Self defense .22rimfires?

[Bad Ninja]

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but ditch the .22 and get a good knife. Even .22 magnum is suspect from a tiny little barrel, and .22 long rifle is a downright joke in my not so humble opinion. And that's not even saying anything about the reliability of rimfire, which is coming from two different directions in your case (one from the unreliable feeding and another regarding the unreliability of rimfire primer ignition).

Or better yet get a Keltec P32 and load it with full metal jacket or solid copper. At least then you have reliable feeding and primer ignition, plus there's enough penetration to make it to the vitals. My guess is it's lighter and more compact than the bobcat, and if not then it doesn't lose out by much. You can put a clipdraw on it and conceal it inside the waistband of a pair of gym shorts.

I heard this once at a range.
I said "I'll put my knife in one pocket and my NAA .22 in the other..pick which one you would rather me draw.."

If you had a 2'' .22lr and I had a knife (and I was really determined or high) you would lose 99 times out of a hundred and I would probably walk away with minor injuries. Same goes for a baseball bat, tire iron, etc., and maybe even just my bare fists.

Your best chance of stopping the threat is scaring them off with it, which is a valid argument don't get me wrong. The fear of being shot is a strong motivation to run for most people. But you do get that occasional high or downright crazy person who doesn't mind getting shot. A 2'' .22lr is a bluff, and you just hope no one ever calls it. Your chances of using it to actually incapacitate someone during a real world fight are very slim at best.

I wouldn't ever suggest a .22lr as a preferred SD round.

However, shot placement is key.

I'll take that bet.
A knife isnt scary after the attacker takes a .22 cci stinger to the face.

 

[grampajack]

I heard this once at a range.
I said "I'll put my knife in one pocket and my NAA .22 in the other..pick which one you would rather me draw.."



I wouldn't ever suggest a .22lr as a preferred SD round.

However, shot placement is key.

I'll take that bet.
A knife isnt scary after the attacker takes a .22 cci stinger to the face.

It doesn't matter how well you place the shot if it doesn't penetrate far enough, and in a straight line. If it comes up a quarter inch short or veers off course you're screwed. There's a high probability of that happening with .22lr, and a very low probability of it happening with .32 ACP.

And don't think shooting someone in the face with a .22 will stop them from cutting you into little pieces, or just beating you senseless and putting that little revolver where the sun don't shine. A bullet cannot inflict enough pain to end a fight. Adrenaline alone will see to that, and anyone willing to mess with an armed victim is probably high as hell to boot. If you don't put a bullet in their heart or head you haven't done anything to help your situation.

And I would always pick the NAA, regardless of what I was or wasn't armed with. You would get one shot off, if you were lucky, and the chances of you seriously hurting me are very slim, assuming you even hit me in the first place. The only time I would ever pick the knife is if I had a gun (a real gun) and was standing a good distance away from you.

 

[Bad Ninja]

It doesn't matter how well you place the shot if it doesn't penetrate far enough, and in a straight line. If it comes up a quarter inch short or veers off course you're screwed. There's a high probability of that happening with .22lr, and a very low probability of it happening with .32 ACP.

And don't think shooting someone in the face with a .22 will stop them from cutting you into little pieces, or just beating you senseless and putting that little revolver where the sun don't shine. A bullet cannot inflict enough pain to end a fight. Adrenaline alone will see to that, and anyone willing to mess with an armed victim is probably high as hell to boot. If you don't put a bullet in their heart or head you haven't done anything to help your situation.

And I would always pick the NAA, regardless of what I was or wasn't armed with. You would get one shot off, if you were lucky, and the chances of you seriously hurting me are very slim, assuming you even hit me in the first place. The only time I would ever pick the knife is if I had a gun (a real gun) and was standing a good distance away from you.

I'll respectfully disagree.
I do not think you could advance after a well placed face-shot with a .22lr, much less "beat the snot" out of me with a hole in your forehead.
Let's be real here.

No one is claiming a .22 is optimal or even preferred for SD but all this hyperbole isn't being honest.


http://www.gunsandammo.com/blogs/de...ine-man-uses-22-for-defense-in-home-invasion/

 

[Shawn Dodson]

That is a fluke that is not going to happen with any regularity whatsoever.

It exemplifies the point that what you hit is more important than what you hit with. None of Trooper Coates' .357 Magnum five bullets hit anything vital and didn't stop his assailant from fatally shooting him afterward.

It's not a matter of the bullet being lead or round nose...

Bullet shape and construction, along with angle of impact, are indeed major factors that contribute to deflection.

...it's a matter of it being light and slow, a bad combination if you're trying to get to vitals.

A bullet's sectional density is a greater factor with regard to penetration performance than its mass.

 

[CPLofMARINES]

CCI Stinger

 

[DJW]

I know of a young man who attempted suicide with a .22 lr. and shot himself in the forehead. Somehow the bullet took a wild bounce off the skull and went in a different direction leaving a nasty but far from fatal wound. Stuff happens...............

 

[CPLofMARINES]

If you must

 

[CPLofMARINES]

For SD that is...

 

[a_canadian]

Yeah, that's another funny thing in so many SD discussions, the lack of mention of face shots. If a guy is right up close as are most attackers, how bad a shot does a person have to be to miss head shots? Don't answer that. I've seen enough people missing paper head-sized targets at shooting ranges from 7 yards to know that many shooters are not marksmen by any stretch of the definition. In such cases they really ought not to be using a gun in public places, where they are all too likely to injure or kill innocent bystanders. Such incidental shootings among gangsters are all too common, these twits being inept shooters just like so many would-be self-defenders. When calm, I can group sub-1" at ten metres consistently from a .22". When stressed by a 6 minute mile run and some pushups and situps my groups approximately triple in size. Even if they quintupled in a scary SD situation, at under 5 metres I'd have no trouble putting a string of shots into a target half the size of an adult face. Seems to me that ought to be a requirement for CCW (which is generally illegal in Canada anyway, so admittedly a moot point in my case).

 

[grampajack]

I'll respectfully disagree.
I do not think you could advance after a well placed face-shot with a .22lr, much less "beat the snot" out of me with a hole in your forehead.
Let's be real here.

No one is claiming a .22 is optimal or even preferred for SD but all this hyperbole isn't being honest.


http://www.gunsandammo.com/blogs/de...ine-man-uses-22-for-defense-in-home-invasion/

No hyperbole on my part. If you thought anything I said was in jest you are sadly mistaken.

Again, oneoffs aren't evidence. That situation could have ended a number of different ways, and there's nothing in that article to even begin to suggest that .22lr from a 2'' barrel has enough penetration to reliably put someone down.

We all know .22s kill lot of people annually. We all know a .22 can kill a person. But we also know for every case like that there's a case where a .22 should have killed someone and didn't. Like the guy shot in the head above, or the carjacker shot five times in the chest at point blank. Such things happen regularly with .22lr, and would almost never happen with a real defensive caliber.

Yeah, that's another funny thing in so many SD discussions, the lack of mention of face shots. If a guy is right up close as are most attackers, how bad a shot does a person have to be to miss head shots? Don't answer that. I've seen enough people missing paper head-sized targets at shooting ranges from 7 yards to know that many shooters are not marksmen by any stretch of the definition. In such cases they really ought not to be using a gun in public places, where they are all too likely to injure or kill innocent bystanders. Such incidental shootings among gangsters are all too common, these twits being inept shooters just like so many would-be self-defenders. When calm, I can group sub-1" at ten metres consistently from a .22". When stressed by a 6 minute mile run and some pushups and situps my groups approximately triple in size. Even if they quintupled in a scary SD situation, at under 5 metres I'd have no trouble putting a string of shots into a target half the size of an adult face. Seems to me that ought to be a requirement for CCW (which is generally illegal in Canada anyway, so admittedly a moot point in my case).

Why would you try to shoot someone in the face? You can just as easily hit them in the head, which isn't easy at all. We're talking about hitting a moving target here, not punching holes in paper at the range. The bad guy isn't just going to stand stock still and wait for you to shoot him.

 

[a_canadian]

...Like the guy shot in the head above, or the carjacker shot five times in the chest at point blank. Such things happen regularly with .22lr, and would almost never happen with a real defensive caliber.

To be fair, in the case of the video above, it's actually a 'two-off' when you consider that a 'real defensive caliber' was used by the unfortunate policeman, a .357" in fact, and five times, with significant but unfortunately inadequate impacts from each bullet. So a double-fluke. Rarely to be repeated, especially in light of your opinion that mere statistical evidence of superior numbers of fatalities owing to .22lr impacts is of no meaning.

Why would you try to shoot someone in the face? You can just as easily hit them in the head, which isn't easy at all. We're talking about hitting a moving target here, not punching holes in paper at the range. The bad guy isn't just going to stand stock still and wait for you to shoot him.

Yes, hence my rather generous quintupling of group size in my suggested scenario with an attacker 5 metres distant. In actual fact, most would-be assailants close the gap to under 2 metres during an assault. At that distance one would have to be incompetent to an absurd degree to miss a head-sized target. But as I said, the majority of shooters are exactly that bad at shooting.

Why would I aim for the head? Eyes, sinus cavity, mouth, throat, all make excellent disabling targets. How much fight would you have left in you after even one .22lr round to the centre of your face? What aboit two? And of course CNS starts with the brain, which happens to fill a significant percentage of the region just behind those features. One obviously ought not to aim for the forehead, which is after all the toughest part of the front of the skull. Of course if one were squeamish about so injuring the face of a violent criminal, well, I suppose using a heavier calibre for clothing-puncturing shots to the guy's belly fat are a less distasteful option. Not really something I'd take into consideration when confronted with potential loss of my life however. Bad guy gets what he gets, I don't really care if his funeral is closed casket.

 

[grampajack]

To be fair, in the case of the video above, it's actually a 'two-off' when you consider that a 'real defensive caliber' was used by the unfortunate policeman, a .357" in fact, and five times, with significant but unfortunately inadequate impacts from each bullet. So a double-fluke. Rarely to be repeated, especially in light of your opinion that mere statistical evidence of superior numbers of fatalities owing to .22lr impacts is of no meaning.


Yes, hence my rather generous quintupling of group size in my suggested scenario with an attacker 5 metres distant. In actual fact, most would-be assailants close the gap to under 2 metres during an assault. At that distance one would have to be incompetent to an absurd degree to miss a head-sized target. But as I said, the majority of shooters are exactly that bad at shooting.

Why would I aim for the head? Eyes, sinus cavity, mouth, throat, all make excellent disabling targets. How much fight would you have left in you after even one .22lr round to the centre of your face? What aboit two? And of course CNS starts with the brain, which happens to fill a significant percentage of the region just behind those features. One obviously ought not to aim for the forehead, which is after all the toughest part of the front of the skull. Of course if one were squeamish about so injuring the face of a violent criminal, well, I suppose using a heavier calibre for clothing-puncturing shots to the guy's belly fat are a less distasteful option. Not really something I'd take into consideration when confronted with potential loss of my life however. Bad guy gets what he gets, I don't really care if his funeral is closed casket.

You are overconfident in your own abilities. There are good reasons why everyone trains to hit center mass instead of trying to go for head shots. Get a real gun and train to empty it into the center mass of the target. If you're doing anything else then you're likely just playing ninja.

Even police and military units are beginning to drop the Mozambique drill (two to the chest, one to the head) because of abysmal failure rates of even good shooters to make accurate head shots on a moving target. It looks really good when you're punching holes in a stationary piece of paper, but apparently doesn't work so well against a live target unless you're a truly elite shooter. If you're in Delta Force and you shoot all day long for a living, fine, go be a ninja. But if you're an average Joe who makes it to the range once a week, headshots are probably not in your repertoire.

 

[a_canadian]

Well like I said, being Canadian means I don't get to be either. Situation won't arise for me to demonstrate whatever prowess I have with a pistol. Besides which, we don't get a lot of muggings here. Rare enough that they make the news, the odd time they happen.

 

[Bad Ninja]

You are overconfident in your own abilities. There are good reasons why everyone trains to hit center mass instead of trying to go for head shots. Get a real gun and train to empty it into the center mass of the target. If you're doing anything else then you're likely just playing ninja.

Even police and military units are beginning to drop the Mozambique drill (two to the chest, one to the head) because of abysmal failure rates of even good shooters to make accurate head shots on a moving target. It looks really good when you're punching holes in a stationary piece of paper, but apparently doesn't work so well against a live target unless you're a truly elite shooter. If you're in Delta Force and you shoot all day long for a living, fine, go be a ninja. But if you're an average Joe who makes it to the range once a week, headshots are probably not in your repertoire.

We WERE talking about you taking a .22lr point blank to the face and then disarming a 200 lb metal worker and beating the snot out of him.

I personally disagree with your envisioned outcome and I hope you never have to test that theory of yours.

 

[kBob]

Some years back Dr. Gary Kleck at Florida State University (at the time recognized as one of the world's best Schools of Criminology) did a study of self defensive out comes. He looked at thousands of reports from the National Institute of Justice. Later an article about his work appeared in the American Rifleman. The NRA went so far as to produce full color slick handouts of that article only for distribution especially for the use of people teaching the personal protection course back before it got split into two courses.

Among the techniques of self defense MOST likely to result in the serious injury and hospitalization of the defender was the use of a knife for self defense.

Something to at least think about.

I personally know folks that have gotten out of tight spots by using a knife successfully for self defense, even to the point of an attacker being pretty much "gutted like a trout", but statistically, across the board, when used by the average person, a knife is, as Dr. Kleck found, more likely to result in the defender being injured than many other methods of self defense.

If run on sentences were good for self defense, I would be the safest guy in the world!

-kBob

 

[Kleanbore]

. In actual fact, most would-be assailants close the gap to under 2 metres during an assault. At that distance one would have to be incompetent to an absurd degree to miss a head-sized target.

Hitting a "head sized" target may not help much at all. Only the destruction of the cerebral cortex can reasonably be relied upon for a quick stop. That's a small, small, target. Try hitting it when the attacker is moving at five meters per second.

 

[jimbo555]

22lr is not the best choice but look at what 6 rounds of 22 from a cheap revolver did to a trained uzi carrying detail in the Reagan attempted assassination.

 

[a_canadian]

Another drastical

22lr is not the best choice but look at what 6 rounds of 22 from a cheap revolver did to a trained uzi carrying detail in the Reagan attempted assassination.

Another statistical anomaly, obviously. Probably shouldn't have happened. NORMAL bad guys can take hits from .22lr all day and just keep on coming, because apparently bad guys are in full berzerker mode and don't notice holes in their bodies, don't get discouraged by being shot. I think grandpa is watching too many action movies, where the characters can take a barrage of bullets and just smile crookedly and keep coming.

 

[MedWheeler]

Regarding "flukes":.. when it comes to one's overall self-safety plan, there are so many "flukes" that must occur before the caliber of one's defensive weapon even matters. Several of them must all align just right before the defender's gun is even deployed, and more must play out in many cases before it's fired. Even after it's fired, there are even more "unlikelies" that have to exist for the first shots fired to be unsuccessful at ending the threat, whether any of them hit their target or not.

This does not apply to LEOs, who must seek out trouble instead of trying, like we do, to be invisible from it.

This is why we hear so few stories of unsuccessful DGU incidents (involving any caliber firearm) compared to the estimated quarter of a million-to-2 million DGU incidents that take place each year. When we do hear of one, we are rarely provided with any solid evidence that the outcome would have been successful had a different-caliber weapon been employed.

I choose something bigger because that's what I acquired first. I'm into guns for more reasons than just personal safety. I also trained with bigger for professional reasons. I see little reason to "go down" other than concealment issues, and small guns in .32 and .380 make going down to a .22 something I do not need. I wish my wife would carry even a .22 or .25.

But, if another person carries a smaller gun than I do, and still maintains a thought-out plan for its use (as well as avoidance of the need for its use), I'm certainly not going to disparage them or belittle them, especially if I'm not familiar with their level of expertise or training.

While I'm working on it, I think I'd be more effective against a street punk who's carrying a 9mm while I'm carrying a quality .22 than I would be against a recent-combat veteran who's carrying a quality .22 while I'm carrying a .380 or .32 (the two small guns so many are saying the OP should be considering.) I don't think I'd be much use against either if I were carrying only a knife, even a good, fixed-blade one.

All that being said, I am usually carrying a 9mm and a second, smaller gun (usually a .32.) But I do shoot both my Taurus PT22 and PT25 better than I do that little P32.

 

[grampajack]

We WERE talking about you taking a .22lr point blank to the face and then disarming a 200 lb metal worker and beating the snot out of him.

I personally disagree with your envisioned outcome and I hope you never have to test that theory of yours.

No, we were talking about a hypothetical attacker. Who may very well be a 300 lb linebacker on PCP. You ever see the video of that 100 lb woman on PCP throwing around that cop like he was a ragdoll?

Some years back Dr. Gary Kleck at Florida State University (at the time recognized as one of the world's best Schools of Criminology) did a study of self defensive out comes. He looked at thousands of reports from the National Institute of Justice. Later an article about his work appeared in the American Rifleman. The NRA went so far as to produce full color slick handouts of that article only for distribution especially for the use of people teaching the personal protection course back before it got split into two courses.

Among the techniques of self defense MOST likely to result in the serious injury and hospitalization of the defender was the use of a knife for self defense.

Something to at least think about.

I personally know folks that have gotten out of tight spots by using a knife successfully for self defense, even to the point of an attacker being pretty much "gutted like a trout", but statistically, across the board, when used by the average person, a knife is, as Dr. Kleck found, more likely to result in the defender being injured than many other methods of self defense.

If run on sentences were good for self defense, I would be the safest guy in the world!

-kBob

You ever see the kind of knives used most often? Let's say you gathered up all the pocket knives from about a thousand random folks, how many of them do you think would be at all suitable for self defense? Also, what were the attackers armed with? Guns? Blunt force weapons? How many of the victims even had time to get their knives out before the attack began? In those cases that were unsuccessful, would having had a .22lr Bobcat or NAA changed anything? In the cases that were successful, would replacing the knife with a .22lr hypothetically help or hurt the victim's chances?

Like I said, there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. But the fact remains that a good fighting knife is a formidable weapon, and a .22lr, especially from a tiny barrel, is not. In an actual attack, pepper spray might do more to incapacitate the assailant than a .22lr pocket gun. It's simply not a viable defensive weapon.

Another drastical

Another statistical anomaly, obviously. Probably shouldn't have happened. NORMAL bad guys can take hits from .22lr all day and just keep on coming, because apparently bad guys are in full berzerker mode and don't notice holes in their bodies, don't get discouraged by being shot. I think grandpa is watching too many action movies, where the characters can take a barrage of bullets and just smile crookedly and keep coming.

Nope, watching surveillance footage of actual shootings and comparing it with statistics. Most gunfights do not end with the assailant being incapacitated. Most of the time he takes off like a jackrabbit after being shot multiple times at close range, and if he has the sense to get to a hospital he will almost always survive.

Don't talk to me about who's watching too many action movies. You're the one who thinks you're going to get face shots with an NAA when someone is rushing you simply because you're a bad arse at punching holes in a stationary piece of paper.

ETA: I've seen pictures and videos of people missing half their faces and still perfectly ambulatory.

 

[MedWheeler]

a.canadian writes:

NORMAL bad guys can take hits from .22lr all day and just keep on coming, because apparently bad guys are in full berzerker mode and don't notice holes in their bodies, don't get discouraged by being shot. I think grandpa is watching too many action movies, where the characters can take a barrage of bullets and just smile crookedly and keep coming.

These two sentences either contradict each other, or state that what happens in "action movies" is realistic (which it isn't.)

Statistically, "normal" bad guys never find out if they can "take hits from .22lr all day and keep coming" because they break off the engagement and flee if they can. This happens far more often than are law-abiding people raped or robbed by offenders packing a chestful of .22 caliber bullets. That makes the former scenario the "norm", and the latter one the "exception" (or "anomaly.")

 

[a_canadian]

These two sentences either contradict each other, or state that what happens in "action movies" is realistic (which it isn't.)

Statistically, "normal" bad guys never find out if they can "take hits from .22lr all day and keep coming" because they break off the engagement and flee if they can. This happens far more often than are law-abiding people raped or robbed by offenders packing a chestful of .22 caliber bullets. That makes the former scenario the "norm", and the latter one the "exception" (or "anomaly.")

Sorry if my intent was unclear; the first half of that paragraph was sarcasm, directed at grandpa. The latter part was more directly addressing his apparent fantasy world, wherein PCP-crazed 300lb assailants can be stopped effectively with a knife. Or apparently a sword, reading between the lines where he disparages most knives. The facts don't support his knife-is-better-than-mouse-gun theory.

In actual knife engagements, most often the person being stabbed powers on thanks to adrenaline for at least 20 seconds, more than ample time to shoot or stab or stomp their intended target. Talking about bad guys here. Good guys getting stabbed more often than not tend to stand around looking confused for a while, not understanding that they've been stabbed until they collapse due to the drop in blood pressure. If I were seriously confronted with an either/or choice of being stabbed or being shot with a .22lr mouse gun, I'd take the knife. May well die anyway but my chances would be improved. Unless of course I was wearing five or six layers of winter clothing and it was a torso shot. In that case I'd have to see the tip profile of the knife before making the decision.

p.s. - not sure where the above 'drastical' came from... perhaps some weird phone auto-correct thing.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Sarcastically I've heard a guy was shot with 20mm Oerlikon (.80 cal anti-aircraft cannon) and survived.
I would suggest a 40mm Bofors (1.58 inch AAC) for bad guys but someone somewhere has heard of someone surviving a 40mm wound.

Seriously though, when I choose to go armed for self-defense it is a .38 Spl revolver in summer or .40S&W pistol in winter.
If feloniously attacked while carrying a .22 for hunting game, I would use it defensively. My woods walking pistol is a Ruger MkII 6" barrel and I have tested penetration through wood blocks with various ammos; I would not laugh off getting shot with a .22 (I would hie me to the ER pronto) but it is not my first choice as a defensive weapon.

 

[Bad Ninja]

No, we were talking about a hypothetical attacker. Who may very well be a 300 lb linebacker on PCP. You ever see the video of that 100 lb woman on PCP throwing around that cop like he was a ragdoll?



You ever see the kind of knives used most often? Let's say you gathered up all the pocket knives from about a thousand random folks, how many of them do you think would be at all suitable for self defense? Also, what were the attackers armed with? Guns? Blunt force weapons? How many of the victims even had time to get their knives out before the attack began? In those cases that were unsuccessful, would having had a .22lr Bobcat or NAA changed anything? In the cases that were successful, would replacing the knife with a .22lr hypothetically help or hurt the victim's chances?

Like I said, there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. But the fact remains that a good fighting knife is a formidable weapon, and a .22lr, especially from a tiny barrel, is not. In an actual attack, pepper spray might do more to incapacitate the assailant than a .22lr pocket gun. It's simply not a viable defensive weapon.



Nope, watching surveillance footage of actual shootings and comparing it with statistics. Most gunfights do not end with the assailant being incapacitated. Most of the time he takes off like a jackrabbit after being shot multiple times at close range, and if he has the sense to get to a hospital he will almost always survive.

Don't talk to me about who's watching too many action movies. You're the one who thinks you're going to get face shots with an NAA when someone is rushing you simply because you're a bad arse at punching holes in a stationary piece of paper.

ETA: I've seen pictures and videos of people missing half their faces and still perfectly ambulatory.

So granpajack, you think 300lb linebackers on PCP can take a .22lr stinger point blank to the face?

Again, I dont recommend a .22 as a SD round but all this "a knife is better than a .22" is BS unless you are Rambo or a Ninja.
Most people dont have Ninja knife fighting skills.

This over a knife any day.

 

[grampajack]

So granpajack, you think 300lb linebackers on PCP can take a .22lr stinger point blank to the face?

Again, I dont recommend a .22 as a SD round but all this "a knife is better than a .22" is BS unless you are Rambo or a Ninja.
Most people dont have Ninja knife fighting skills.

This over a knife any day.

View attachment 235042

Why for crying out loud??? That thing is twice the size of a Glock 43. You could be carrying a compact 9mm just as easily, and with a higher capacity.