Posted on 06/04/2012 3:38:53 PM PDT by marktwain
Wade writes:
Foghorn, my Dad is planning on getting his CCW license, and is already thinking about the handgun to use. But he says that he is going to get a .22lr or something similar, saying that ‘accuracy is more important than force’. He has hunted his entire life, and is an extremely good shot with both rifle and pistol, but I think he is too cocky when he says “all you need to do is shoot someone in the head and the party’s over”. How can I convince him that he may not be able to hit what he’s aiming at in a high-stress situation, and that he needs to look into a more versatile caliber?
I’ve got some bad news — your Dad isn’t completely wrong. And, because I have nothing better to do today, we’re going to open up that whole can of worms . . .
Your dad is completely correct in that a properly placed .22lr round will take a man down for good. Despite the relative thickness of the human skull a typical .22lr round does have enough power to successfully penetrate and cause sufficient damage to kill a human from close range. And on the more fleshy bits of a human it is perfectly capable of inflicting some damage.
The issue we run into with the .22lr round, and one that you seem to have correctly identified, is that when you don’t hit a particularly useful organ it doesn’t do much immediate damage. The best example I can think of in this case is the wild hogs of Texas and the gulf coast, which have a nasty tendency to survive and escape if they’re not hit with a large enough caliber or in the right spot. Humans posess a similar ability to survive extreme punishment and damage without actually dying.
We could sit here all day long until we’re blue in the fingers discussing the relative merits of the different calibers, but the best solution is always the same: cold, hard data.
About a year ago Greg Ellifritz over at Buckeye Firearms concluded a pretty darn impressive analysis of gunfight data recorded over a 10 year period, the total count of incidents included in his analysis topping 1,800. It doesn’t give us a statistically significant look at murders in the United States, but the data is sufficiently large and normal to give us the ability to use his results to compare the effectiveness of different calibers.
Admittedly 9mm does take up a disproportionate percentage of the observations and .32 data is a little skimpy, but its good enough for our purposes. So, using his data, let’s take a look at how well the lowly .22 round does compared to other handgun calibers (and shotguns, just for comparison sake).
First things first, let’s see what percentage of observed gunfights ended in a fatality for the person on the receiving end.
The graph is pretty clear on this: .22 caliber firearms are just as deadly in a gunfight as any other handgun caliber. In fact, it beat the average (far right). Surprisingly, every caliber that begins with a 4 (.40 S&W, .45, .44 Mag…) performed worse than the .22 caliber firearms in terms of putting the opponent in the dirt for good.
The next thing I thought was interesting was the metric about how many rounds it took to incapacitate the opponent.
In case you were wondering, the smaller the bar in this example the better the round performed. And, in terms of performance in putting the opponent down, only a shotgun beats the .22 round. I get the feeling that in reality you can chop a round off the 9mm’s numbers, as the double tap has been trained into almost every shooter these days and probably means the numbers are artificially high.
Greg also includes something about a “one shot stop” percentage, but I don’t agree with his methodology on it and is not presented here. Go read up on it at the original site if you’re interested.
There’s a small fly in the ointment: the percentage of incidents where the opponent was not incapacitated.
Another chart where large bars are bad, and here the mouseguns aren’t doing so hot compared to the big boys. However, I get the feeling that this chart is somewhat deceptive with its results. Newer shooters have a tendency to get the smaller guns with smaller calibers, and also have a tendency to not be as well trained as those carrying the larger rounds. So, instead of this chart being an argument against the lowly .22 round I see it as an argument against poor training. As we saw with the last chart, IF you can hit the guy there’s a great chance he’s going down. But the issue is hitting him, and incorporating some of the accuracy results from the original study seems to back up my suspicions.
So, in short, what’s the answer? Is a .22 a good self defense round? According to the numbers, it looks to be among the best in terms of stopping the threat. Add in the fact that it’s lightweight, low recoil and uses firearms that are ridiculously easy to conceal and you can see where a .22 caliber firearm for concealed carry might be a winner.
So, in the immortal words of HAL, “I’m sorry Wade, I can’t do that.” According to the best numbers I could find, I can’t come up with a valid reason to convince your Dad to move to a higher caliber. Not only is it an effective round, but its size and weight means that your Dad is more likely to actually carry the gun instead of leaving it at home because it was too inconvenient to bring along. And, as we all know, its often the mere presence of a firearm that can save one’s life.
Does that mean I’ll be swapping out my Wilson Combat 45ACP 1911 for a Derringer? Hell no. But it doesn’t stop me from looking at some of those mouseguns for the hot Texas summer…
If you shoot a .22 into a head it’ll make soup of the brain.
I favor the .22 and .380. You get 6-8 shots per weapon plus carry extra pre-loaded magazines. Close groups are key.
You do realize that you have caused someone, somewhere to have a seizure, right? :-)
Then I hope someone doesn’t look at the factory websites for:
Thompson/Center
Hi-Point
Sig Sauer
Kahr Arms
FNH USA
EAA
and surely many more.
I was going to expalin why I carry 147 gr hollow points (not +p) in my Glock 23/19, but the smartass comments show me there is little interest in the discussion, just one-upping.
I learned long ago to smile and agree with the gun counter blowhards, then go about my business. Once in a while, though...
*grins*
Again, how many wrongs make a right?
No, it does not. Words have specific meanings that can be critically important concerning safety issues.
"To say “.45 ACP” has absolutely no possibility of being misconstrued and is in fact still used quite widely."
To believe that the .45 ACP, 45 Auto, .45 Auto+P and Cartridge Ball, Caliber .45, M1911 are the same cartridge because their dimensions happen to be similar is an irresponsible misconstruement of a high order. Each has a different maximum pressure specification. Three of those cartridges were/are pressure tested with entirely different units and techniques whose units are not interchangeable.
You seem to be advocating a violation of the first rule of firearm safety. Every carton of ammunition manufactured by a SAAMI member incorporates some form of the warning, "Use this ammunition ONLY in firearms marked and chambered for use of this cartridge."
Read the headstamp, stupid! If your firearm is marked "45 ACP" then that is the ammo you should use. As an aside, virtually none of the gunwriters or gun nuts in general seem to be aware that the U.S. military has NEVER chambered ANY of their firearms for either the 45 ACP or 45 Auto. Not the 1911 series pistols, not the 1917 Revolvers, not the Thompson SMG's, not the Reising SMG, not the Liberator Pistol and not the M3 (Grease Gun) SMG's. ".... I don't feel any need to nitpick others...."
I corrected my kids inappropriate grammar even though I full well understood what they were trying to communicate. It is a responsibility of the educated to help raise the levels of others, especially when safety issues are involved. So yes, I will point your irresponsible misinformation posted on this forum.
"Only someone chock full of themselves would insult another person's intelligence"
I didn't insult your intelligence, of which I have little input to base an opinion. I did point out your lack of knowledge about the subject of which you wrote, because of the safety issues involved.
"You might know more about firearms than I do..." Yes
"....you are incredibly unpleasant to talk to...." Only because you came to a factual discussion unarmed
If it comes to survival, you can easily carry a couple thousand rounds of .22LR plus some clothing and food.
If comes down to urban warfare the .22LR might be the best round you could have!
Good article. I might add, a .22cal should be one of the first tools in a preppers bag.
Warning: Do not shoot 45 Auto factory ammunition in the following firearms:
Taurus PT1911 
Kahr P45
FNP45T
EAA Witness 45
Check those headstamps, stupid!
It's the headstamp,stupid!
Good bye.
I always wished for a .22 pistol with centerfire dependability, a jacketed bullet for cleanliness and penetration, more velocity so it didn’t drop so fast, and a magazine that didn’t feel like I was threading a needle.
Enter the FN FiveseveN
Ta Dah!
I want one. Badly. But at my age, I shouldn’t be buying more guns. Particulary since I have guns I’ve never fired before. But, oh, man, the Five-SeveN (just caught on to that last cap in the name) looks like it’d be a lot of fun!
Note that manufactures list ACP, ACP +P, etc.,yet that same ammo is listed as .45 Auto elsewhere.
Read the headstamp, stupid! If your firearm is marked "45 ACP" then that is the ammo you should use.
Indeed, so why would a loud mouth, know it all, tell me otherwise when I referred to .45 ACP? A little bit of knowledge and arrogant people do not mix well.
"....you are incredibly unpleasant to talk to...." Only because you came to a factual discussion unarmed
As visually demonstrated for you several times now, and oddly admitted by yourself. You are wrong in stating that .45 ACP is wrong to use. All that you've actually added is that there is more than one .45 designation. Thanks for stating the obvious Sherlock. And I'm pretty certain that the reason you are so unpleasant concerning this, is because you are generally unpleasant. Get a grip.
No one was having a technical discussion,but sense you started one and are wrong, note that .45 ACP and .45 Auto are used interchangeably and both have a max pressure of 21,000 psi. No one anywhere has ever damaged a firearm by shooting .45 Auto in a gun marked .45 ACP, or vic versa.
Why don't you go haunt some trapdoor shooters and blow a gasket telling them not to fire modern .45-70, or cruise Gunbroker and remind everyone that the 7.62 CETME chambered Mausers shouldn't be fired with .308. I'm certain you would still be annoying, but you might at least serve a purpose.
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq8qHBMeCiw
Others can prattle about questionable ballistics for the 5.7 round, but this guy is popping gummy bears at ten yards with one.
That kind of accuracy can make a spitball lethal.
Perhaps it would help you to answer this question.
If “.45 ACP” is a non-existant, obsolete cartridge/term, why are so many firearm/ammunition manufactures listing and marking their firearms for it and further stating that the .45 ACP and .45 Auto are the same cartridge?
a. They are stupid and can’t read headstamps
b. They are pushing a dangerous product
c. They didn’t realize that SAAMI officially designated the cartridge .45 Auto back in the 1920s
d. They undersand that .45 ACP is common usage and identical in application to .45 Auto, and further understand that “ACP” is what most people prefer.
What about M2 Ball versus .30-06? How can I be firing both in my Garands? Let’s not even think about shooting .38 SPL in a .357 right, what would the headstamp police say?
Since you were also incensed at the thought of using a “foreign” term for an American product. It might interest you to know that the A-51/P-51 had the American name “Apache” before the British came along and named it “Mustang”, after which the name took and even the older A-51s and P-51As were called “Mustang”. There is also the curious issue of whether the A-10 is a Thunderbolt II or a Warthog.
Now its clear that if you are correct, then the entire firearms/ammunition industry is incorrect and millions are in great peril. You could continue to point out how wrong I am, but wouldn’t your time be better spent going after the manufacturers? They probably have know idea how smart you are, but I’m sure they will change everything once they hear from you.
LOL! You could have so much fun with that gun, it's ridiculous. And that guy's proving it.
I would really love to have one.
Too bad about the cost of ammo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.