.22lr Pistol Saves Woman's Life

[Binnerscot]

There are an awful lot of people in the military who are not fans of the .223. Perhaps you noticed the first thing SOCOM troops started doing in Afghanistan was un-mothballing old M14's.

The reason the M14s are coming out has nothing to do with the abilities of 5.56. The stories of the 5.56 not being effective are internet fodder (apparently, if the Russians adopted 5.56 it would be magical, as the internet will tell you that 5.45 is - yet 5.45 is extremely similar to 5.56 in every way).

Engagements in A-Stan have commonly begun at around 500 yards, and sometimes more. The 7.62x51 M14 has an effective range of 800 yards, the 5.56 M4 is good to about 500 yards. SOCOM troops have more options to adapt to mission specifics than infantry (you won't typically find a pile of M14s in an infantry arms room). A-Stan has been, possibly, the longest distance situation our small arms and troops have ever been involved in.

I know that you know this, but I don't know if other casual readers are aware of these things.

[Binnerscot]

Do you think that all people can handle a 10 mm?

It isn't the recoil that is an issue with 10mm. The 10mm Glock is a sizable handgun that may be difficult for some people handle as well as a similar, but smaller handgun such as the 9mm.

I have to adjust a bit between my Glock 20 (10mm) and Glock 17 and 22 (9mm/.40 S&W - same frame size) to shoot with the same accuracy, just because of the size difference...the recoil difference isn't as much of an issue.

[Aceman]

5.56 has ALWAYS had issues with pure take down capability. And 5.45 is not any better. I give the russians an extra 1/2 point for not over-accurizing their guns that use that round. 5.56 scores a 2, 5.45 a 2.5. That's out of ten.

I will not deny that anything in the 55 grain range moving nearly 3000fps is not good. But it's not nearly as bad as something 150 grains moving 2000fps. This is a gross generalization.

I am a firm believer in the importance of a .30 caliber hole in bad guys. None of this "I can carry a lot more ammo" or "If it tumbles" or "If it fragments" business. Give me a hole that is a problem wherever it lands, and a big problem if it lands anywhere near a bad place.

[Beer$]

Or, if you believe this one report, shoot 100 death row inmates in the head with a .44. I'll any amount of money NONE of them can run three blocks afterwards. Heck, I'll lay odds on 1000 shots for that.

I'm not taking any of the .22 action. But the first shot that doesn't make it into an eye orbit or nasal passage or through the back of the throat to the spine. That guy will be a runnin!

I don't doubt that more often than not a .44 will obliterate a head. It certainly won't make a pretty little hole like in the movies. I'm not even arguing that higher calibers aren't more deadly.

I am just pointing out that you can never account for every variable and have yourself a guaranteed one shot kill so while you're up there with your .44, double tap anyway.

I'm also pointing out the inverse for the .22LR

While you may need to be deadly accurate to ensure you hit the right spot, it doesn't mean it's not going to render your sister/mother just as dead because you were too careless not to point it in her direction while you were d!cking around with it because it was 'just a .22'.

Everything I've read on 'guaranteed lethality ratings' on certain things seems retarded to me. You can't guarantee anything. God knows I've heard of things going terrible wrong when a supposed 'non-lethal' police issue weapon was deployed.

Just how do you get 'less lethal' anyway. I suppose it kills you less dead?

[Binnerscot]

5.56 has ALWAYS had issues with pure take down capability. And 5.45 is not any better. I give the russians an extra 1/2 point for not over-accurizing their guns that use that round. 5.56 scores a 2, 5.45 a 2.5. That's out of ten.

I will not deny that anything in the 55 grain range moving nearly 3000fps is not good. But it's not nearly as bad as something 150 grains moving 2000fps. This is a gross generalization.

I am a firm believer in the importance of a .30 caliber hole in bad guys.

False. You need X amount to stop someone. Everything listed in your post exceeds X. To extend the range at which you can stop someone, requires appropriate capability to meet or exceed X at those ranges. Effectiveness revolves around marksmanship, there is no escaping these facts. Any other statement is false and perpetuates myth.

[Lucid_Lunatic]

False. You need X amount to stop someone. Everything listed in your post exceeds X. To extend the range at which you can stop someone, requires appropriate capability to meet or exceed X at those ranges. Effectiveness revolves around marksmanship, there is no escaping these facts. Any other statement is false and perpetuates myth.

This.






I carry a .45 everyday. Still love a .22 for just about everything though and I honestly wouldn't be bothered if I had to change it over to a MkIII. I see no reason that in everyday life that I would need to protect my life at a range of 500 yards or more. Anything that happens in the civi world is going to be close up and personal or it's probablly premeditated and your going away.

Don't get me wrong, when Emperor Ho's minions start invading, I'll be rocking the biggest, fastest hardware I can lay my hands on. We aren't being invaded right now though.

[bungalowbill]

They aren't as good as they use to be....they found two men in St. Louis with their heads tied together.... shot through the hands.

[Aceman]

There is more to the effect of the impact than the speed x the weight. You can't just sit there with your slide rule and say 55 x 3000 = 165k and 150 x 2000 = 300k (but notice what happened there).

For those of you who have never encountered caliber wars - by the way - it's never pretty.

ACCURACY TRUMPS CALIBER EVERY TIME.
WHEN ACCURACY ISN"T PERFECT, BIGGER IS BETTER

I am stunned. I really do not get the point. It seems like you guys are going to war to explain that a .22 is just as deadly as any other gun. While I won't disagree that it CAN be just as dangerous - on the average - it simply is not. No body with any sense or experience anywhere will LEO/Shop owner/hunter/whatever carries a .22 for SD, or tells anyone else to do so.

Are you guys just going over the top to make it clear that .22's are dangerous or what? No argument there. I say don't get shot by anything. But IF you are getting shot, the line for random .22 hit will be out the door and around the block. The line for 12g will be empty.

Please explain.

For the record - I AM NOT a fan of .223/5.56. I personally prefer EITHER a .22-250, or a .243 to that. You can make all the arguments you want for why it works, but IMO they are all just justifications for the cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that it is (for a whole lot of BAD reasons) what our government chose and we don't have a choice. I'm not in the Army - I can shoot anything I want. I don't want a .223 for much of anything. Especially against things that armed and shooting back at me.

[MetalManiac]

Shot throuigh the heart, and youre to blame honey

( You give love, a bad name).

[Binnerscot]

I am stunned. I really do not get the point. It seems like you guys are going to war to explain that a .22 is just as deadly as any other gun.

No, that was not my intent at all, sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

.22lr does not meet or exceed X for the intent of a hitting "20 inch target", I certainly wasn't trying to give the impression that it does. It is dangerous, and can be deadly, but it is not quite the round that one would select for use in a self-defense situation.

[stratobastard]

This horse is putrid, fly-blown, filled with maggots, the buzzards are no longer circling, they're landing!

[Wonker]

Aceman the m-14/7.62 being brought back into service has nothing to do with the stopping power of the round. It only was brought back for the designated marksman program within squads for shots taken over 500 meters while still being a combat rifle for normal engagement use.

The 5.56 has zero issues with downing mansized targets up to 500 meters. Trust me I didn't read this in a gay gun magazine or on some crap gun forum. Its 11 years of using the 5.56 round in real life situations all over the world.

I know this is a guitar forum and not a gun forum but the amount of b.s. in this thread is way over even the best of misinformed AR15.COM posts.

[Aceman]

Please list the BS. And - incidentally, I will admit to some generally/mildly stretching of the truth for pure outrageousness purposes. I am asking just to know which items. I'll claim them if I believe I was out of order.

[Binnerscot]

Aceman the m-14/7.62 being brought back into service has nothing to do with the stopping power of the round. It only was brought back for the designated marksman program within squads for shots taken over 500 meters while still being a combat rifle for normal engagement use.

The 5.56 has zero issues you downing mansized targets up to 500 meters. Trust me I didn't read this in a gay gun magazine or on some crap gun forum. Its 11 years of using the 5.56 round in real life situations all over the world.

I know this is a guitar forum and not a gun forum but the amount of b.s. in this thread is way over even the best of misinformed AR15.COM posts.

I like to give Aceman a hard time about his dislike of 5.56 too, but a lot of people haven't spent many years with an AR-15/M16 and have beat the crap out of them under all conditions (including actual military use), put thousands of rounds down range, and have seen what kind of damage that little round does with excellent accuracy and range.

There is so much BS out there about 5.56 and the AR platform that it is really tough to even explain it to most. Most people would call BS if I was to state that it is possibly the best combat round and rifle/carbine combination ever fielded...but it is.

[Wonker]

Please list the BS. And - incidentally, I will admit to some generally/mildly stretching of the truth for pure outrageousness purposes. I am asking just to know which items. I'll claim them if I believe I was out of order.

Im away from home and only have my phone for interwebz use for the next week. When I get back ill try to do a good write up.

BTW im not anti Aceman. The b.s. reference was for a lot of the posts in this thread.

[stratobastard]

I can see it now, tomorrow when I see this thread at the top of the board, I'm gonna have to kick all your asses! & I don't care what your packing!

[Binnerscot]

Bump for stratobastard...I know he likes the attention.

[Aceman]

My pappy has put likely hundreds of thousands of rounds down range. Including have been shot by a machine gun. He has been a competitive shooter. I defer to his knowledge on all things firearms. He could put you down with anything between .177 cal pellet gun and a Browning .50. as i said - accuracy trumps all.

But if he told me to go fetch a gun to shoot X at 200 yards, and was anything larger than small German Shepherd, and brought him a .223, he would have smacked me. And I completely understand why.

The .223 debate will rage forever. I get a lot of the advantages/disadvantages. I thik that the next step logic of the debate really debunks many of the pro's, while leaving the cons intact.

It will certainly put a bad guy down. And the AR platform, while by no means perfect, is not the jam monster the intarwebs make it out to be. For that matter, AK's are not indestructible either and will jam if you don't clean them.

We should open up a thread on this subject and follow some rules of debate.

I stand by the .30 caliber, of whatever flavor you choose. .30 Carbine, .30-30, 7.62x39, all manner of intermediate cartridges. Real bullets for real men! Not itty bitty bullets for gophers.

[stratobastard]

Bump for stratobastard...I know he likes the attention.

You know it! I'm a total whore. :-)

[Wonker]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866