That being said, i would still use the 45.
This is a discussion on .22 versus .45 within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Teufle I imagine how reading the title will look, so let me get to the question I have . I own a ...
That being said, i would still use the 45.
1. The story that started brassfetcher.com
The story is very graphic and horrible, but if you would like to read it it starts here
2. 22magnum rounds generally dont expand, from a pistol, they show ballistic performance simliar to the 25ACP FMJ rounds mentioned in the previous article.
CCI Blazer and Sellier and Bellot FMJ
22Magnum CCI JHP
22 Magnum CCI 40gr Maxi-Mag HP
Generally my opinion is that all handguns suck, but some suck less than others... Additionally picking a round thats unlikely to penetrate walls, is unlikely to penetrate bad guys as well.
What if, for example, he's shooting back?
Unfortunately, the bad guys get to make plans, too. I doubt such a plain would include standing politely waiting for all of the above.
Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.
Go with the .45 better to be safe than sorry
No question, .45acp
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
45 ACP wins hands down.
This is a trick question, right?
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
i would choose a .45 acp over ANY .22 ANY day but i prefer the 9mm over both due to better follow up shots if i miss and more firepower.
There really is only one acceptable answer.
.45 just to be safe- you don't want to hope you had a second chance
Some thoughts on the .22:
The .22LR is rumored to be the choice of assassins for several reasons. It's small, light, high-velocity, but low-weight. If you can put a round in their skull it just might ricochet around in there enough to make swiss cheese out of their brain. This is purely anecdotal.
The first CCW shooting reported in Missouri was a man who was approached by some young men with bludgeons (Don't remember what, boards, clubs, bats, something) as he was getting in his truck at a recreation/park area (fishing or something). I don't remember all the details, but I do remember that he responded with a .22LR Ruger MKIII. I don't remember if the kid died, but the CCW holder did stop the attack and the assailant was taken to the hospital, while the others fled.
In Iraq we had problems with people being hopped up on amphetamines and the .223/5.56mm would punch holes through them, but they'd keep coming. Eventually, in a matter of seconds, minutes at most, they'd bleed out. But the round didn't create enough of a rapid drop in blood pressure for an instant kill, and it didn't stop their forward motion. This wasn't always the case, as many of the BGs were dropped with single shots, but it was a significant problem for some units.
I've never heard anyone say, "Well, he shot me in the head/heart, but it was only a .22". But it's not really known as a man-stopper. And I would worry about over-penetration in a house with multiple tenants.
The .45ACP on the other hand, as has been mentioned, is a slow and heavy round. It packs a hard punch, has massive energy transfer to the target, and creates a large wound channel resulting in catastrophic loss of blood pressure (the way guns kill with body shots). It was adopted by the US military during the Banana Wars when the .38 was inadequate at stopping fanatical guerrillas, and remained in service until the adoption of the 9mm (due to NATO ammo availability and cost). A sizable contingent of service members continue to lobby for the re-implementation of the .45 as the standard service pistol caliber. That should tell you something about its performance.
If you're worried about it being too loud and heavy, etc., go with a smaller caliber. A .50cal Desert Eagle is a great man-stopper, but it doesn't do any good for a person who is uncomfortable with it and thusly doesn't put enough rounds down range to become proficient.
I tell my students that the absolute bare minimum caliber I'd recommend for a defensive pistol is a .380 (also known as a 9mm Kurze). It's been used successfully by intelligence and state dept personnel operating behind enemy lines since at least the late 1940's, most famously utilized by the fictitious character James Bond. It has limited range and accuracy, but for defensive purposes, it creates a large enough wound channel. Early training techniques though emphasize well-place head-shots, or double-taps to the COM, due to its lack of energy transfer.
Honestly, it's better to have a .22 NAA than nothing at all. As I cop I saw people killed with .25 and .32, but I would recommend using the largest caliber you can comfortably handle and with which you can reliably and consistently place shots on target. The gun you carry is better than the one left at home.
NRA Certified Instructor (6 years)
Former LEO/DOD Contractor
Active Duty Marine (Martial Arts Instructor)
Glock 17, Kel-Tec P-11, S&W Model 60, various rifles
If you have to shoot, then SHOOT. If its bad enough that you have to use a gun, why not use the most effective tool at hand?
I wouldn't worry about your sight and hearing, the effects of a gun blast will wear off eventually. And again, what's the alternative? "Well gee, I got stabbed (or worse), but at least my ears aren't ringing."
the post about a .45 not penetrating walls as much as a .22 was a joke right?...the .45 might kill your neighbor in the trailer next door...so you want to know where you are shooting...we arent concerned with how far a bullet will fly...we are concerned with thte amount of energy it carries...i think youll find the .45 to be a bit more effective at penetration and stopping power...i dont think mythbusters was firing the round through a human being before seeing how far it would travel...
that being said...when you choose to use a gun to defend yourself you are presumably in fear for your life or great bodily harm...you dont want to "maybe" stop the threat and hope your second choice of weapon will do the trick...you want to stop the threat...
and yes...a shotgun is a much better choice for home defense...us guys just want to be cowboys...thats why we like handguns so much...
Thanks for all the replies guys. I was about half asleep when I posted that, just curious as to what the general consensus on that particular matter was. Seems a bit silly now to have asked it, but I can't take it back.