Recommend a .22lr pistol

[Malum Prohibitum]

Id like to add a nice .22lr pistol to my small but growing collection. The wife hates my .45, but feels comfortable with the .22s I've had her shoot, and I subscribe to the theory that a small caliber gun you are comfortable and accurate with is better than a large caliber gun you are afraid of. (and maybe later I can get her to move into something more substantial if she gets to actually like shooting)

Ideally, Id like something with a decent sized frame, so that I can shoot it as well (I have big hands), is reliable with all brands of ammo, will last till I die, and has the potential of later being fitted with a supressor if I ever move to a state that allows it (with the proper licenses of course.), its okay if would have to buy an after market barrel or whatever as an add on. I have the added disadvantage of requiring it to be on the CAL DOJ approved list.

Any thoughts?

[Time for Change]

How does she feel about 9mm?

Maybe a little more punching power, depending on the round selection.

[Tarabell952]

22s are great fun and cheap to shooot and a great way to get her intrested in shooting.
s&w 2206
walter p22
buck mark
or a nice ruger single six

[Malum Prohibitum]

How does she feel about 9mm?

Maybe a little more punching power, depending on the round selection.

Shes really been intimidated by anything I've had her shoot other than .22. She has weak wrists from breaking them repeatedly as a kid (apparently equestrian jumpers fall off of horses alot, go figure), and may never be able to effectively handle a pistol with a significant amount of recoil, but Im not sure that is the whole deal. Personally I think alot of it is mental. The noise and recoil scares her, and I'd love to get her to the point where she actually enjoys the range, and then let her be ready for something bigger on her own instead of me pushing her...

Plus having something you can shoot all day long for twenty bucks is an advantage by itself.

[pcosmar]

From your requirements I would suggest checking Ruger MarK III.
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FASubType?type=Pistol&subtype=Rimfire%20Autoloading
Several models of a proven design.

[youngbuck]

I have a Ruger Mark II .22, and it's pretty nice. The gun could be a little more reliable, especially the magazines (most failures I've had were magazine related, but not all).

The Walter P22 is a really nice pistol, so take a look at that. I've only put about 50 rounds through one, but if I had to do it over again, I'd get one over the Ruger.

Honestly though, I'd recommend a .22 revolver of some sort. Another plus about the revolvers is that you can also shoot .22 shorts, longs, and LRs (including shotshells) which auto loaders cannot do.

Take a look at a 9x18 Makarov. Excellent pistol that I consider getting my sister. Low recoil, and definitely better stopping power than a .22. However, you are very correct that you want a gun, however small, that she is comfortable with, regardless if it's a .22 or a .44 mag.

[pcosmar]

You might check out this link.
http://www.corneredcat.com/Men/gunforwoman.aspx

The lady has a great site. It is targeted a the female shooter, but has a huge amount of information.
http://www.corneredcat.com/
In fact this probably needs its own thread.

I'll do that.

[RJB]

I've got a S&W 22A. I can easily hit a squirrel from 15 yards. decent little shtf gun.

[Dave39168]

i have a browning buckmark .22 stainless with the heavy barrel. got it new 4 years ago and have shot probably 5,000 rounds through it. It has never "jammed" on me. Every once in a while it will fail to fire, i blame this on the cheap ammo i shoot from walmart and not the gun. Seems to be the most accurate pistol i own. This could be b/c its an accurate gun or it could just be b/c i really enjoy shooting it and have shot it more than my other pistols. I would recommend this gun from personal experience it has been very reliable. My dad has the ruger semi auto .22 though he's only had it about a year. No problems with it either.

the .22 is definately a great caliber to get your wife comfortable with shooting. b/c ammo is so cheap you can actually afford to practice A LOT.

[Kregener]

The Ruger Mark II was picked about 15 years ago as one of the Top Ten pistols EVER by Guns & Ammo Magazine.

http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/rugermarkii.gif

Friend of mine has one, and it is a real sweet shooter! I loved it.

[1000-points-of-fright]

The Walter P22 is a really nice pistol, so take a look at that. I've only put about 50 rounds through one, but if I had to do it over again, I'd get one over the Ruger.

The P22 is great. I love mine and highly recommend it. It's inexpensive, fun and comfortable to shoot. Good for dainty hands and girly wrists. If the only round she can accurately fire is a .22 then so be it. .22LR is also cheap so that means more money for ammo which means more practice. I'd rather be missed by a .45 than hit with a .22

Anyone who claims that the .22LR is an inadequate self defense round should man up and take a few rounds to the chest. Any takers? I didn't think so.

[Malum Prohibitum]

The P22 is great. I love mine and highly recommend it. It's inexpensive, fun and comfortable to shoot. Good for dainty hands and girly wrists. If the only round she can accurately fire is a .22 then so be it. .22LR is also cheap so that means more money for ammo which means more practice. I'd rather be missed by a .45 than hit with a .22

Anyone who claims that the .22LR is an inadequate self defense round should man up and take a few rounds to the chest. Any takers? I didn't think so.

There is no doubt that a 22 can do damage. Here is a link to a story of a local police officer who took a .22lr from 300 feet and didnt make it. http://www.lawofficermagazine.com/images/EditorsNote0207.pdf
Then again, a high school buddy of mine took a .22lr to the face from 10 feet, and walked himself to the ambulance. It punched through his nasal cavity, bounced off his skull, and lodged in the soft tissue in his neck. If he had been hit there by a .45, it would have been game over.

But definitely, a .22 you use to defend yourself with is way better than a .45 that you didnt use because you were afraid of it.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Then again, a high school buddy of mine took a .22lr to the face from 10 feet, and walked himself to the ambulance. It punched through his nasal cavity, bounced off his skull, and lodged in the soft tissue in his neck. If he had been hit there by a .45, it would have been game over.

I agree that it doesn't have that awesome knock down power. But I bet your buddy immediately stopped what he was doing and was totally focused on the bullet that just rattled around his cranium.

[hvac ak47]

357/38 stoping power / light round all in one gun.

[loupeznik]

22's are great to shoot for fun and practice. I have a browning buckmark and have shot quite a few others. I have never really been satisfied with 22 pistol quality. I'd love to find the 1911 of 22's. When I say that I mean in terms of reliability accuracy durability and ease of disassembly. When you combine all those traits in a 22 they seem to cost as much if not more than most centerfires.

[Conservative Christian]

Anyone who claims that the .22LR is an inadequate self defense round should man up and take a few rounds to the chest. Any takers? I didn't think so.

No offense intended, but your logic is weak.

A BB gun is inadequate for self-defense purposes, but nobody with common sense is going to sit there and let you shoot them with it. It's a matter of common sense, not a testament to alleged stopping power. The same applies to the .22LR.

Don't take my word for it. You can ask virtually any firearms trainer in the country, whether police, military or civilian.

In a life or death situation, against an average to large assailant who is enraged and/or on drugs---I'm sure not going to trust my personal safety or that of my loved ones to a pathetic round like the .22LR.

A .22 is a good "learner's" pistol, but anybody serious about self-defense should move up to something more powerful within a year. Virtually any woman of sound mind and body, can learn to shoot a .38 Special or 9mm with enough skill to defend herself capably.

A good book for women to read is "Armed and Female", by Paxton Quigley.

[Conservative Christian]

How does she feel about 9mm?

9mm recoil is often intimidating for newbies.

A .22 is a good "learner's" pistol. After they've gained experience with that, they can make the move to 9mm.

[Conservative Christian]

The noise and recoil scares her

Noise shouldn't be a problem if she's using a good set of shooter's earmuffs. If she's just using standard foam earplugs, I can see why there's a problem.

[xd9fan]

If its for her....have her pick one.

[1000-points-of-fright]

No offense intended, but your logic is weak.

A BB gun is inadequate for self-defense purposes, but nobody with common sense is going to sit there and let you shoot them with it. It's a matter of common sense, not a testament to alleged stopping power. The same applies to the .22LR.

I agree with you. By all means, shoot the biggest gun you can handle and suits your purposes. But the point I was making is that defending yourself with a 22 is better than having to say "please don't hurt me" because you couldn't find a bigger caliber that you could handle.

[Conservative Christian]

I agree with you. By all means, shoot the biggest gun you can handle and suits your purposes. But the point I was making is that defending yourself with a 22 is better than having to say "please don't hurt me" because you couldn't find a bigger caliber that you could handle.

If anybody (male or female) is so afraid of or nervous about guns that they aren't mentally able to progress beyond firing a .22, I would strongly suggest that they not use a gun at all.

A .22 isn't going to stop a determined attacker in most cases, especially if they're under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

People with this mentality would be better off with something like a stun gun, pepper spray, CS etc.

A 260 lb. hood on PCP isn't even going to feel a .22 round hitting him, and it's simply not a large and powerful enough round to cause enough damage to slow him down, much less stop him.

Whereas a stun gun is going to short circuit his central nervous system and drop him like a rock. Even a pepper or chemical spray will at least blind him, enabling you to flee.

In virtually anything you do, you need the right tool for the right job. When the job is defending against a violent attacker, a .22 is NOT the right tool for the job.

False confidence in a round that weak can get you seriously injured or killed in a self-defense situation.

[Malum Prohibitum]

If anybody (male or female) is so afraid of or nervous about guns that they aren't mentally able to progress beyond firing a .22, I would strongly suggest that they not use a gun at all.

A .22 isn't going to stop a determined attacker in most cases, especially if they're under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

People with this mentality would be better off with something like a stun gun, pepper spray, CS etc.

A 260 lb. hood on PCP isn't even going to feel a .22 round hitting him, and it's simply not a large and powerful enough round to cause enough damage to slow him down, much less stop him.

Whereas a stun gun is going to short circuit his central nervous system and drop him like a rock. Even a pepper or chemical spray will at least blind him, enabling you to flee.

In virtually anything you do, you need the right tool for the right job. When the job is defending against a violent attacker, a .22 is NOT the right tool for the job.

False confidence in a round that weak can get you seriously injured or killed in a self-defense situation.

I agree that .22 isnt a consistently solid defense round, and that almost any other cartridge would be superior, but the idea that it is incapable of stopping someone is kind of a misnomer. We recently lost a LEO in my town to a .22lr fired from 100yards. Certainly a .22 isnt going to penetrate bone except at the closest ranges, but it will certainly ring someone's bell, as my friend who caught one in the face and survived can attest to.

Ill take a .22 with a 10 round mag and an extra mag over a stun gun (1 shot, you miss, youre screwed) or chemical spray (gotta get close and then it might end up in your eyes as well), anyday. Id certainly prefer my wife have a .22 and KNOW HOW TO USE IT, over either of those devices, when facing a 260lb attacker. Yes, one .22 round in an extremity isnt likely to slow down a drunk or meth head, but 10 of them in center mass or face will certainly get them thinking about some new problems they hadnt contemplated before they broke into my house and decided to try to kill someone.

Obviously the point is to get her confortable and then move up into a larger cartridge, but if the .22 is all she is ever comfortable with, its better than nothing.

[kgiese]

I recommend a sharp stick.

[Conservative Christian]

I agree that .22 isnt a consistently solid defense round, and that almost any other cartridge would be superior, but the idea that it is incapable of stopping someone is kind of a misnomer. We recently lost a LEO in my town to a .22lr fired from 100yards. Certainly a .22 isnt going to penetrate bone except at the closest ranges, but it will certainly ring someone's bell, as my friend who caught one in the face and survived can attest to.

You've obviously never done law enforcement work. Please give us a link and more details about your lost LEO. Even IF your story is true, if he was taken down at 100 yards by a .22LR, it must've been a .22 RIFLE. We're talking .22 HANDGUNS suitable for concealed carry here, and they're virtually worthless at distances even well under 100 yards.

The fact that your alleged friend easily survived a head shot from a .22, helps my argument a lot more than it does yours. A 260 lb. attacker on drugs won't even FEEL a .22 hit him, so it darn sure isn't going to "ring" his bell.


Ill take a .22 with a 10 round mag and an extra mag over a stun gun (1 shot, you miss, youre screwed) or chemical spray (gotta get close and then it might end up in your eyes as well), anyday. Id certainly prefer my wife have a .22 and KNOW HOW TO USE IT, over either of those devices, when facing a 260lb attacker. Yes, one .22 round in an extremity isnt likely to slow down a drunk or meth head, but 10 of them in center mass or face will certainly get them thinking about some new problems they hadnt contemplated before they broke into my house and decided to try to kill someone.

More clear evidence you've never been in law enforcement, because you don't even know the difference between a stun gun and a taser. What you're describing is a taser, which is a completely different critter than a stun gun.

Chemical or pepper spray will do more damage at 15 feet than a .22 will, and if blowback from the spray is allegedly such a big problem, why does virtually every law enforcement agency in the country still use defensive sprays after all these years? If you're properly trained with it, it's a lot more effective than a puny .22, and spray blowback is a grossly over-exaggerated problem.

You're also incorrectly assuming that you're going to be able to get off ten shots in the FIRST place. Most violent confrontations and attacks occur at very close range, where you'll be lucky to get off even one or two shots, and you very likely won't even have time to aim them properly. I'm not betting my life or the lives of my loved ones on a "pop and pray" .22 handgun.


Obviously the point is to get her confortable and then move up into a larger cartridge, but if the .22 is all she is ever comfortable with, its better than nothing.

Taking .38 special handguns into a firefight against military opponents with .308 battle rifles is "better than nothing", but not anything I'd do willingly or stake my life on. False confidence that a .22LR handgun is adequate protection against violent aggressors, is only going to get your loved ones killed. The hard fact remains that a .22LR handgun is GROSSLY INADEQUATE as a self-defense weapon.

[Malum Prohibitum]

You've obviously never done law enforcement work. Please give us a link and more details about your lost LEO. Even IF your story is true, if he was taken down at 100 yards by a .22LR, it must've been a .22 RIFLE. We're talking .22 HANDGUNS suitable for concealed carry here, and they're virtually worthless at distances even well under 100 yards.

First of all, your know it all attitude sucks ass, so I am not even sure why I am wasting my time on you, but here I go anyway.

I have provided a link to the article earlier in the thread, hunt it down if you want. Weather or not it was a rifle is really immaterial. A 22lr is a 22lr. The fact that it was shot out a rifle mostly means its going to be more accurate at range, and isnt going to affect its stopping power much if at all. Perhaps you can refer me to a study of barrel length as related to muzzle velocity.

I started this thread. Nowhere did I say anything about concealed carry. Nowhere. I live in a state that mostly prohibits concealed carry. The odds of my wife getting a license is less than an ice cube's chance of maintaining its frosty integrity for longer than a day in the hottest layer of hell.

The issue is what she is comfortable using, from cover, in our safest room, to deter someone from assaulting and killing her and our kid, if someone breaks into our house. As I have explained, I would prefer she use my .45, or some other larger than .22 caliber, but she has weak wrists and is intimidated by the recoil and noise of the larger guns. I hope to get her to move from the .22 up, or I may try to introduce her to the shotties, since they use two hands, but we'll see. And regardless of your bullshit advice about what you think cops do, she isnt a cop, wont ever be a cop, and I'd prefer to leave her with a weapon she will use, other than a toy that she either has to get next to someone to use or only gets one shot. (taser is distance, one shot, stun gun requires contact)


The fact that your alleged friend easily survived a head shot from a .22, helps my argument a lot more than it does yours. A 260 lb. attacker on drugs won't even FEEL a .22 hit him, so it darn sure isn't going to "ring" his bell.

More clear evidence you've never been in law enforcement, because you don't even know the difference between a stun gun and a taser. What you're describing is a taser, which is a completely different critter than a stun gun.

Chemical or pepper spray will do more damage at 15 feet than a .22 will, and if blowback from the spray is allegedly such a big problem, why does virtually every law enforcement agency in the country still use defensive sprays after all these years? If you're properly trained with it, it's a lot more effective than a puny .22, and spray blowback is a grossly over-exaggerated problem.

Seriously dude, who pissed in your cheerios? Are you always this insulting ?

Nope, Im not a cop, and I wouldnt be a cop in the current legal environment, but I have spent years dealing with drunks and people on drugs as a bouncer in a large busy nightclub for years where there were shootings, stabbings, rapes, beatings, you name it. I have had people come at me with everything from bottles to their cars. I have been shot at, but not shot. I have dealt with people who were impervious to pain, generally you have to interrupt their supply of oxygen to have effect. Even when on drugs they are extremely rare, and the likelihood of one of them breaking into my house and harming my family while in that state is even less likely.

I have seen, or seen the aftermath of a number of people shot with a small caliber handgun. They all survived, but they were all affected and reconsidered their next step, particularly when they were hit in a vital area. I have also seen a number of people pepper or chemical sprayed. Not all of them were affected. Often the sprayer was affected. Often bystanders were affected.


You're also incorrectly assuming that you're going to be able to get off ten shots in the FIRST place. Most violent confrontations and attacks occur at very close range, where you'll be lucky to get off even one or two shots, and you very likely won't even have time to aim them properly. I'm not betting my life or the lives of my loved ones on a "pop and pray" .22 handgun.

Taking .38 special handguns into a firefight against military opponents with .308 battle rifles is "better than nothing", but not anything I'd do willingly or stake my life on. False confidence that a .22LR handgun is adequate protection against violent aggressors, is only going to get your loved ones killed. The hard fact remains that a .22LR handgun is GROSSLY INADEQUATE as a self-defense weapon.

Again, Im not incorrectly assuming ANYTHING, I have already said what my preferences are, you just choose to ignore them. My scenario is my wife defending her life and our kids life from a position of cover in the safest room of our home. We are unable to leave our homes with our weapons, and have a LARGE LOUD dog who alerts us when someone enters the yard, let alone the house, and is likely to be in the face of the intruder as a first line of defense.

Your analogy of the .38 handgun in a firefight against rifles is incomplete. Nobody smart chooses to get into a fight, period. When a fight is forced on you, you do what you have to do to survive. If someone breaks into my home, Ill pick a gun, any kind of gun to defend my family as my last resort after retreating to safety and calling the 5-0, over just about anything else. And I really dont fucking care if you disagree.

For future reference, if you cant engage in a civil discussion without being insulting I suggest you shut the fuck up.

[Conservative Christian]

First of all, your know it all attitude sucks ass, so I am not even sure why I am wasting my time on you, but here I go anyway.

I don't think I "know it all". However, I do know what I'm talking about on this particular subject. My advice will significantly increase the chances of keeping your loved ones alive in the event of an attack. Your logic and compromise will give them substantially WORSE odds of successfully defending themselves.


I have provided a link to the article earlier in the thread, hunt it down if you want. Weather or not it was a rifle is really immaterial. A 22lr is a 22lr. The fact that it was shot out a rifle mostly means its going to be more accurate at range, and isnt going to affect its stopping power much if at all. Perhaps you can refer me to a study of barrel length as related to muzzle velocity.

It makes all the difference in the world what kind of weapon it was fired from. Even fired from a rifle, I'm not going to trust a .22LR to defend my loved ones from an attack. However, when fired from a rifle, the round WILL travel MUCH farther.

But the fact it allegedly killed a cop still doesn't make it an effective man-stopper. It's a fluke occurrence. There are a handful of cases where people have been killed by BB guns, but they're flukes. Just because a .22 or BB gun can kill under rare circumstances, doesn't make either of them a good self-defense round.


I started this thread. Nowhere did I say anything about concealed carry. Nowhere. I live in a state that mostly prohibits concealed carry. The odds of my wife getting a license is less than an ice cube's chance of maintaining its frosty integrity for longer than a day in the hottest layer of hell.

Your points are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, we're talking about HANDGUNS here. No matter where it's going to be used, a .22LR handgun is an incredibly poor choice for self-defense. Using one is a serious compromise which will substantially decrease your loved ones' chances of surviving an attack.


The issue is what she is comfortable using, from cover, in our safest room, to deter someone from assaulting and killing her and our kid, if someone breaks into our house. As I have explained, I would prefer she use my .45, or some other larger than .22 caliber, but she has weak wrists and is intimidated by the recoil and noise of the larger guns. I hope to get her to move from the .22 up, or I may try to introduce her to the shotties, since they use two hands, but we'll see. And regardless of your bullshit advice about what you think cops do, she isnt a cop, wont ever be a cop, and I'd prefer to leave her with a weapon she will use, other than a toy that she either has to get next to someone to use or only gets one shot. (taser is distance, one shot, stun gun requires contact)

First off, let me make it clear that I never endorsed use of a taser, stun gun or spray for self-defense purposes for the average person. Just for those who have a substantive lack of self-confidence and/or inordinate fear of firearms.

I don't blame her for not wanting to use a .45. They generally aren't suitable for the average woman for self-defense, because they're quite simply too big for their hands in most cases, and the recoil is fairly heavy.

However, I'm not buying the "weak wrists" excuse. Even the most slightly built women can learn to shoot a .38 Special or 9mm quite competently. I'm not saying that all women should START with those, but a .22LR is only suitable for a few months as a "learner's" pistol.


Seriously dude, who pissed in your cheerios? Are you always this insulting ?

Are you always this defensive?

I don't recall using any foul language or ad hominems, and I never questioned your general intelligence. So my demeanor is well within the accepted bounds of civil discussion.

I basically have correctly pointed out that your weak logic and willingness to compromise on this particular subject, will adversely affect your family's chances of successfully defending themselves in the event of an attack.


Nope, Im not a cop, and I wouldnt be a cop in the current legal environment, but I have spent years dealing with drunks and people on drugs as a bouncer in a large busy nightclub for years where there were shootings, stabbings, rapes, beatings, you name it. I have had people come at me with everything from bottles to their cars. I have been shot at, but not shot. I have dealt with people who were impervious to pain, generally you have to interrupt their supply of oxygen to have effect. Even when on drugs they are extremely rare, and the likelihood of one of them breaking into my house and harming my family while in that state is even less likely.

All well and good, but the fact remains that the number of home invasions has risen dramatically over the last couple decades. I haven't checked the stats on burglaries and armed robberies lately, but I doubt there has been a significant decrease. At least not in my area, judging by local TV newscasts. Serious crime in my area is up, and gangs present a real problem.


I have seen, or seen the aftermath of a number of people shot with a small caliber handgun. They all survived, but they were all affected and reconsidered their next step, particularly when they were hit in a vital area. I have also seen a number of people pepper or chemical sprayed. Not all of them were affected. Often the sprayer was affected. Often bystanders were affected.

What you've allegedly personally seen isn't really relevant. What matters is studies and testing done by law enforcement agencies and the military.

Like I already stated, I do NOT endorse tasers, sprays etc. for your first line of self-defense. JUST for those with a psychological fear of firearms and/or significant lack of self-confidence with them. So I'm not going to get into a debate about their effectiveness. However, if one is going to carry a defensive spray, they need to shake the cannisters well on preferably a daily basis, and discard old cannisters and buy new ones on an annual basis.


Again, Im not incorrectly assuming ANYTHING, I have already said what my preferences are, you just choose to ignore them. My scenario is my wife defending her life and our kids life from a position of cover in the safest room of our home. We are unable to leave our homes with our weapons, and have a LARGE LOUD dog who alerts us when someone enters the yard, let alone the house, and is likely to be in the face of the intruder as a first line of defense.

No offense intended, but you ARE making a LOT of assumptions.

If you're like 99% of the people in the country, you don't go running to the window every time your dog barks. Even if your wife reasonably could, if it's dark outside, there will very likely be substantial difficulty in properly assessing the situation. Home invaders can be out of their vehicle and in your home in a matter of seconds.

You're also assuming that both your wife and kid will be able to make it to a position of "cover" in a "safe" room. What if your wife is immersed in doing some work around the house, and your kid is sitting on the john? If several armed attackers enter, they can be well into the house before your wife has a clue as to what's going on. Don't count on the dog for protection, they'll just promptly shoot it.


Your analogy of the .38 handgun in a firefight against rifles is incomplete. Nobody smart chooses to get into a fight, period. When a fight is forced on you, you do what you have to do to survive. If someone breaks into my home, Ill pick a gun, any kind of gun to defend my family as my last resort after retreating to safety and calling the 5-0, over just about anything else. And I really dont fucking care if you disagree.

There's nothing wrong with my analogy, just your logic on this particular subject.

If one KNOWS BEFOREHAND they're going into a firefight with opponents armed with high-powered rifles, they wouldn't take a handgun.

So it logically follows that if somebody is PREPARING BEFOREHAND for defense of their home, knowing that most gang members and many street punks are packing pretty serious firepower these days---they would NOT entrust the safety of their loved ones to an anemic round like the .22LR.

A .22 creates a false sense of security, which only serves to substantially increase the chances that your loved ones will be hurt or killed in the event of an attack.


For future reference, if you cant engage in a civil discussion without being insulting I suggest you shut the fuck up.

Judging by your repeated use of vulgar language, you're obviously the one who has a problem engaging in a civil discussion. I'm not questioning your general intelligence or motives, so maybe YOU should "lighten up".

If you don't want to listen to my advice, fine. My main reason for pursuing this discussion wasn't to convince you personally, nor to "win" the argument.

Hopefully I can convince at least a few people reading this, that a .22LR is a poor choice for self-defense, and substantially compromises their safety in the event of an attack.

[Malum Prohibitum]

I don't think I "know it all". However, I do know what I'm talking about on this particular subject. My advice will significantly increase the chances of keeping your loved ones alive in the event of an attack. Your logic and compromise will give them substantially WORSE odds of successfully defending themselves.

You are wrong. Until I can encourage my wife and daughter to practice and become proficient with a larger caliber handgun, the alternative to the .22 is for them to beg an intruder not to kill them. A small chance is better than no chance.



It makes all the difference in the world what kind of weapon it was fired from. Even fired from a rifle, I'm not going to trust a .22LR to defend my loved ones from an attack. However, when fired from a rifle, the round WILL travel MUCH farther.

Farther does not mean greater force. The fact remains that a .22lr penetrated this cops torso under his arm, and entered his heart.


But the fact it allegedly killed a cop still doesn't make it an effective man-stopper. It's a fluke occurrence. There are a handful of cases where people have been killed by BB guns, but they're flukes. Just because a .22 or BB gun can kill under rare circumstances, doesn't make either of them a good self-defense round.

I have never asserted that a .22 is a 'good' defense round, merely that it is more 'good' than begging for your life.


Your points are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, we're talking about HANDGUNS here. No matter where it's going to be used, a .22LR handgun is an incredibly poor choice for self-defense. Using one is a serious compromise which will substantially decrease your loved ones' chances of surviving an attack.

You are no judge of relevance. You are just some random dude on the internet. Yes, compared to a more powerful handgun, a .22 is a less effective round. It is, however, better than lining up to be executed.


First off, let me make it clear that I never endorsed use of a taser, stun gun or spray for self-defense purposes for the average person. Just for those who have a substantive lack of self-confidence and/or inordinate fear of firearms.

At least we agree on something. Tasers, stun guns, and chem spray are better offensive weapons than defensive ones. They work great when you have the drop on someone.


However, I'm not buying the "weak wrists" excuse. Even the most slightly built women can learn to shoot a .38 Special or 9mm quite competently. I'm not saying that all women should START with those, but a .22LR is only suitable for a few months as a "learner's" pistol.

Im beyond caring what you buy or not. The woman has broken her wrists repeatedly as a kid and suffers from pain and weakness in these joints. As I explained, the goal is to move her up to a 9, but on her own terms, not mine.


Are you always this defensive?

generally Im only this defensive when some random know it all on the net starts spewing his 'knowledge' and tells me I dont know what the hell I am talking about because I was never a cop.


I don't recall using any foul language or ad hominems, and I never questioned your general intelligence. So my demeanor is well within the accepted bounds of civil discussion.

foul language isnt necessarily insulting, and insults dont require foul language. You dont know what the hell you are talking about. You make assumptions that I dont know the difference btw weapons, and speak to me accordingly. Save your preaching for your kids.


I have basically have correctly pointed out that your weak logic and willingness to compromise on this particular subject, will adversely affect your family's chances of successfully defending themselves in the event of an attack.

You are correct about nothing.


All well and good, but the fact remains that the number of home invasions has risen dramatically over the last couple decades. I haven't checked the stats on burglaries and armed robberies lately, but I doubt there has been a significant decrease. At least not in my area, judging by local TV newscasts. Serious crime in my area is up, and gangs present a real problem.

Actually, nationwide, serious crime is down, and has been on a downward trend for quite some time. I live in gang central. They rarely go after civilians.


What you've allegedly personally seen isn't really relevant. What matters is studies and testing done by law enforcement agencies and the military.

Actually, what Ive personally seen is ALL that is relevant. Law enforcement doesnt use the .22, so I find it highly unlikely that they have done testing of the sort we are discussing. Even if they did, it would be highly suspect. Remember that these are the same agencies that are regularly incompetent or corrupt.

I doubt it is going to happen, but if a private company were to do studies on the survivability of a home invasion against a determined intruder, and victim 1 has pepper spray, victim 2 has a kitchen knife, victim 3 has a taser, victim 4 has a stun gun and victim 5 has a .22 pistol and 20 rounds in a magazine, I guarantee you that over all, the victim with the .22 who opens up aiming at center mass and keeps squeezing the trigger until it clicks is going to come out on top relative to the rest. Im willing to bet everything I have in my pocket on that.

Despite your claim to the contrary, you have no real data to suggest that that conclusion is wrong. All you have is the vague notion that cops use tasers, sprays, and stun guns. What you fail to realize is that those weapons are not defensive in nature. When a cop has fear of imminent injury or death, he is authorized to use his firearm, period. Less than lethal alternative weapons are used for aggressive control of subjects when the cop does not fear for his life. Basically they are tools to allow the cop to control subjects without getting dirty or breaking a sweat. I curse the day they were invented. The .22 is potentially lethal, particularly since it often takes multiple rounds to end the altercation, so it is not used in that capacity.



No offense intended, but you ARE making a LOT of assumptions.

If you're like 99% of the people in the country, you don't go running to the window every time your dog barks. Even if your wife reasonably could, if it's dark outside, there will very likely be substantial difficulty in properly assessing the situation. Home invaders can be out of their vehicle and in your home in a matter of seconds.

You're also assuming that both your wife and kid will be able to make it to a position of "cover" in a "safe" room. What if your wife is immersed in doing some work around the house, and your kid is sitting on the john? If several armed attackers enter, they can be well into the house before your wife has a clue as to what's going on. Don't count on the dog for protection, they'll just promptly shoot it.

You are making alot of assumptions as well. You are assuming an aggressive, murderous, well armed, fast moving, team of assailants. A hit team. First of all, 99% of all home invasions do not meet this criteria. Most criminals are stupid and lazy, which is why they are criminals. Secondly, in the event that an invasion like that occurs, no weapon which is stored off of the body will be of any use, regardless of its caliber.


If one KNOWS BEFOREHAND they're going into a firefight with opponents armed with high-powered rifles, they wouldn't take a handgun.

So it logically follows that if somebody is PREPARING BEFOREHAND for defense of their home, knowing that most gang members and many street punks are packing pretty serious firepower these days---they would NOT entrust the safety of their loved ones to an anemic round like the .22LR.

A .22 creates a false sense of security, which only serves to substantially increase the chances that your loved ones will be hurt or killed in the event of an attack.

Again, I dont disagree that a .22 is a bad weapon for self defense. The distinction is that there are worse weapons for self defense. Having no weapon for self defense falls into this category. So do your less than lethal alternatives.


Judging by your repeated use of vulgar language, you're obviously the one who has a problem engaging in a civil discussion. I'm not questioning your general intelligence or motives, so maybe YOU should "lighten up".

Actually, you did call into question my intelligence, and made assumptions you shouldnt have about what I know or dont know. But we appear to be back on a non insulting path here, so Im willing to stay on it.

The .22lr is a poorly suited weapon for self defense, particularly against armed, huge, or drugged up assailants. Despite its weaknesses, it is still better defensive weapon than empty hands, chemical sprays which can affect more than the intended targed, tasers which only have one shot, or stun guns which require physical contact to employ.

[Conservative Christian]

You are wrong. Until I can encourage my wife and daughter to practice and become proficient with a larger caliber handgun, the alternative to the .22 is for them to beg an intruder not to kill them. A small chance is better than no chance.

No, I'm not wrong. You're simply making incorrect assumptions about what you think I'm saying.

I've already specifically stated probably at least twice, that a .22 is OK as a learner's pistol for a few months, whereupon the learner needs to step up to a larger caliber. I also specifically stated that fearful individuals like your wife should NOT be started out with larger calibers like .38 Special or 9mm.

All I can say is keep encouraging her, someday her life may depend on it.


Farther does not mean greater force. The fact remains that a .22lr penetrated this cops torso under his arm, and entered his heart.

The fact remains that it was still a fluke shot. The kid next door might accidentally shoot you and kill you with a BB to the temple. That doesn't mean either one is reliable for self-defense. As another poster mentioned, only about 20% of people shot with ANY caliber of handgun round die, and that includes far more powerful rounds than the .22.

Nobody serious about self defense is going to bet their life on a fluke.


I have never asserted that a .22 is a 'good' defense round, merely that it is more 'good' than begging for your life.

You're over-simplifying. There are multiple options, not just two.


You are no judge of relevance. You are just some random dude on the internet. Yes, compared to a more powerful handgun, a .22 is a less effective round. It is, however, better than lining up to be executed.

You don't know what my experience is, so YOU aren't in a position to judge ME. And quit trying to over-simplify things.


At least we agree on something. Tasers, stun guns, and chem spray are better offensive weapons than defensive ones. They work great when you have the drop on someone.

Actually, they're quite good in many defensive situations. Law Enforcement studies have concluded that many of the "failures" attributed to sprays are actually caused by individuals who neglect to shake the cannisters on a regular basis, and they used out-dated cannisters that should've been rotated and replaced once a year.

As for tasers, I wouldn't underestimate them if I were you. There are something in the area of about 250 documented deaths due to tasering. A taser is far more reliable at incapacitating an attacker than a .22LR round.


Im beyond caring what you buy or not. The woman has broken her wrists repeatedly as a kid and suffers from pain and weakness in these joints. As I explained, the goal is to move her up to a 9, but on her own terms, not mine.

I'm not in the market for anything. I'm giving recommendations based on experience.

My shooting wrist was permanently injured years ago, and I have some carpal tunnel in it to boot. But I can still handle a handgun of moderate power, as I'm sure your wife can if she makes up her mind.

I never suggested you force her to use a 9mm immediately. For about the fourth time, I've clearly stated that it's fine to learn with and use a .22 for a few months. But if you and your wife are serious about self-defense, she's going to have to "step up" after that.

The proper logic behind self-defense is to give yourself a GOOD chance of surviving, NOT "Aw gee, at least she's got a TINY chance of surviving with a .22".


generally Im only this defensive when some random know it all on the net starts spewing his 'knowledge' and tells me I dont know what the hell I am talking about because I was never a cop.

You don't know my qualifications, so your proclamations about me are merely an opinion and defense mechanism. I'm not rejecting any of your arguments because you were never a cop, I'm rejecting them because your logic and arguments are weak regarding this particular topic.


foul language isnt necessarily insulting, and insults dont require foul language. You dont know what the hell you are talking about. You make assumptions that I dont know the difference btw weapons, and speak to me accordingly. Save your preaching for your kids.

Foul language is NEVER appropriate in civil discourse. One wouldn't use that language in church. They wouldn't use it at an important business function. They wouldn't use that type of language towards their boss. They wouldn't use it in a formal debate. I certainly hope they wouldn't tell their wife and kids to "STFU".


You are correct about nothing.

You're just spouting off now. We've already agreed that .22's are a poor choice for self-defense.


Actually, nationwide, serious crime is down, and has been on a downward trend for quite some time. I live in gang central. They rarely go after civilians.

Certain serious crimes are down a few percentage points overall, but robberies at residences have been on the increase in this century. Between 1999 and 2003, residence robberies increased by at least 18 percent, according to FBI statistics.

30 or so years ago, home invasions were a rarity. Today they're a regular occurrence in many cities, and we're not just talking large cities like Detroit and Philly anymore.


Actually, what Ive personally seen is ALL that is relevant. Law enforcement doesnt use the .22, so I find it highly unlikely that they have done testing of the sort we are discussing. Even if they did, it would be highly suspect. Remember that these are the same agencies that are regularly incompetent or corrupt.

Law enforcement agencies don't have to do the testing, but they are the logical ones to go to when assembling crime statistics, because they're the ones dealing with it and keeping records of it on a day to day basis.

I've never met an experienced cop or bona fide civilian authority on the subject who would recommend carrying a .22LR as a primary defense weapon.

Don't take my word for it. Go to Amazon.com and look around for books by guys like Massad Ayoob, the late Jeff Cooper, and other recognized international authorities on the matter.


I doubt it is going to happen, but if a private company were to do studies on the survivability of a home invasion against a determined intruder, and victim 1 has pepper spray, victim 2 has a kitchen knife, victim 3 has a taser, victim 4 has a stun gun and victim 5 has a .22 pistol and 20 rounds in a magazine, I guarantee you that over all, the victim with the .22 who opens up aiming at center mass and keeps squeezing the trigger until it clicks is going to come out on top relative to the rest. Im willing to bet everything I have in my pocket on that.

Once again, you're using a straw man argument. I never said ANY of the weapons you mentioned were ideal for self-defense. And just because one clearly inferior self-defense weapon may or may not be marginally more effective than some others, STILL doesn't make it a wise thing to carry on a permanent basis.

A .22 is a little more effective than a BB gun, but it's not smart to carry either in a possible life or death situation.

I repeat, the purpose for using defensive handguns is to give yourself a GOOD chance of surviving a violent confrontation, NOT a "slim to virtually none" chance that a .22 would give you.

You're also making assumptions again. You're assuming they're going to have a chance to get 20 rounds off with that .22. The average confrontation in a home occurs at maybe 12 to 15 feet.

Some years back, an LEO I know went to a handgun defense seminar by a nationally recognized handgun instructor who was also an experienced LEO. At a distance of 15 feet, many of the seminar participants couldn't even draw their gun from their holster in time to get off even one shot, before an individual selected by the instructor was able to reach them.

Even though my friend was an experienced LEO, he was still somewhat surprised by just how fast a determined aggressor can cover a distance of 15 feet.


Despite your claim to the contrary, you have no real data to suggest that that conclusion is wrong. All you have is the vague notion that cops use tasers, sprays, and stun guns. What you fail to realize is that those weapons are not defensive in nature. When a cop has fear of imminent injury or death, he is authorized to use his firearm, period. Less than lethal alternative weapons are used for aggressive control of subjects when the cop does not fear for his life. Basically they are tools to allow the cop to control subjects without getting dirty or breaking a sweat. I curse the day they were invented. The .22 is potentially lethal, particularly since it often takes multiple rounds to end the altercation, so it is not used in that capacity.

How many times do I have to repeat myself. A BB gun is potentially lethal, a butter knife is potentially lethal. Even if I concede your point that a .22 is a better defensive weapon than the other weapons mentioned, it still does NOTHING to change the hard fact that a .22 is still a very poor choice for a primary defense weapon.

NONE of them, especially the .22, should be seriously considered for a PRIMARY defensive weapon.

Tasers are darn sure lethal though, as evidenced by the approximate 250 documented deaths that they've caused.

I keep trying to tell you that I don't care to argue about the relative value of sprays, stun guns etc. as compared to a .22.

Just like a handgun, they can be used either for offensive or defensive purposes. I personally have used pepper spray, CS and stun guns in a DEFENSIVE manner. So DON'T try to tell me they can't be used in a defensive manner.

A stun gun or taser will stop even the largest assailants far more reliably than
a .22. Whereas an assailant on drugs or alcohol probably isn't even going to feel a .22 round hit them, a stun gun will drop them like a rock, because it short circuits the central nervous system.


You are making alot of assumptions as well. You are assuming an aggressive, murderous, well armed, fast moving, team of assailants. A hit team. First of all, 99% of all home invasions do not meet this criteria. Most criminals are stupid and lazy, which is why they are criminals. Secondly, in the event that an invasion like that occurs, no weapon which is stored off of the body will be of any use, regardless of its caliber.

Please provide documentation from the FBI or other major law enforcement agency, that supports your ludicrous 99% figure.

Home invasions are VERY OFTEN perpetrated by multiple assailants, who are VERY OFTEN armed better than the homeowners they target, and they VERY OFTEN move quite quickly.

Just because I can't provide exact figures doesn't make your 99% claim any more realistic.


Again, I dont disagree that a .22 is a bad weapon for self defense. The distinction is that there are worse weapons for self defense. Having no weapon for self defense falls into this category. So do your less than lethal alternatives.

Thank you. So by your own admission, your earlier statement that I'm wrong about everything---is wrong.

The real distinction is that just because the .22 MIGHT be marginally more effective than some of the other weapons mentioned, does nothing to change the fact that a .22 is STILL a "bad weapon for self defense", to use your own words. It's a very poor choice for anybody who is serious about self-defense.


Actually, you did call into question my intelligence, and made assumptions you shouldnt have about what I know or dont know. But we appear to be back on a non insulting path here, so Im willing to stay on it.

No, I didn't question your general intelligence. Don't try and tell me what I think about people. You don't know me. The fact that you once again make this assertion, is only evidence that you seem to believe what you want to believe, regardless of facts.


The .22lr is a poorly suited weapon for self defense, particularly against armed, huge, or drugged up assailants. Despite its weaknesses, it is still better defensive weapon than empty hands, chemical sprays which can affect more than the intended targed, tasers which only have one shot, or stun guns which require physical contact to employ.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? NEWS FLASH!: Even IF you're correct that it is better than the other weapons you mention, it STILL does NOTHING to alter the fact that the .22 is ITSELF a remarkably poor choice for self-defense.

The only thing you've proven is that it's a poor choice amongst other poor choices.

The goal of handgun defense is to provide yourself a GOOD chance of survival in a violent confrontation, NOT a "slim to virtually none" chance with a .22.

So even if I concede your point regarding the other weapons mentioned, it STILL does not make the .22 a wise choice for self-defense. Any way you cut it, it's still a poor choice.

[Malum Prohibitum]

The fact remains that it was still a fluke shot. The kid next door might accidentally shoot you and kill you with a BB to the temple. That doesn't mean either one is reliable for self-defense. As another poster mentioned, only about 20% of people shot with ANY caliber of handgun round die, and that includes far more powerful rounds than the .22.

Nobody serious about self defense is going to bet their life on a fluke.

Id love to have some hard and fast facts on this, but I don't, and neither do you. Many people are killed or permanently injured with .22lr. That is a fact.


You're over-simplifying. There are multiple options, not just two.

Empty hands, taser, stun gun, and chem/pepper spray are options. They are also worse options.


As for tasers, I wouldn't underestimate them if I were you. There are something in the area of about 250 documented deaths due to tasering. A taser is far more reliable at incapacitating an attacker than a .22LR round.

If a determined attacker can cover 15 feet faster than many trained cops can deploy their sidearm, he can cover that distance faster than the taser can be deployed.


The proper logic behind self-defense is to give yourself a GOOD chance of surviving, NOT "Aw gee, at least she's got a TINY chance of surviving with a .22".

obviously the goal is a good chance. A tiny chance is still better than none. I wouldnt have much of a chance of survival at all if a team of trained ninjas came through my door tomorrow. That doesnt mean Im not going to grab the nearest weapon I can find and fight back.


You don't know my qualifications, so your proclamations about me are merely an opinion and defense mechanism. I'm not rejecting any of your arguments because you were never a cop, I'm rejecting them because your logic and arguments are weak regarding this particular topic.

This is ALL a matter of opinion. That is what is pissing me off. You think your opinion is fact. I assure you it is not. I assert that any defense is better than no defense. This is not an illogical statement. IMO and experience, your less than lethal options are worse than the .22lr. I have seen all systems deployed, and have made my choice based on my personal extensive experience dealing with aggressors. Who are you to tell me that I am wrong?


Foul language is NEVER appropriate in civil discourse. One wouldn't use that language in church. They wouldn't use it at an important business function. They wouldn't use that type of language towards their boss. They wouldn't use it in a formal debate. I certainly hope they wouldn't tell their wife and kids to "STFU".

Just as you are no judge of what is best for the defense of my family, you are also not the arbiter of what is or what is not civil discourse. I use profanity wherever it is necessary to draw emphasis to what intend to communicate. Ill tell my priest to fuck off if he is out of line. Ill tell my boss to fuck off if he is out of line. In an extreme circumstance, I would tell my wife or ADULT child to STFU, if it were necessary to shock them.

Seriously, who made you grand poobah of upper butt crack and high priest of self defense?


I've never met an experienced cop or bona fide civilian authority on the subject who would recommend carrying a .22LR as a primary defense weapon.

Don't take my word for it. Go to Amazon.com and look around for books by guys like Massad Ayoob, the late Jeff Cooper, and other recognized international authorities on the matter.

Again, I never said I recommend the .22. I just recommend it over being executed. Whats amazing is that you are completely ignoring the THOUSANDS of people who have been maimed or killed with this weapon. As for 'experts', very few of them have actually gotten into a real fight in a non military or law enforcement capacity. There is a difference.


A .22 is a little more effective than a BB gun, but it's not smart to carry either in a possible life or death situation.

Okay, now I know you are spouting off. Saying that a .22 is a little more effective than a BB gun is like saying a .50 cal BMG is a little more effective than a .45ACP. Its clearly a different class of weapon. I have been shot with a BB. They sting. Thats it. You have to be extremely lucky to get a BB to penetrate the skin far enough to even imbed itself there. A 22lr penetrates the body, and is capable of damaging vital organs. A test shoot shows that a 22lr penetrates 6 sheets of sheetrock, or 4 pine boards before coming to rest. By comparison, a 9mm round penetrated 12 sheets of sheet rock, and 8 pine boards. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm A round capable of penetrating 4 pine boards is capable of entering the body and inflicting some serious damage. What makes the .22 less effective than say a .45 is the fact that it is less than a quarter of the mass of a .45, so it is poor at penetrating bone, and causes less impact, less systemic shock, and less resulting arterial contact.


Some years back, an LEO I know went to a handgun defense seminar by a nationally recognized handgun instructor who was also an experienced LEO. At a distance of 15 feet, many of the seminar participants couldn't even draw their gun from their holster in time to get off even one shot, before an individual selected by the instructor was able to reach them.
Even though my friend was an experienced LEO, he was still somewhat surprised by just how fast a determined aggressor can cover a distance of 15 feet.

Your continued assertion of LEO statements as fact is starting to get somewhat annoying. I have nothing against LEOs, but many are simply not qualified to even be carrying their weapons. I have literally met LEOs who do not even know what caliber of weapon they carry. I have met LEOs who have indicated a .40 caliber handgun on their report as a 40MM handgun. (id like to see one of those) I have met LEOs who dont know that a shotgun is capable of firing multiple projectiles. I have seen reports of LEOs shooting other LEOs from excitement. A number of LEOs have shot themselves. Just because someone is a LEO doesnt automatically make him an expert on anything save perhaps what he had for breakfast today.


A stun gun or taser will stop even the largest assailants far more reliably than a .22. Whereas an assailant on drugs or alcohol probably isn't even going to feel a .22 round hit them, a stun gun will drop them like a rock, because it short circuits the central nervous system.

What you are missing is that the deployment of these systems generally require that you have the drop on someone. Sure a taser or stun gun interrupts the central nervous system of MOST people. They are by no means fool proof though, and with a taser, you get one shot. If you miss, you are done. Considering that the stun gun requires you to actually touch the assailant, that is a poor choice for someone who intends to escape injury. A woman is going to have a hard time making contact with the electrodes if the assailant knows she has the device.


Please provide documentation from the FBI or other major law enforcement agency, that supports your ludicrous 99% figure.

It is common knowledge that hundreds if not thousands of home invasions and burglaries occur daily across this nation. The kind of aggressive hit team invasion you refer to make the news. In a metro the size of 3M, perhaps one or two a year are the kind of invasion you describe. Extrapolated to a nation of 300M, that is 100-200 a year compared to the 2.1 M burglaries that occurred in 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/property_crime/burglary.html.
If only one percent of burglaries were the type of violent home invasions you describe, in my metro of 3M people, I would be seeing violent hit team type invasions on the television about every 2-3 weeks. I actually see those reports about once or twice a year.

You are wasting my time at this point.

[Conservative Christian]

Id love to have some hard and fast facts on this, but I don't, and neither do you. Many people are killed or permanently injured with .22lr. That is a fact.

No, "Many" people are NOT killed with .22LR. Only a tiny percentage of people shot with a .22 die or are permanently injured. It's also remarkably poor at even stopping a determined attacker much of the time.

In one case I know of, an attacker was shot in the head with a .22, and it didn't even penetrate his skull cap. He proceeded to give his victim a serious beat-down.

If a .22 isn't even a reliable man-stopper with a HEAD SHOT, then it's NOT an intelligent choice for self-defense.

No more than 20% of people shot with ANY type of handgun die, and many of those who survived were shot with far more effective rounds than the .22.


Empty hands, taser, stun gun, and chem/pepper spray are options. They are also worse options.

How many times are you going to keep rehashing the same illogical argument? For the umpteenth time, even if they are worse options, it does NOTHING to change the hard fact that the .22 is a very poor option itself. Being the marginally better option amongst bad options is nothing to stake your wife's life on.

A steak knife would be marginally more effective than a butter knife, but I'm not going to bet my life on either of them.


If a determined attacker can cover 15 feet faster than many trained cops can deploy their sidearm, he can cover that distance faster than the taser can be deployed.

Once again I have to keep repeating myself.

I ONLY recommend tasers, stun guns, and sprays to individuals with a psychological fear of handguns and a strong lack of self-confidence, which definitely applies to your wife if you've been telling me the truth about her.

I never said many trained cops couldn't pull their gun in time. I was speaking about your average joe/jane handgun owner, which would include you and your wife.

And your above argument STILL doesn't make the .22 a credible choice for self-defense.


obviously the goal is a good chance. A tiny chance is still better than none. I wouldnt have much of a chance of survival at all if a team of trained ninjas came through my door tomorrow. That doesnt mean Im not going to grab the nearest weapon I can find and fight back.

ANY of the weapons we've mentioned here give you a "tiny" chance. Common sense tells me that you want a good chance. Your illogic is only going to get your wife and kid seriously hurt or killed, in the event of a real attack.


This is ALL a matter of opinion. That is what is pissing me off. You think your opinion is fact. I assure you it is not. I assert that any defense is better than no defense. This is not an illogical statement. IMO and experience, your less than lethal options are worse than the .22lr. I have seen all systems deployed, and have made my choice based on my personal extensive experience dealing with aggressors. Who are you to tell me that I am wrong?

My opinion is supported by nationally and internationally recognized handgun self-defense experts, law enforcement agencies and the military. ALL of them will tell you that a .22LR is wholly insufficient as a personal defense weapon.

If three assailants armed with firearms stormed your house when only your wife and kid were there, your wife would be FAR safer letting them take whatever they want, rather than trying to fire at them with a pathetic .22. It would only get her shot and very possibly killed.

Most home invasions are for the purpose of robbery. The great majority of perpetrators are not interested in murder and rape. Giving three armed thugs whatever they want in the house, would be far safer for your wife than to try and engage them in a shoot-out with a virtually worthless .22.


Just as you are no judge of what is best for the defense of my family, you are also not the arbiter of what is or what is not civil discourse. I use profanity wherever it is necessary to draw emphasis to what intend to communicate. Ill tell my priest to fuck off if he is out of line. Ill tell my boss to fuck off if he is out of line. In an extreme circumstance, I would tell my wife or ADULT child to STFU, if it were necessary to shock them.

You're wrong. By our society's accepted standards, telling your priest or boss to "FO" is NOT civilized conduct. Where I work, you would be promptly fired. My pastor would promptly kick you out of church. Say that to a police officer who's stopped you, and you'll likely end up under arrest. Say that to a judge in court, and you'll likely be charged with contempt of court.

So by the standards of civilized society, such language is NOT acceptable, regardless of what some self-righteous types think.


Seriously, who made you grand poobah of upper butt crack and high priest of self defense?

Nobody. I never claimed to be either. You're simply resorting to ad hominems and appeals to ridicule, in a failed attempt to cover up the fact that you don't have any credible arguments.


Again, I never said I recommend the .22. I just recommend it over being executed. Whats amazing is that you are completely ignoring the THOUSANDS of people who have been maimed or killed with this weapon. As for 'experts', very few of them have actually gotten into a real fight in a non military or law enforcement capacity. There is a difference.

If your wife tries to pull a measly .22 on three armed thugs, her chances of being executed are ENORMOUS. So your logic once again fails you. If she's not willing to EVER use anything but a .22, I would strongly advise you to tell her just to give the assailants all the money and property they want, then file a police report and insurance claim afterward.

Her odds of survival would be MUCH better than pulling a pathetic .22 on them, where the chances are HUGE that they'll just promptly shoot her. And most home invaders are smart enough to be carrying a handgun considerably more powerful than an anemic .22.

The military, law enforcement and civilian experts are all in agreement---the .22 is an extremely poor choice for a primary self-defense arm. Their years of experience and access to tens of thousands of actual case histories, easily trump your bluster and bravado.


Okay, now I know you are spouting off. Saying that a .22 is a little more effective than a BB gun is like saying a .50 cal BMG is a little more effective than a .45ACP. Its clearly a different class of weapon. I have been shot with a BB. They sting. Thats it. You have to be extremely lucky to get a BB to penetrate the skin far enough to even imbed itself there. A 22lr penetrates the body, and is capable of damaging vital organs. A test shoot shows that a 22lr penetrates 6 sheets of sheetrock, or 4 pine boards before coming to rest. By comparison, a 9mm round penetrated 12 sheets of sheet rock, and 8 pine boards. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm A round capable of penetrating 4 pine boards is capable of entering the body and inflicting some serious damage. What makes the .22 less effective than say a .45 is the fact that it is less than a quarter of the mass of a .45, so it is poor at penetrating bone, and causes less impact, less systemic shock, and less resulting arterial contact.

You're the only one spouting off, and your factoids regarding penetration are irrelevant. Your own last sentence explains why the .22's alleged penetration capability is virtually worthless.

The hard fact remains that it causes NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH impact, shock and internal damage to stop a determined aggressor, especially if he's on drugs.

Thanks for helping me prove my case!


Your continued assertion of LEO statements as fact is starting to get somewhat annoying. I have nothing against LEOs, but many are simply not qualified to even be carrying their weapons. I have literally met LEOs who do not even know what caliber of weapon they carry. I have met LEOs who have indicated a .40 caliber handgun on their report as a 40MM handgun. (id like to see one of those) I have met LEOs who dont know that a shotgun is capable of firing multiple projectiles. I have seen reports of LEOs shooting other LEOs from excitement. A number of LEOs have shot themselves. Just because someone is a LEO doesnt automatically make him an expert on anything save perhaps what he had for breakfast today.

Hey Mr. Know-it-all, I never claimed that the average LEO is a handgun expert.

I'm referring to TRAINED EXPERTS in law enforcement, the military and civilian life---who have conducted thousands of studies and have studied ballistics, forensic science, crime reports, autopsy reports etc. for many decades.

NO law enforcement agency or military branch in the country recommends or issues a .22 for a primary sidearm. With modern technology producing smaller and lighter pistols in medium to large calibers, the .22 doesn't even make any sense as a BACKUP pistol anymore.

If you want to reject decades of expert opinion based on research and case histories, that's your option. If three armed assailants enter your home and your wife pulls a .22 on them, you can always go visit her in the hospital or morgue.


What you are missing is that the deployment of these systems generally require that you have the drop on someone. Sure a taser or stun gun interrupts the central nervous system of MOST people. They are by no means fool proof though, and with a taser, you get one shot. If you miss, you are done. Considering that the stun gun requires you to actually touch the assailant, that is a poor choice for someone who intends to escape injury. A woman is going to have a hard time making contact with the electrodes if the assailant knows she has the device.

What YOU are missing is that I NEVER recommended tasers, sprays etc. as the primary weapon for the average person. ONLY for those who have a psychological fear of handguns or strong lack of self-confidence with one, which would include your wife.

Your wife would be in a world of hurt whether she pulled a taser OR .22 on anybody. So the shortcomings of tasers etc., do NOTHING to change the hard fact that a .22 is virtually worthless for self-defense.

How many times do I have to repeat myself, and how many times are you going to keep regurgitating the same old illogical and already refuted arguments?!


It is common knowledge that hundreds if not thousands of home invasions and burglaries occur daily across this nation. The kind of aggressive hit team invasion you refer to make the news. In a metro the size of 3M, perhaps one or two a year are the kind of invasion you describe. Extrapolated to a nation of 300M, that is 100-200 a year compared to the 2.1 M burglaries that occurred in 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/property_crime/burglary.html.
If only one percent of burglaries were the type of violent home invasions you describe, in my metro of 3M people, I would be seeing violent hit team type invasions on the television about every 2-3 weeks. I actually see those reports about once or twice a year.

You are wasting my time at this point.

YOU are wasting EVERYBODY's time at this point.

Most home invasions nationwide DO involve multiple assailants, whether you want to accept that hard fact or not. Pulling a .22 on multiple armed assailants will only put your wife in the hospital or morgue.

Google "home invasions". 448 home invasions in Houston alone in a recent year. That's WAY MORE than one every two or three weeks. That's more than one EVERY DAY of the year.

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

From your requirements I would suggest checking Ruger MarK III.
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FASubType?type=Pistol&subtype=Rimfire%20Autoloading
Several models of a proven design.

nice guns :-)