Even with hollow points is a .22 revolver an effective home defense choice?

.43 inch avg expansion for .22HPs

.62 inch for 9mm

.68 inch for .40

.74inch for .45

 

There are obvious trade offs between weight, capacity, etc however given the estimates above, in relation to self defense I would start at 9mm and work your way up given your preference or availability. <insert obligatory ".45 rules all", ".22's to the face will stop any threat", "9mm's work just as well" comments here>

NOT for me.............

 

There are MANY threads out in the world talking about the .22 for defense...MINIMUM I would ever use would be .32acp..........

 

BUT, that being said....

 

[/img]

 

Well, you COULD technically count the S&W .460 magnum as a .46.

Define "effective".

 

.22 is definitely more effective than bare hands, but in general the "chances to incapacitate your target per bullet hit" increase as you go up in caliber.

 

There are stories out there of people shrugging off multiple .45 hits, and stories of one shot kills from .22.

 

For me personally I've settled on 9mm as the "sweet spot" for stopping power/ammunition cost (which can determine how much you'll practice with your firearm)/availability.

 

Does your firearm have to be a revolver?

This looks to be a duplicate thread of one I just responded to.

This looks to be a duplicate thread of one I just responded to.

 

Ditto. I would stick with the 8-shot revolver and use cci minimags.

Even with hollow points is a .22 revolver an effective home defense choice?

Here's an interesting link:

 

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

I root for the elder .45 Colt.

.22 is all fine and dandy until you hear a window break in your house at 4am.

.22 is all fine and dandy until you hear a window break in your house at 4am.

 

 

... versus having no access to another firearm, what's your point?

And, with a solid .22 revolver, if you banged him on the head with it or threw an all-metal one at the bad guy and hit him, that might stop him. I would not want to get hit in the head with a 617.

... versus having no access to another firearm, what's your point?

 

My point is that one can rationalize the adequacy of .22 all day long but should something scary go down, you'll be wishing you had something more powerful.

I like these stats

22 (short, long and long rifle)

 

# of people shot - 154

# of hits - 213

% of hits that were fatal - 34%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38

% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%

One-shot-stop % - 31%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%

My point is that one can rationalize the adequacy of .22 all day long but should something scary go down, you'll be wishing you had something more powerful.

 

 

That's true with anything. I think we'll all agree that a .22 might not be the ideal SD/HD weapon of choice, however 1) for some, that's all that can be properly controlled or 2) afforded for whatever reasons. In addition, I think we can agree that when that window breaks at 4am, you'd rather have a .22 than nothing at all.

I like these stats

22 (short, long and long rifle)

 

# of people shot - 154

# of hits - 213

% of hits that were fatal - 34%

Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38

% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%

One-shot-stop % - 31%

Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%

% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%

 

 

Yep good stats. Now rerun those stats if the shooter used 3 or 5 or 9 or 12 rounds.

Careful, somebody like Lautenberg might see that and try and ban all of our .22s.