How Lethal Is A .22 ???

[RunningOnMT]

I don't think anyone here was advocating using a .22 for self defense. The thread had more to do with the potential lethality of a .22 LR. The video showing the penetration capability of the .22 @ even a rather long range makes me inclined to rethink my opinion of the potential of the caliber. Certainly, given the variety of calibers out there, it would seem rather foolish to choose a .22 for self defense. However, a .22 may be all someone owns. Would they be better off throwing it at an intruder? I think not.

[3/2 STA SS]

If thats all I had I am aiming at the skull/eyes/nose-anything to inside that skull.

[JLA]

also gotta remember Black Hawk Down is a movie.. Things happen in hollywood that dont happen in real life. Kinda hard to not know youre hurt bad when a 55 gr bullet traveling 3300 fps enters your chest cavity and makes a smoothie of your vital organs.. Your body kinda dont have a choice but to shut down regardless of how much dope is coursing thru your bloodstream.

[Twicepop]

I just read a small piece about using a .22LR weapon for defensive purposes. The arcticle said that it is not a caliber that can be counted on as a stopping round, unless a head shot is made. It also said that those shot and not stopped go on as if nothing has happened to them, and then they just die rapidly. Shot placement is more important than what you shoot them with, a .22 or something larger. The .22 you have, is better that anything you don't.


those who beat their guns into plowshares, will plow for those who didn't

[CJ_56]

I know the .22 is lethal. I was responding to people talking about using it for SD. For one thing the OP mentioned using it for SD in the first post. And posts #7 and #15 for example seem to suggest it's a choice for SD. Obviously it's better than a sharp stick. But is it better than a sharp knife? I'm not so sure. Maybe.

I really don't mean to step on any toes. If I did I apologize. I just don't think anyone should be thinking a .22 is a good SD weapon. It's ok but a .45 ACP is a lot more ok. So is a 9mm or a .40 S&W. Those are the rounds chosen by our military and police to defend themselves and us. There's a reason they choose those calibers.

BTW Black Hawk Down might be a movie but the representation of how those guys ignored wounds is well documented in all sorts of situations. Most people have seen examples personally. I have. I saw a guy with 8 cops taking him on that couldn't feel a thing as they went after him. He just kept on fighting. Obviously he had no chance but that didn't stop him. And a person in that kind of a stupor is very apt to ignore a small caliber wound. I just referenced the movie because most of us have seen it. But I could have mentioned how a near 70 year old ex-actor got shot in the chest with a .22 and didn't notice it for a good while. The bullet was very near his heart but he didn't even realize he had been shot. His name was Ronald Reagan.

BTW just what is the point of wanting to know the "lethality" of a round if you're not going to use it for SD? The video has a ham wrapped up in jeans. I didn't know pigs wore Levi's. Or maybe it's a Murder For Dummies video.

Yes a .22 will most certainly kill "if" the right conditions are in play. If you stick a gun to the back of someone's skull and fire into their brain stem chances are they will die. You can kill a freaking walrus like that if you can catch one asleep so it won't squash you as you get behind it. But aside from SD I can't see any other reason for even asking this question. If there is one feel free to inform me. I understand curiosity is always in play but I would guess that wasn't the whole reason for this thread. I could be wrong. I doubt it.

I just hope people understand that SD should be done with a bigger caliber. I consider the people on this board to be my friends and I wouldn't want bad things to happen to them. We all share an interest and usually a point of view. We need all the voters we can get come November too. So eat at Chick-fil-A liberals i.e. gangsters and dope heads are boycotting it so it will be safer there. And defend yourself with a proper weapon. In case you encounter a bad guy intent on robbing and killing you you'll likely take out a guy who would vote for the wrong team and you'll keep alive someone who will vote on our side. Bad joke I know but you get the point.

[Albtraum]

Kinda of funny..... I've seen threads on the lethality of 9mm and .380, and people's personal experience with them or stories... makes them sound inferior to the 22 rimfire.

[JLA]

Id consider a .22 far better in a SD situation than a sharp knife.

[todd51]

Josh I have looked and I can't find it but back a while you tested several .22lr rounds and as I remember you were impressed with the Velocitor.

[JLA]

No the CCI minimags. They were by far the best performers. The Velocitors came in a very close second. Only beat by the minimags in the expansion dept..

The thread youre lookin for is here. It was way back in there..
http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=90400

[CJ_56]

In my CCW class they taught that a knife was better than a gun inside of 21 feet. They had a name for the rule. They called it the 21 foot rule but there's another name for it. It may be the Tueller Drill. I've seen that discussed many times. I have no idea why they even think that except that it may be they're talking about a knife that's already pulled and how fast a person can cover 21 feet. They seem to be claiming that a knife that's pulled can beat a gun that must be drawn and fired before the person gets cut.

That's why I included that statement. I have no idea how true this rule really is but a person has to pull a knife too so the test seems to be unfairly set up. Still a person can draw a knife very quickly and it doesn't require aiming. Heck I don't know though. I haven't tried to stab anyone in 2 or 3 weeks at least.

I do know that a person can cover 21 feet VERY quickly if the person is still young and still have their legs. 7 yards is a common distance for a football formation and if you played high school football you'll know some people can cover that distance very fast. Heck I got to the QB once and he handed me the ball instead of handing it to his halfback. He didn't know he was going to. He just stuck it out waiting for his halfback and I ran through and grabbed it like it was a handoff to me and scored a TD. It was funny as heck but that would have been about 7 yards from where I was to where I got the ball from the QB.

If anyone went to Fairview High School near Ashland Kentucky in the early 1970's you might have seen me do that. I laughed all the way to the end zone which probably ticked off the other team but I just couldn't help it.

A young and quick person can cover 21 feet very fast. Keep in mind that some people can run 100 yards in 9 seconds (not me ever) so that's pretty quick to just 7 yards. We're talking about 3/4th of a second or so. Maybe a whole second. If you aren't ready or you have your gun snapped in that is a short time to pull your gun.

[todd51]

Yep, that was the thread. It was a great one, thanks.

[Albtraum]

Originally Posted by CJ_56

In my CCW class they taught that a knife was better than a gun inside of 21 feet. They had a name for the rule. They called it the 21 foot rule but there's another name for it. It may be the Tueller Drill. I've seen that discussed many times. I have no idea why they even think that except that it may be they're talking about a knife that's already pulled and how fast a person can cover 21 feet. They seem to be claiming that a knife that's pulled can beat a gun that must be drawn and fired before the person gets cut.

That's why I included that statement. I have no idea how true this rule really is but a person has to pull a knife too so the test seems to be unfairly set up. Still a person can draw a knife very quickly and it doesn't require aiming. Heck I don't know though. I haven't tried to stab anyone in 2 or 3 weeks at least.

I do know that a person can cover 21 feet VERY quickly if the person is still young and still have their legs. 7 yards is a common distance for a football formation and if you played high school football you'll know some people can cover that distance very fast. Heck I got to the QB once and he handed me the ball instead of handing it to his halfback. He didn't know he was going to. He just stuck it out waiting for his halfback and I ran through and grabbed it like it was a handoff to me and scored a TD. It was funny as heck but that would have been about 7 yards from where I was to where I got the ball from the QB.

If anyone went to Fairview High School near Ashland Kentucky in the early 1970's you might have seen me do that. I laughed all the way to the end zone which probably ticked off the other team but I just couldn't help it.

A young and quick person can cover 21 feet very fast. Keep in mind that some people can run 100 yards in 9 seconds (not me ever) so that's pretty quick to just 7 yards. We're talking about 3/4th of a second or so. Maybe a whole second. If you aren't ready or you have your gun snapped in that is a short time to pull your gun.

This all sounds right, but let's say you have your knife ready and get to your target before their gun is ready. Getting to them doesn't end anything, that's just the start of the fight. There's also the chance of them apprehending your knife. But let's say it worked out as planned and you lunge your blade into the opponent... will that immediately end the fight? Nope. People aren't that fragile, and don't bleed fast enough...

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by CJ_56

I know the .22 is lethal. I was responding to people talking about using it for SD. For one thing the OP mentioned using it for SD in the first post.

No, the OP didn't mention using it for self defense. The OP said that people often ask about using a .22 for self defense, and they do. It's one of those questions that comes up every few months.

BTW just what is the point of wanting to know the "lethality" of a round if you're not going to use it for SD? The video has a ham wrapped up in jeans.

But aside from SD I can't see any other reason for even asking this question. If there is one feel free to inform me.

There was no question asked. There was a video prefaced by a comment, and the reason for posting it was because I thought it was interesting.


I understand curiosity is always in play but I would guess that wasn't the whole reason for this thread. I could be wrong. I doubt it.

You could be wrong, and you are.

Now, here's what I think. While I wouldn't carry a .22 as a primary carry weapon, I think a semi auto .22 like a 10/22 could be an effective sd weapon in the home. I could pump 10 rds into a burgler's gut so fast he wouldn't know what hit him. I'm not going to, because I have other weapons at my disposal, but if that's all I had (trust me, lots of people only own a .22 rifle) I believe it would likely be up to the task.

[CJ_56]

I wouldn't think it would have to do with bleeding out. I would think it would be like the way they teach people to kill with a knife in the military. You need a knife that's long enough to go up under the rib cage and hit the heart and that will kill someone quick. But like I said, I'm not really sure about the details of that rule. I just know they taught us something about it in my CCW class and they didn't explain it very well. They just stated it as fact without telling what they really meant by "beats a gun". I've never even seen a good explanation on the net about it either. People talk about the rule but no one gives the details. Maybe they're like me and just don't know the details. Anyway that's why I said I didn't know if a .22 was better than a sharp knife. If we're talking machete size knives or bigger (swords) then a knife can be very effective. Remember Crocodile Dundee saying, "That's a knife"? If he could get to you with that thing before you could draw a .22 I wouldn't be at all sure who had the upper hand. Then there was the guy from the Magnificent Seven who threw knives. Yeah it was a movie but there was a time when throwing knives and other weapons was an effective way to fight. The guy in the movie could draw his knife and throw it and kill someone before they could pull their pistol and shoot in a gunfight style. Yeah it was a movie. I get that. But it could be possible. Some people can throw a knife very well. I've seen that done. And I'm talking pulling one right out of the sheath and throwing it all in one motion.

Haven't we about covered this topic? I don't know which is better. I know I'd rather have the gun. But if I was standing right next to someone who had a gun in a holster that had a snap I might well be able to draw my assisted opening knife and use it before he could draw his gun and use it. My knife has a 4" blade and will open very fast. It's a Kershaw Blur with an S30V blade and I keep it "very" sharp. You could hurt someone pretty bad with a knife like that if you were the type that can get up close and personal and stab someone. I don't know that I could do that unless I was going to die and I knew it. Maybe not even then. It's a lot easier to pull a trigger than it is to stab someone they say. But that's something else I've just heard. I haven't done that either.

I could pump 10 rds into a burgler's gut so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.

I don't doubt that you can shoot quickly but hitting someone that many times is not a given if they're moving and they know something about avoiding being shot. Watch the video of the lawyer that I linked to above. A guy was shooting at him point blank and missed about 3/4 of the time because the guy was moving when he aimed the gun. And that guy was using pistols, which are much faster to point and aim than a rifle especially inside a house. And again, the lawyer did get hit 5 times in what would be considered a vital area but he didn't die or even go down.

Yes a .22 is better than nothing. But some people choose to use a .22 for SD and that's a mistake. Those are the people I'm talking to. I've seen a lot of posts where people think their 10/22 will be effective and I don't think that's a good thing to think or to tell to others. Obviously you're free to think what you want but I think that's a dangerous thing to think especially for someone new to shooting. Just because you might hit someone 10 times quickly that doesn't mean some newbie will and trust me they will read a thread like this and believe their 10/22 is a battle rifle and that just isn't the case. Some people dress their 10/22's up to look like battle rifles and they are certainly not that. They are great for hunting and for varmints etc. and I know they used to kill animals with a .22 when they were sent to the slaughterhouse. But a .22 LR is not all that effective as a SD weapon compared to larger caliber weapons. That's all I'm saying and I've said it enough now. Again I would just warn people that counting on a .22 for SD is a mistake and I think pretty much everyone here would agree with that. A shotgun is a good SD weapon. A .22 isn't.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by CJ_56

In my CCW class they taught that a knife was better than a gun inside of 21 feet. They had a name for the rule. They called it the 21 foot rule but there's another name for it. It may be the Tueller Drill. I've seen that discussed many times. I have no idea why they even think that except that it may be they're talking about a knife that's already pulled and how fast a person can cover 21 feet. They seem to be claiming that a knife that's pulled can beat a gun that must be drawn and fired before the person gets cut.

That's why I included that statement. I have no idea how true this rule really is but a person has to pull a knife too so the test seems to be unfairly set up. Still a person can draw a knife very quickly and it doesn't require aiming. Heck I don't know though. I haven't tried to stab anyone in 2 or 3 weeks at least.

I do know that a person can cover 21 feet VERY quickly if the person is still young and still have their legs. 7 yards is a common distance for a football formation and if you played high school football you'll know some people can cover that distance very fast. Heck I got to the QB once and he handed me the ball instead of handing it to his halfback. He didn't know he was going to. He just stuck it out waiting for his halfback and I ran through and grabbed it like it was a handoff to me and scored a TD. It was funny as heck but that would have been about 7 yards from where I was to where I got the ball from the QB.

If anyone went to Fairview High School near Ashland Kentucky in the early 1970's you might have seen me do that. I laughed all the way to the end zone which probably ticked off the other team but I just couldn't help it.

A young and quick person can cover 21 feet very fast. Keep in mind that some people can run 100 yards in 9 seconds (not me ever) so that's pretty quick to just 7 yards. We're talking about 3/4th of a second or so. Maybe a whole second. If you aren't ready or you have your gun snapped in that is a short time to pull your gun.

Either you misunderstood or your CCW instructor was an idiot. Unless you have considerable experience or that's your only choice, using a knife for sd is a very bad idea. To say that a knife is better than a gun inside 21 ft. is absurd.

Someone did a study on how many feet someone could cover in the time it takes the average LEO to draw his weapon. That turned out to be an average of 21 ft. So that has become a standard some departments use. Officers are trained not to let someone with a knife closer than 21 ft. Inside that range, you shoot. That is the 21 ft rule.

For both the LEO and civilian it's become kind of a legal standard. If you shoot someone with a knife, who is further than 21 ft away, the question could arise as to whether shooting was justified.

That's why people often shoot targets at 7 yds.

[CJ_56]

Either you misunderstood or your CCW instructor was an idiot. Unless you have considerable experience or that's your only choice, using a knife for sd is a very bad idea. To say that a knife is better than a gun inside 21 ft. is absurd.

Well you clearly didn't understand what I said. A. I said the instructor certainly wasn't clear about the whole issue but he did say "better". I have it in my notes if you'd like a copy. B. I never said it was better. I clearly said I included it because my instructor in my CCW class did and it was more or less a joke that I threw in.

Clearly the person in this conversation that didn't understand is you. Try actually reading what I said next time. I explained this once but obviously you didn't understand my explanation.

To think that a knife can't be better than a gun is also absurd. Most certainly they can be in certain situations. If you can pull your knife faster than the guy with a gun and particularly if that person has a small caliber gun then you could very well get the upper hand in that situation. Shooting someone who is moving is not all that easy to begin with. Unless you have lots of training with a gun the chances you will hit someone who charges you from inside 21 feet in a vital area are very slim. Reference the lawyer video. Two guns emptied. 5 shots to the head and upper body and if the lawyer would have had a machete I would have bet 10-1 on him. It would be a more natural action than shooting someone and unless that person has practiced drawing a gun fast and shooting it accurately fast then that person is very likely going to lose a fight with someone carrying a knife especially if the knife blade happens to be oh maybe 20 inches long and super sharp like my machete is. There's a good chance that knife will slice your arm right off at the wrist if it hits it just right. Anyone sticking up their hands to block it is going to find their arm is useless very quickly.

So it seems that it isn't so absurd to think a knife can be better in certain situations. I would take a large knife over a small caliber gun any day especially if I was close to the person I was fighting. A knife can be a terrible weapon. The Japanese routinely chopped off the heads of captured US soldiers in WWII using swords which are technically knives. A super sharp blade that was maybe 4' long would certainly be a very formidable weapon.

So I would think that before you call someone else absurd you may want to think the situation through a little better.

UPDATE:

I did a little research and found this video just for you. Some of the stuff there seems pretty hokey but the gun vs. knife simulation gives you an idea what it might be like to face someone with a knife who is charging you when you don't expect it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0kI9-bD5Bo

[RunningOnMT]

So the video shows a guy with a knife charging a guy with a gun. The guy doesn't quite clear in time to shoot , but notice he drew, operated the manual safety, then racked the slide. But that's all irrelevant to the current conversation.

I don't know what message you were trying to send "just for me". Now lets look at my comment:

"Either you misunderstood or your CCW instructor was an idiot. Unless you have considerable experience or that's your only choice, using a knife for sd is a very bad idea. To say that a knife is better than a gun inside 21 ft. is absurd."

Now what were the people in your video doing? Training, gaining experience in learning how to use a knife properly. Doesn't refute my comment at all. But how a knife figures into the discussion of the lethality of a .22 is beyond me. If a knife wielding attacker were able to get to a person and cut him before he can draw and fire it really doesn't matter much whether the one armed with a gun had a .44 magnum or a bb gun, now does it? Being taken by surprise by someone with a knife out on the street is a totally different scenario than defending yourself from an intruder, inside your home.

You really need to follow your own advice about reading what someone typed before attacking their comments. I guess you really struggled for something relevant to say, so you misquoted me in order to to have something to attack. But no one in this entire thread ever advocated choosing a .22 over anything else for self defense.

In any event, I'm done with this discussion. This is going nowhere. In the future I need to bow to superior knowledge and experience.

[JLA]

I can see covering 21 feet with a blade being a bit faster on avarage than drawing a handgun and firing a combat accurate shot. But unless the attacker with the blade is experienced enough or lucky enough to get a lethal jab in before the defender gets his gun drawn hes a dead man everytime. So the scenario should be explained like this.. For well trained individuals a blade would certainly be more useful inside 21 feet than a gun, because theyve had the training to use the blade quickly and efficiently to kill thier target. But for your average person, a blade would be useless against a gun, not that the average person cant close the distance and slip the blade cleanly into that vital spot, but they simply havent been trained to do it efficiently and without hesitation. Self defence is 50% training and 50% confidence. A knife in the hands of an untrained person would be a confidence killer in my mind. And the lack of confidence results in hesitation at that critical moment.. The person with the .22 would win everytime..

[Mr_Shamrock]

Here is my .02...I think a .22 has a place for certain people for self defense. There are some real nasty .22 rounds these days, but more importantly weaker shooters might be able to place more rounds where they need to be with a .22 vs larger calibers. It all boils down to shot placement and a weaker individual may have a better chance to hit a vital organ if they can hit the bad guy more times. There are way too many variables to give a perfect formula, but you do hear of people surviving multiple larger caliber shots and other dying from a single .22 = shot placement. Now a trained shooter that can handle a larger caliber weapon would be foolish in my opinion to rely on a .22 unless that was all they had. I tested this with my wife at the range the other day. I had her rapidly clear the mag from her Bersa .380 (still very little recoil) and then with our Walther P22. The .380 rounds not only came out slower (which would have allowed the bad guy to get closer), but were all over the place - 2 completely outside the silhouette. All 10 .22 rounds were within a foot of each other and well within the silhouette. I used to be dead set against the .22 for sd, but the more testing I do and read the more I feel they may be a viable option for certain shooters.

[Ledslnger]

It wouldn't bother me to defend myself with my Browning .22, but I put a LOT of rounds through it each year. I believe with a quick 3 shot burst I could probably put 1 of the 3 into an eye socket. That is a lights out & down for the count shot with anything. If you dump 10 on someone in the chest it only takes 1 slipping a rib to ricochet around inside your rib cage and turn things to jelly. I have heard that .22 caliber bullets will ricochet around inside your rib cage fairly easily. Not trying to be cocky, but I hit what I am aiming at and that is what it comes down too. If you can't hit a barn when you are inside it....wouldn't matter if you had a Ruger Alaskan in .454 Casull.

[oldfartrr]

Originally Posted by CJ_56

Every time someone asks this question I point them to this video where a man empties two .22 revolvers point blank shooting at his lawyer. The lawyer lived. Is that the caliber of gun you want for self defense? Not me.

I saw a lot of people saying a .22 is a viable defense round in this thread before I stopped reading the comments. They're wrong. A .22 can certainly kill "if" you hit someone in the right spot. But hitting someone in the right spot is not nearly as easy as all that unless you're shooting at someone that isn't expecting to be shot. Most home invaders, criminal types, etc. are ready for a confrontation and won't be a sitting duck type target. That leaves you trying to hit a concealed and covered target and / or a moving target. The video tells you exactly what you need to know. The lawyer was shot in the neck and lived. I have a hard time believing that would have turned out the same if the guy had a .45. Yes you might still kill them or stop them with one shot of .22 LR. But a larger round has a MUCH better chance of doing the job you want done. That lawyer was shot FIVE times in the face and the upper body. That's exactly where you would try to shoot him. He walked away from it. No way he does that if the gun is a .45. Not a chance.

Every expert in the world will tell you this. They don't just say it for fun. It's true. I know people who were shot in the head with a .22 and the bullet followed the bone alright - right around their skull and out the other side with nothing more than a cut on his head and it wasn't even that bad. He never had the slightest problem with being shot in the head. Think about what I'm saying here. He was shot in what is considered to be the most lethal spot and he barely noticed it. It's not like his life was saved by heroic efforts at the hospital either. None of his wounds were life threatening. None.

A .22 will NOT do the damage of a larger caliber weapon like a .45 or a 9mm or a .40 caliber. It certainly won't do the damage of a centerfire rifle caliber from a .223 on up. It's not even close.

And the idea of shooting multiple shots means you need to make multiple hits. The odds of that happening are slim. Remember Black Hawk Down? Those bad guys were being shot with .223 rounds and they kept on fighting because they were so stoned they didn't know they were hurt bad. Most people in a gun battle will quit when they see they are seriously hurt. They don't want to die. But drunks in a stupor, PCP blasted dopers, crack heads, etc. are often going to be just like those khat heads in Somalia. They won't even realize they're shot until you hit something vital that puts them down.

If you want to be a hit man then yes a .22 can work well for you. If you want something to defend yourself and your family get a centerfire weapon with as much power as you can handle.

There's a reason you don't see armies using .22's. Yes I know about how Israel used them to take out guards quietly. But that's one very limited example. If they were actually good for SD you'd see at least one country using them in their army. But no country does.

I guess the question is "why" would you choose a .22 for self defense when clearly other calibers are far, far superior? It makes no sense to me at all.

no matter what the weapon,,, if u use it properly !!!
couple years ago in AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazine in the armed citezen colum,, an elderly couple had a home invasion of several young punks. they pistol whipped him and shot him 5 times with a 45ACP, and left him on the floor for dead. then they started on his wife (guess that pissed him off) the elderly gentleman crawled across the floor and got a single action 22 revolver out of his nitestand and shot the first punk between the eyes killing him instantly and put another round into his partner killing him.
and the moral to this story is " USE YOUR TOOL PROPERLY"

[UncleDannie]

Originally Posted by aa1911

I carry my little NAA .22mag revolver as a last ditch BUG, I'm a believer! People in my neck of the woods used to (I'm sure they still do) poach deer quite often with .22 rifles, quiet and a head shot will usually put them down quick.

thanks for the video MT!

Wow. I feel a lot better carrying my NAA .22mag as a pocket pistol.

[CSA95]

a girl killed a bear with a .22lr she shot the bear in the head

[Ledslnger]

I believe it, had to be an eye shot though. And, it probably wasn't a Kodiak. I have heard/read of .357 bullets flattening out on a Kodiak skull. Not sure what grains of bullet though.

[gun runner]

sure it will kill.just like any other firearm. It depends where your first shot goes. Im confused, do you mean with one shot or several and .22lr or .22 mag or both? The .22 mag will definitely end someone with an easy shot to the chest or head. I did watch a video on truTV where a guy shot some big guy in the head with a .22 pistol and the guy hollered out to him why did you do that. I will try to find the video later but now I have to go to San Antonio to do some stuff.