This is a discussion on The .22 pistol and round for self defense...My take on it. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by blitzburgh With all these .22 threads, I'm really getting the itch to buy a .22 pistol.. though my Henry might get jealous. ...
Sometimes people have only a little bit of money they can realistically spend on self defense and portraying your opinion as fact is a bit nonsensical when it comes to caliber wars. For example, at the local farm store which happens to have the absolute best deals on handguns around here:
Springfield XD 9mm $464.99+$30 app fee +$15 background check + $25.57 tax= $535.56 total
Taurus M22 in 22lr $194.99+30+25+10.72=$250.71 total.
Took it out of the ad from the Sunday paper, not making it up. That $284.85 more is unrealistic in most people's budgets around here. That's the difference between having a larger caliber and being homeless. That's also ANOTHER Taurus M22 in the pocket if you'd be willing to spend that much. IMO I'd prefer 2 .22s in the pocket vs one 9mm. To blatantly lie like that may cost somebody their life because they may choose to pass up on the .22 because YOU said that there's a handful of duds.
By the way, I also buy those big 500 and 550 round bricks. Still haven't had a FTF. Let's base it on truth like the admins said.
I assume that you mean an 'unacceptable' rate. I'm not selling anything, here... that's just my experience.
I hate to ask -- if you strike a round several times and it does not fire, while all of the other rounds do fire on the first attempt, why would you blame the firearm?
I am baffled that anybody would question the fact that rimfire ammo is less reliable than centerfire.
I've observed that rimfire ammunition is less reliable than centerfire ammunition, and getting worse. Was shooting cheapo Remington with "Golden bullets" just this morning and getting the occasional dud or else a round that required a second strike. The Smith & Wesson Model 17 used isn't the problem either.
“No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”
Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893
I sure do remember - Remington HiSpeed Kleanbore .22 Long Rifle.
and it was accurate ammo also.
Honestly, the .22 round *can* be a self defense round. Two points I would like to make here.
1. If you shoot someone in the head with a .22 round chances are it will go through the front of the skull. Chances of it going through the other side of the skull are slimmer. That little ole' .22 round will bounce around in the brain cavity to some extent.
2. If you shoot someone anywhere else with a .22 its going to hurt. If your lucky you can place one in a vital organ. Like I said though if you shoot someone any where else it will hurt like the dickens. Now the chances of them running off due to that pain are almost 50/50. If they have a firearm, chances are it will not be a .22. They may decide to stand and shoot back, in which case you are out gunned.
Point I am making (you may have noticed) is that carrying a .22 round as a self defense round is like playing a game of chance.
Would I carry it as a self defense round? Probably not, unless I were Jack Bauer.
As far as shot placement goes, best spot to shoot with a smaller caliber is the abdomen and right above the groin. You try running with your intestines shredded. It's like running after Chris Kluwe kicks you in the balls. Not likely...
2. If other firearms can fire tens of thousands of rounds without a failure, but your firearms tend to have a high percentage of failures to fire of the same brand/model of cartridge, why would you blame the round and not the firearm? Perhaps it's some magic combination where an individual round barely meets tolerance, and the firearm barely provides enough energy to the round via the firing pin. Most rounds will go in most guns, but when a light striking gun meets a round that requires more energy than an average round they aren't going to play well together.
3. I'm not questioning that it's less reliable - it has a reputation for a reason (but I do that tiny, dainty hardware is likely bears some large percentage of the responsibility)...I just think it's ridiculously over-exaggerated. I'm questioning that several duds in a box of 500 is possible given a properly functioning firearm. Again, I've never had a single failure to fire in tens of thousands.