I don't see any hate here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder71
Just some solid advice, based on real-world data, that some want to ignore.
Whatever - no skin off my back. :bye:
Printable View
I don't see any hate here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder71
Just some solid advice, based on real-world data, that some want to ignore.
Whatever - no skin off my back. :bye:
A silenced p22 would be awesome. I'm not of the same mentality as your friend, but I can understand his views.Quote:
Originally Posted by adric22
About the pellet gun... I had a Remington Summit 1000 fps pellet rifle. I tried all kinds of different pellets through it. For hunting, crossman premier hollow points were the best. I shot one through a rubber cork at 25 yards, and the twist from the rifling is so intense, that it left tight 3" spiral trails out of the rear. It killed squirrels much faster than a .22 (head or body shot), although I'm not entirely sure why. It seemed every squirrel I shot instantly dropped with the pellets, but sometimes they kept running after a solid .22 hit.
For penetration, a pointed pellet did wonders. I would imaging it would travel through a few cans of spam, but .177 cal just doesn't have the velocity to penetrate like a .22. Either way, I wouldn't want to be shot by either. Yes, I would consider the .22 exponentially more deadly against a human assailant - but I wouldn't want to be shot by a high powered pellet rifle, either. Personally, I'll stick to 9mm or higher.
If I were to carry a .22, it would be a S&W 351C J-frame .22 magnum loaded with 40-gr. Speer Gold Dots. I might actually pick one of those up sometime.
in the real world, a .22 actually makes more sense than most think. Going to the range and firing off 50 to 100 rounds once a week isn't much practice. Firing 500 rounds at a time, with 2 handed, strong hand and weak hand in different positions makes way more sense. Practicing pulling from the holster and shifting hands is helpful too. Alot of people on here mention the cost of ammo as a deciding factor on carry pieces. With even the good .22 ammo being priced right, you can practice much more. And more practice means better accuracy and better familiarity with your gun. I don't worry about carrying a .22, because I hit where I aim. Do I carry larger a caliber? Yes. Sometimes. But I don't feel I have to.
I missed no point but that's okay too. I simply used your metaphor. Please feel free to stick with your 22s. I'll train and stick to my calibers since I think the 22 is hardly adequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bark'n
If I may ask, any specific brand of ammo have more problems with a ftf do to bad primers? I guess I've been lucky, I have probably shot at the minimum 40,000 rounds of 22lr and had 1 ftf, that was when the the firing pin on my 22lr upper for my Kimber broke. And in asking a group of friends I shoot with, they could count on 1 hand how many ftf they have had with 22's. Don't get me wrong, my daily carry is either a G19 or a 1911, but I'd feel much better with a 22 than nothing!
When I carry more often than not it is my S&W Model 317 Air Lite in .22LR. It is just so dang handy and super light. Eight rounds of Velocitors and its very accurate which surprised me when I bought it 12 years ago. But, my environment is much different than those of you who live in an urban jungle filled with gangs and other nasty boys. I live in a rural environment, in fact, I live on a ranch five miles from town (practically the suburbs here) and I have firearms handy all the time. Each of my three pickups has a firearm, my bunkhouse has several, and my house has more than enough. So it simply isn't handy for me, working around livestock and machinery, to pack much size or weight on my person. Plus, my cow dog is with me most of the time and she has just enough bark in her that no one is going to sneak up on me or my place. Years ago I had a buddy who went bad, became a drug dealer, and ended up getting shot in the chest with a .22. He's very lucky to be alive. It entered the chest and ricocheted around his rib cage, just missing his heart by a fraction of an inch. I mentioned this recently to an undercover cop buddy and he said he hates .22s for that reason. So, no, of course they're not the equal to a larger caliber, but they work for some of us in our situations. I should add that I was in an accident 16 months ago that left me with two bulging discs and a bruised spinal cord. This has produced nerve damage that manifests in my hands with a strange combination of numbness, stiffness and pain. Consequently, my larger handguns are difficult to practice with.
By the way, I'm sure glad someone found a practical use for Spam.
Everyone talks about shot placement, sure it is a valid point. But do you honestly think someone is going to be standing still and not trying to get away or to cover while you shoot at them? How do you intend to hit them in the eye as one mentioned? Hitting a quarter sized target from 5-7 yards away on a moving target? Yea, good luck with that. I know that many people have died from pellet guns and .22 bullets, but I bet I can soak up more 40 grain 22 shots than I can .45acp.
But, physical limitations aside, why not chunk larger lead at them? Carry what makes you happy and confident, but going into a fight with a .22 means you are SERIOUSLY under-gunned.
I find it funny you are using this example to justify the .22. Doesn't it justify more that "bad guys" or people we might be shooting at are more likely to be high on meth or crack and impervious to pain? I don't shoot at cops, I hope you don't either. So really, all you are saying is that bad guys can soak up 5 shots from a .357 sig. Try popping him with your .22 and see what happens. Good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by High Altitude
If you carry a handgun for SD, you are playing the odds. And, the odds are way against the average citizen ever needing to use their weapon during their lifetime. Yet, we all still play those odds. Doesn't it make since, that if you are going through all the trouble, and jumping thru all the hoops to buy, and legally carry a handgun, that you would pick the most effective caliber that you can shoot well?
Because when comparing apples to apples, a larger caliber has a better chance of defeating the variables that plague a bullets performance, especially when the shot is from a less than perfect or oblique angle, which is common in shooting incidents.
The thought process to intentionally choose the lowest caliber possible just doesn't make any sense, no matter how you try to justify it.
This thread reminds me of the mechanical broadhead debate on Archery-talk.com. Unrealible and lack of penetration...complete with the lovers and haters.
Things I love about the 22lr, Cheep to shoot, accurate, quick rapid fire, small and easy to carry.
Things I hate are unreliable, weak. Imo if I'm in a gunfight, I want my 1st hit to end it.
As you all can see I'm pretty new to this web site and only had my ccw permit a few months. My opinions are still forming but I do know, for me, I'd want at least a 9mm/38spcl in a gunfight. Even better, a .357mag or .45auto.
I currently carry a Keltec p32. I shoot it a lot but question its power and it accuracy at 50' doesn't exist in rapid fire. My .22 pistols I can keep on a paper plate at that distance so they'd be better than the .32 imo.
With all the vids on the web I have determined I need a .45 sub compact or at least a 9mm. (I never should've sold the Glock 27's I had)
I do like the idea of lots of bullets which makes the sub guns more attractive in 9mm. Plus they are cheeper to shoot.
I went to the gun shop and looked at a Kahr .45 and loved it. But recoil? I don't know about that one.
There's so many nice guns out there, but which one??? I guess I'll just have to get a couple of each caliber.
Ruger SR40c or 9C, S&W M&P 40C or 9C, Glock 36 27 26. One of these will most likely be my next pistol.
That pretty well covers it. No more need be said.Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman10mm
10-22-2009
A while back I bought a hollowpointer/accurizer tool. There were doubts expressed as to whether the modified bullets would perform.
I ran a 100 yard test. However, before we get to that test, let me walk you through the process of making the ammo.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/282e7d7b.jpg
Here are the components to the hollowpointer...
Fairly simple setup, but precise.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/329dafff.jpg
The first step is to put the round in the bottom block.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/bdbf6c38.jpg
Assemble, and put on some sort of press - even a hammer will work.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/7179d269.jpg
Pull the handle...
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/d4bc80bd.jpg
... and a gaping hollowpoint (depending on depth settings) results.
But how do they perform?
They do shoot more accurately than unmodified ammo, but to the same point of aim. This is probably because they've been set to a standard size, and because the center of mass is further back. This is speculation however. I just know it works!
I set up four water jugs at 100 yards, and fired into them.
These are the results:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/a879aa44.jpg
This is the first jug. It's pretty well shredded.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/93ecf6a8.jpg
A line of all four jugs...
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/19542b88.jpg
Here's a bullet I recovered from right beyond the fourth jug...
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/e84dfe34.jpg
Two more stopped inside the fourth jug.
I believe the variation in penetration is due to the fact that I fired 10 rounds, and kept firing after the jugs were pretty well empty. I tried this test before with three jugs and failed to recover any. I therefore added a fourth jug and kept firing until empty to try to get a few decent samples.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/9de66a41.jpg
This is a picture of the unmodified round, modified round, and the three bullets I was able to recover.
Keep in mind that this is CCI 40gn LRN I modified. Their website lists the velocities thus:
Muzzle 1235
50 yards 1092
75 yards 1040
100 yards 998
So, when the bullet impacted, it was acting as a heavy .22 short. Yet, it still expanded to over .36".
These are doing better than my old standby, Winchester Xpert, and are of course more consistent.
I'm impressed.
Josh
__________________________________________________ _________
That was back then. The new stuff, say, Velocitor, would probably have the same or better performance.
The .22 LR is not my first choice, or second, but could be a third. The ignition system has a lot to do with it.
As well, a lot of .22 LR bullets are just too hard to expand at lower velocities. For example, while CCI subsonic is dead soft lead and expands fine, I've never gotten expansion on game from Remington subsonic, and have lost squirrels to them with solid chest hits at close range.
Regards,
Josh
But weren't these fired from a rifle? A rifle changes things in this discussion. And I'll be the first to admit, that a 10-22 with a 15 or 30 round mags changes the landscape. But in a handgun, it's crippled for more reasons than velocity.
Yes, but from 100 yards.
This is why I mention subsonic and expansion.
I would say from a rifle at 100 yards is about like 15 yards from most pistols, under 1000fps.
The .22LR hollowpoint will do lots more damage than most folks think, but it's very unpredictable. That's why I don't like it for larger-than-coyotes (and maybe not even coyotes, now): Too danged unpredictable in what it will do.
Regards,
Josh
Jim, I love the .22 rimfire. And that's a pretty cool thing you do there. When I was a kid, I used to "X" the bullets to make them expand.
I have always said that a hail of .22 rimfire bullets from a rifle fired into your chest area, would scew you up. With the rifle it can be shot do fast and accurate that it makes up for the caliber thing to a good degree.
However, knowing what I know now, I'd just soon prefer some lead solids over HP.