Would you rather?

[Hammer059]

So I'm getting rid of my former concealed carry firearm because I can get a Ruger LCR in several calibers that I already own and like to shoot regularly. This brings us to the question:

Would you rather have 8 rounds of .22lr or 5 rounds of 9mm in your pocket carry gun?

I'm really torn as to whether to get a LCR in .22lr or 9mm. I'm pretty confident in my shot placement capabilities, I can shoot both calibers equally well. So assuming each shot landed where I wanted it to, why would I want 5 shots instead of 8, when .22lr will get the job done?

I've heard the argument many times saying "You want a round that will stop the threat immediately, and a .22 won't do that", BUT: If I don't get a good hit, it's unlikely that it would make a difference what caliber it was. If I do hit the right spot/vitals, then it still likely wouldn't matter what caliber it was. See what I'm getting at? I'm not planning for a hollywood shootout or anything, but 5 rounds does seem pretty limiting, especially if I have to defend myself from more than one human/predator.

So - What would you choose and why? I'm not looking to start a caliber war, and I'm not asking to be told what to do. I simply want to hear what others would choose in hopes that it will help me make up my mind. Please share your thoughts!

 

[DeepSouth]

Personally for a carry gun, I'd rather have 5 rounds of 9mm than 20 rounds of 22lr.
Rimfire's just aren't reliable enough for edc in my experience.

 

[Bud0505]

I would prefer 5 rounds of 9mm also. Carry a speed strip with an extra 6 rounds. Personally I carry 5 rounds of .38 special with the speed strip for back up.

 

[Hammer059]

Valid point Deep South, but it would help that this is a revolver and doesn't depend on blowback like a semi-auto in order to function reliably. If a round doesn't go off, I just pull the trigger again. Pretty simple. In my experience, I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever had a .22 round fail to fire… So for me reliability of rimfire ammo isn't a concern, but I can understand how it might be for some.

 

[Hammer059]

Also, name one place where you could shoot someone that it would make a difference to have a 9mm instead of a .22lr…. in terms of stopping the threat as quickly as possible. Both will penetrate the skull, both penetrate over 12" in ballistic gel, both will puncture vital organs… shooting someone in the forearm or similar area isn't going to stop them right away, regardless of caliber.

If it was 5 rounds .22 vs 5 rounds 9mm it would be an obvious choice. But right now I'm leaning towards having 8 chances of stopping a threat instead of 5. In a life or death situation I can't plan on being able to use a speed strip or speed loader.

 

[nettlle]

If whatever I was trying to stop couldn't be stopped with 5 rounds of 9mm an extra 2 rounds of .22lr would be of little or no comfort to me.

 

[Hammer059]

I guess that's a matter of preference then. An extra 3 rounds would be a great comfort to me, especially if there was more than one attacker to defend myself from.

 

[DeepSouth]

Valid point Deep South, but it would help that this is a revolver and doesn't depend on blowback like a semi-auto in order to function reliably. If a round doesn't go off, I just pull the trigger again. Pretty simple. In my experience, I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever had a .22 round fail to fire… So for me reliability of rimfire ammo isn't a concern, but I can understand how it might be for some.

If was going to carry a rim fire it WOULD be a revolver, no doubt about that. So yes, that is somewhat of an advantage but my experience carrying a rimfire comes from years ago when I carried a NAA and I'd say about 25% of the time I went to shoot it I'd have a failure to fire. Somewhere I put it together that it was because of sweat and no holster, fresh ammo always worked fine.

That experience has lead me to CCW = centerfire. But hey, if that's not a concern for the it doesn't matter.

Edit:

Also, name one place where you could shoot someone that it would make a difference to have a 9mm instead of a .22lr…. in terms of stopping the threat as quickly as possible. Both will penetrate the skull, both penetrate over 12" in ballistic gel, both will puncture vital organs… shooting someone in the forearm or similar area isn't going to stop them right away, regardless of caliber.

A co worker of mine recently had jury duty for a murder trial, one of the witnesses had been shot in the head with a 7.62x39, it did not penetrate his skull.
Point is you simply don't know what a bullet will do in any given situation. Are their times when a 22lr fails to penetrate something important that a 9mm would have? Most certainly.

 

[Hammer059]

Well spoken

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I've heard the argument many times saying "You want a round that will stop the threat immediately, and a .22 won't do that", BUT: If I don't get a good hit, it's unlikely that it would make a difference what caliber it was. If I do hit the right spot/vitals, then it still likely wouldn't matter what caliber it was. See what I'm getting at? I'm not planning for a hollywood shootout or anything, but 5 rounds does seem pretty limiting, especially if I have to defend myself from more than one human/predator.

And what happens when you do get a good hit on an internal organ and your attacker is a dog, or other animal, or a person who is drunk or on drugs, and doesn't really register what has just happened to them? Answer: They keep coming.

A 22 is certainly better than nothing, and shot placement is extremely important, but choosing a 22 puts a HUGE amount of pressure on the shooter to hit EXACTLY in the right place. That's going to be a lot harder to do when you have a major adrenaline dump into your system than you think. With a larger more powerful cartridge you increase the likelihood that a less than ideal hit will do sufficient damage to stop the attack, and a larger hole will speed up bleed out times if its a bad shot.

You yourself said you are confident in your ability to hit where you want to, so if that's true, why would you put extra pressure on yourself to have to do it repeatedly to create a sufficient wound to stop an attack? It seems if you can hit where you want, a heavier and wider slug would benefit you more. I'd recommend a 357 or a 45 in that case.

The only time I'd ever recommend someone choose a 22 for defense is if that person absolutely can not handle recoil or maintain control of a center fire gun. Otherwise, choose a more efficient cartridge.

 

[Hammer059]

If I'm waiting for someone to bleed out, unless I'm using an axe, they're going to have time to continue attacking me regardless of which caliber I use.

What you said could be flipped around: If someone is confident in their ability to hit where they shoot, why would they need a larger caliber? Having 8 shots means LESS pressure to hit with each one. You make it sound like all self-defense situations involve just one assailant, whether it's a dog or human. All things being equal, obviously I'd take a larger caliber. But 8 rounds compared to 5 is a pretty big difference to me. There's not very many places someone could be shot where having a larger caliber would be a deal-breaker, and I don't plan on aiming for the head. Point well taken, though

 

[kdunn]

Hammer059,

the LCR is also available in a 22 magnum with a 6 shot capacity. That would be my choice. More power than the 22 LR and 1 more round than the 9mm offers.

 

[Coyote3855]

Given your choices, I would rather have 5 rounds of 9 mm. But I choose to carry 15 rounds of 9mm in my Glock 19.

 

[Hammer059]

I also have a 9mm Glock, but that isn't going to fit in my pocket for my method of concealed carry…

Good point about a .22mag but from a short barrel having a magnum wouldn't make a significant difference… certainly not enough to justify having two less rounds and spending more for ammo

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Well, it sounds like you have your mind made up, so do what you're comfortable with. I don't agree with your logic though.

Hope none of us ever have to test it.

 

[Smokin'Joe]

I have both a .22 LR and a .38 spl LCR. I find myself carrying .22 more often than the .38. Not really sure why. It just feels right.

 

[WestKentucky]

Lcr or bodyguard revolver in 22 mag. Changes things a lot. 7 rds of mag or 5 of 9mm...I'm going mag. If you don't have s 22 mag already disregard that whole thought.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Also, name one place where you could shoot someone that it would make a difference to have a 9mm instead of a .22lr…. in terms of stopping the threat as quickly as possible. Both will penetrate the skull, both penetrate over 12" in ballistic gel, both will puncture vital organs… shooting someone in the forearm or similar area isn't going to stop them right away, regardless of caliber.

My wife used to work in the ER for many years. Many times gunshot victims were brought in.

She said those shot with .22 and .25s mostly walked in unless shot in the brain (but alot of them shot in the head with low powered guns tended to have the bullets skid around the skull right under the skin.)

As the caliber went up, so did more and more have to be carried in.

The only ones that were almost always carried in were those shot with shotguns.

No, a .22 ain't no 9mm. People hopped up on drugs, nut jobs, drunks, or those who are really really MAD, tend to take much more punishments.

A .22 tears a much smaller hole and do far less damage than a 9mm.
Pick the 9.

Deaf

 

[USAF_Vet]

Not a self defense story, but we had a raccoon problem killing our chickens. The wife kept watch one night, and sure enough, this big, fat, well fed coon (probably weight 40+ pounds) comes sauntering out of the woods and climbs the tree near the coop. She had the .22, and plugged round after round into that coon until he finally fell out of the tree. She shot him close to 30 times (granted, he'd have eventually died and suffered more than he needed to) before he gave up the ghost.

Given the choice between the .22 rifle and the 9mm carbine, I'd have chosen the 9mm carbine for the bigger wound cavity.

This is really just another form of caliber war, so I'll leave it at that.

I'd rather carry 5 rounds of 9mm. I currently carry 8 rounds of 9mm in my EDC, so it's not too far of a stretch. I'd opt for an LCR in .25 ACP (if they exist) over the .22LR just for the sake of centerfire reliability over rimfire.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

I feel like doing a James T. Kirk and rigging the Kobayashi Maru here.
Generally I feel like sacrificing round size for number of rounds is a wise thing. Reason is that though everyone is always chanting 'shot placement', few are practiced enough, training enough and cool enough under stress to rely on that skill when both the pressure and adrenalin are high.
But constraining the problem to 5x9mm or 8x22lr seems unduly limited so I want to re-rig the test question. I don't think either are prudent. Surely there is room somewhere on your body for a S&W 686+ (7 round) 38 special shortie, or move on to a small semi-auto like a Shield. Or even a N-framed 8 round .38/.357 with a 2.625" barrel. The test question just seems unnecessarily constrained.
(I do of course respect your choices but thought an intervention was in order...)
B

 

[Hunter2011]

What are the statistics where you live? Are the average number of shots during a home robbery etc not something like 2-3 shots? I've seen this number before somewhere so it might not be applicable to all cities. But I myself would not choose a .22 over a 9mm. 5 shots is plenty if you might never need more than 3 as per statistics. But what happens when you need more than 5? If you might need more than 5 of 9mm, then 8 shots of .22 would also not be enough for the same situation. So go for the 9mm

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I'd to with the 5 shots of 9mm. First it's simply much more powerful and effective than .22 LR. Seconds, the centerfire LCR has a great trigger but the rimfire LCR does not- very very stiff and heavy, necessary to ensure reliable ignition of rimfire rounds.

Lastly, related to what USAF_Vet said, I did have to pop a racoon a few years back. One round of 9mm (147gr Federal Hydra-Shok) dropped him like a bad habit.

 

[bannockburn]

Have to go with 5 rounds of 9mm. over 8 rounds of .22. If more ammo is needed I would carry a couple of extra moon clips. If I were going to carry a .22 for CCW this would be my first choice: a Beretta Model 70S. Admittedly not very revolver-like but incredibly reliable and very accurate.

 

[DeepSouth]

you yourself said you are confident in your ability to hit where you want to, so if that's true, why would you put extra pressure on yourself to have to do it repeatedly to create a sufficient wound to stop an attack? It seems if you can hit where you want, a heavier and wider slug would benefit you more. I'd recommend a 357 or a 45 in that case.

Beautiful logic !

What you said could be flipped around: If someone is confident in their ability to hit where they shoot, why would they need a larger caliber?

Because larger calibers generally do more damage, and do it more consistently. That translates to threats generally getting stopped faster, and more consistently. But I understand all carry is a compromise, example: I don't carry a .500 S&W

On a side note, and I don't mean it offensively at all but you sound over confident in your ability to hit a moving target that may or may not be shooting back at you while you are high on adrenaline, and (hopefully) worrying about hitting bystandars, and possibly protecting your family members all at the same time.
Maybe you just come off over confident and really aren't, again I mean no offense.

As others have stated, it really sounds like you have your mind made up, so I'll shut up now.
I'm sure you'll be happy with your choice, and probably 98% of the time that's all that matters.

 

[HexHead]

Have to go with 5 rounds of 9mm. over 8 rounds of .22. If more ammo is needed I would carry a couple of extra moon clips. If I were going to carry a .22 for CCW this would be my first choice: a Beretta Model 70S. Admittedly not very revolver-like but incredibly reliable and very accurate.

If you're going to go with that, you'd be much better off with the .32 Tomcat version.



As to the OP, the entire premise is full of fail.