New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
I'm all for calling the .22 a decent round, but that guy was full of himself almost on a nutnfancy level. "It's hard to miss with a shotgun" is typically what someone that only gets info from video games says...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Food for thought but like he says and many others say too train train train. That will bring the problem down no matter what ya got
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
I watched the video.... 5 minutes of my life wasted.... This guy seems like a clown....Let him get into a firefight with a drugged out perp and use a .22 and see what happens... I wonder if I can be the benificiary of this guys life insurance policy?
 
G

·
On March 30th 1981 at 14:27 hrs. a nut-job armed with a RG-14 .22RF revolver tried to kill president Reagan.

In 1.7-seconds James Brady (head wound), Timothy McCarthy( abdominal wound), Thomas Delahanty (neck wound) and Ronald Reagan(chest wound) were all hit.
Attack on Ronald Regan - YouTube
As you can see in the video three of the gunshot victims are down on the sidewalk, each hit only once with a .22RF fired from a 3-inch revolver.
Just sayin'……
 
G

·
On June 5th 1968 at 00:10 hrs. PDT a nut-job armed with a .22RF revolver killed Robert F. Kennedy in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California.



The victim was shot; one round behind the right ear, two rounds to the rear of the right armpit.

Five others were also wounded; William Weisel (abdomen), Paul Schrade (forehead), Elizabeth Evans (head ), Ira Goldstein(right buttock) and Irwin Stroll (left leg).

It was another close range target-rich environment with an untrained shooter and a "junk" .22RF.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
I can also post lots of deaths caused by a 9mm or .45...
 

·
The artist formerly known as jhm8071
Joined
·
5,143 Posts
Most of those people shot with the .22 probably would have been dead with anything .380 or above.

Sure, having a .22 is better than nothing, but I'll take a firearm of a larger caliber that is the same size anyday.
 
G

·
For decades the caliber argument was dominated by those that advocated the "bigger is better" philosophy. They would go into great detail about the Moro insurrection in the Philippines etc. No one was a bigger proponent of this point of view that Col. Jeff Cooper the father of the Modern Technique of handgun shooting.



When the "Colonel" died back in 2006 the defensive pistol community had already been thoroughly infiltrated by a "new" generation of pistol experts.

These new guys were NOT inclined to follow the tenants of the Modern Technique and they were prepared to forge their own way.
Part and parcel to this "newer than modern technique" was not so much the overt rejection of the M1911 and the .45ACP caliber, but the adoption of the 9mm, high capacity plastic guns of the future. In doing so these new experts had to resolve the "dissonance" involved with adopting a "lesser" caliber. This was done by repeating the mantra that; "any caliber will do if you do" or " all pistol calibers suck so pick the one you can shoot best" or "training is the key so pick a caliber that you can afford to shoot a lot". This pretty much kept them from being haunted by the ghost of the "Colonel".

An unintended consequence of these arguments was the rise of the; well .22RF should be adequate for defensive shooting because, I shoot it well, all pistol calibers suck etc. etc., and I can afford to shoot .22RF a lot.

Where in lies the truth?

Somewhere in between I expect.

As for .22RF; it's best suited for "offensive" pistol shooting.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
I've never heard .22LR called .22RF. Does that stand for Rimfire?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,486 Posts
For decades the caliber argument was dominated by those that advocated the "bigger is better" philosophy. They would go into great detail about the Moro insurrection in the Philippines etc. No one was a bigger proponent of this point of view that Col. Jeff Cooper the father of the Modern Technique of handgun shooting.



When the "Colonel" died back in 2006 the defensive pistol community had already been thoroughly infiltrated by a "new" generation of pistol experts.

These new guys were NOT inclined to follow the tenants of the Modern Technique and they were prepared to forge their own way.
Part and parcel to this "newer than modern technique" was not so much the overt rejection of the M1911 and the .45ACP caliber, but the adoption of the 9mm, high capacity plastic guns of the future. In doing so these new experts had to resolve the "dissonance" involved with adopting a "lesser" caliber. This was done by repeating the mantra that; "any caliber will do if you do" or " all pistol calibers suck so pick the one you can shoot best" or "training is the key so pick a caliber that you can afford to shoot a lot". This pretty much kept them from being haunted by the ghost of the "Colonel".

An unintended consequence of these arguments was the rise of the; well .22RF should be adequate for defensive shooting because, I shoot it well, all pistol calibers suck etc. etc., and I can afford to shoot .22RF a lot.

Where in lies the truth?

Somewhere in between I expect.

As for .22RF; it's best suited for "offensive" pistol shooting.
Is that a TRS on your Ruger?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
I'm all for calling the .22 a decent round, but that guy was full of himself almost on a nutnfancy level. "It's hard to miss with a shotgun" is typically what someone that only gets info from video games says...
Agreed. I saw plenty of people fail to qualify with the Rem 870 in my 8 years. ;)
One of the practicals was "from the hip". I had to practice that as I had never in all my years EVER fired a shotgun from the freaking hip.

However, to stay on topic, owning more than one caliber of firearm isn't unheard of ya know... I love my MK3 and my P22 but I also love my "bigger" girls too.. (all M&P)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,445 Posts
Shot placement is everything. A .45 to the foot probably won't kill you provided you get medical care in due time - but a .22 into the heart probably will probably kill you instantly.

Reagan, Brady, a DC police officer and the Secret Service agent who selflessly took a bullet all survived - mainly due to immediate medical care (and Hinkley was using devastator rounds too). Robert Kennedy took a head shot - and two to the neck and chest - all at point-blank range and died 26 hours later in spite of all the medical help he received due to the nature of his injuries.

It's been argued many times that a .22 is not a good defensive round - will it kill? Probably. Will it stop a person high as a kite charging at you? No. Sure - you can brandish a .22 pistol/revolver at a bad guy and he'll likely change his mind before getting shot - but don't expect to put him down with it either unless you're a good shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,238 Posts
Those who say the 22LR is not good for self defense as well as many other small calibers they do not know anything about ballistics.
Same arguments you hear over an over again about a 9mm Luger not being appropriate for self defense and the .223 Remington not
good for deer/pigs/bear and even certain varmints and all that non sense too.
More times than not, less ends up being more in the end. Why: Better accuracy / follow up shots, something with less section might
loose energy 'slower' yet provide decent sectional density (SD = penetration). Any comfortable and economic shooting is going to make
anyone a better shooter by allowing more practice.
If I was dropped in deserted island and I was given the option to choose one gun my choice would be a backpack O/U rifle with a 22LR and .410
smooth bore. There might be very little or maybe nothing those two little casings could not do all in a very light package.
This will allow one to carry plenty of ammo (including some subsonics) in a survival situation creating a substantial strategic advantage.

The list of benefits of 22LR goes on and on.
 

·
The artist formerly known as jhm8071
Joined
·
5,143 Posts
Those who say the 22LR is not good for self defense as well as many other small calibers they do not know anything about ballistics.
Same arguments you hear over an over again about a 9mm Luger not being appropriate for self defense and the .223 Remington not
good for deer/pigs/bear and even certain varmints and all that non sense too.
More times than not, less ends up being more in the end. Why: Better accuracy / follow up shots, something with less section might
loose energy 'slower' yet provide decent sectional density (SD = penetration). Any comfortable and economic shooting is going to make
anyone a better shooter by allowing more practice.
If I was dropped in deserted island and I was given the option to choose one gun my choice would be a backpack O/U rifle with a 22LR and .410
smooth bore. There might be very little or maybe nothing those two little casings could not do all in a very light package.
This will allow one to carry plenty of ammo (including some subsonics) in a survival situation creating a substantial strategic advantage.

The list of benefits of 22LR goes on and on.
There is a difference between being dropped on a deserted island and self defense. The .22 is great for taking small game. For a self defense round, it sucks. If it's so great, why don't any police agencies use it? A .22 is better than nothing, but I will never call it a good self defense round.

If you get hit in the stomach with a .22, you're probably going to live. You have a decent amount of time to get medical help. If you get hit with a 380 or higher, you're in trouble. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be shot with anything, but I'll take my chances with a .22 over a .380 or higher every day of the week.

The .22 definitely has it's uses. It has probably taken more game than any other caliber. You can certainly kill someone with it.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top