hunting varmint, taking care of the squirel problem, etc.. But not against a 200 lb animal. If you can handle a .45 acp proficiently, then do it. Man this is got to be the perfect bullet. penetrates just enough without being overkill and endangering others. Has about the same Kick as a .357 mag. If you could get the highest median ratings, like on penetration, wound channel size, kick, muzzle velocity, ft pounds exerted by the bullet. The .45 acp gets all the highest marks on one side with the least sacrifices on the other. Must have been a genius who designed this round.

I dont claim to know everything. This is just what Ive collected in my own limited research. Id encourage everyone to do their own. But in my opinion the .22 lr is at the minimum of what Id consider for self defense. I know some out there would start at the .38 spcl for the minimum. Me personally didnt see the .22 lr doing too much worse then the .38 spcl. So Id recomend starting with trying out the .45 acp, maybe borrowing a friends gun at the range to see if you can handle this round. If not then try out some .38 spcl's before you buy anything. and finally the .22 lr, if thats what your most comfortable with.

Oh yeah I almost forgot about the 9mm, this is probable a middle class round, pretty decent.

 

[mljdeckard]

Understand, NO PISTOL ROUND is adequate for self-defense. All you are doing is increasing the odds. Some rounds do much more for this than others.

I agree with Ayoob. .22s are "nose guns". Meaning that, your best chance with a .22 is to shove it into his nose and fire.

Look at this clip. This guy was hit repeatedly. I never heard what the gun was, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it wasn't a .38. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SFTi7fFmJc

If I had a loved one who was serious about SD/HD, and all they had was a .22, I would do what I had to to get them something more substantial, even if it's a used SP101 or Glock 19. I would not feel comfortable imagining them popping 40 gr bullets and hoping for the best. I would never tell them, "Oh sure a .22 is fine, a gun is a gun." Use what you have, but when you're talking about your life, decide what you can REALLY handle and afford.

 

[22-rimfire]

I agree with Ayoob. .22s are "nose guns". Meaning that, your best chance with a .22 is to shove it into his nose and fire.

Funny. Mouse guns etc... The nose enema could be arranged after they fall on their butts are are screaming for momma.

 

[Webbj0219]

Well a rifle is in a whole different class. the aproxamate pressure at impact of a .22 lr is 2,875. a 357 mag. is 5,480. The minimum for being able to penetrate to lethal depths is about 2,000 pounds of force an inch. A .25 acp only has 1,420. So this round most likely wount even reach a vital organ. for rifles, a .223 was rated at 32,250. and a .300 winchester mag at 50,828. Thats like 10 times the Pressure of a .357 mag handgun.

Other than penetration there is also wound channel size, temporary wound channel, what organ you hit if any, heard the stomach or intestanal area is about the most painful. where the lungs are about the least fatal. there is probable a thousand differant variables to what would be a lethal shot. So with a handgun the bigger caliber makes for better odds. For a handgun, something that already needs a bit of luck.

 

[Pilot]

Of course a .38 Spl is better than .22 LR for SD. However, on occassion I will carry a little Beretta M21A in .22 LR. Its better than nothing and at the very least may scare the BG enough for me to get away. Its not a fight ending weapon, but a get to safety weapon. Most of the time I do carry at least a 9MM however.

 

[Gunfighter123]

You post a good question and have got about all the good advice to be had.
Would I trust my life or loved ones with a .22 ???
Well --- I would rather have a .38. And I would rather have a .357 then a .38. BUT then again , I would REALLY rather have my 10mm or .45acp. --- AND I would REALLY , REALLY rather have my 12ga. or .308 M1A etc. etc.

In the last 50 years or so , more people were killed in the US by the .22rf then .38s or .45s etc.

Seeing as you have the Ruger SP , I think I would buy a good .22 revolver --- ammo is cheap and trigger time is what makes a person deadly.

Any gun is better then none -- even a single shot. I HAVE NEVER heard of anyone that was shot with a .22 saying they wished it was a bigger bullet !!!!!

Again , if you REALLY expect trouble , use the largest firearm you can - but as has been said " every shooter NEEDS a .22"

 

[gazpacho]

1) I've never felt a DA trigger pull in a J-frame 22lr (including clones) that I liked. For reliable ignition, they have all required heavier hammer springs than 38s.

2) In considering whether a round is adequate for self defense, I also consider if a single shot have a reasonable chance of stopping or detering a charging and determined Pit Bull. I figure, given the speed of the dog, I am liable to get off maybe 2 shots from the time I decide to use force. Then assume only one hits Center-of-Mass but not Central-Nervous-System. Would 22lr do the job? I doubt it. Would 38sp? IMO probably, if it were at least a 158gr non +P round.

The argument for 8 or 9 22lr shots being adequate has 2 flaws that come to mind. First, accurate aimed fire takes time, say 1 second per shot for us normal humans. That's 8 seconds, a long time. Count it out. Second, it assumes a single assailant.

I carry a S&W 340PD loaded with Speer Gold Dot 135gr +P 38 special Short Barrel ammunition. That is the most powerful round I can shoot with acceptable speed and accuracy. My second ammo choice would be 38sp 158gr LSWCHP non+P. I chose the 340 because I couldn't find a 342 (10oz 38sp/discontinued). At some point in your carry experience your brain will decide, "that gun is too heavy, and I don't need it for a short little trip to where ever." Yes, the 642 only weighs 3oz more than the 340, but from the other perspective, it weighs 25% More.