I recommended a 22LR for self defense/conceal carry today

While you're at it, maybe have her check out one of the Beretta tip-up barrel semiautos, like the Tomcat or the Bobcat. I've never shot either, but I read a Shooting Illustrated article claiming there have been .32 cal. defensive ammo advances. Both models are easy to load, and have a 7-round magazine.
 
I gave both my grown daughters a .22 revolver for all the reasons enumerated above. During my 30 year career I saw more folks felled by the lowly .22 than anything else and if that’s what you can shoot best, no problem. It’s better than nothing.
 
Many people tend to regard the .22 rimfires more as toys than real firearms. The reality is that modern .22LR ammo is extremely reliable, very accurate, and has a long history of defensive use. From a handgun there is no great difference in velocities between so-called "standard" loads and so-called "premium" ammo. From a handgun it is doubtful at best that any bullet, regardless of design, will reliably expand or otherwise cause greater trauma or wound cavity than any other bullet.

As several others have pointed out, a hit on target with a .22 is far more effective than a miss with any larger caliber.

The only reservation I would raise is the relative standards of reliability when comparing commonly available .22 rimfire ammo. Not every revolver will reliably discharge every variation of ammo available. Not every semi-auto will reliably feed, fire, extract, eject or otherwise function with complete reliability using every type of ammo available.

The wise person will carefully evaluate the performance of a handgun with the specific ammo to be carried, and when a reliable match is found that shooter will lay in a stockpile of that ammo (same manufacturer, lot number, etc) for long-term use in practice and carry. When the time comes to resupply on ammo it will again be time to carefully evaluate available choices, since ammunition from any manufacturer will be significantly different from one production lot to another.

.22 rimfire ammunition is manufactured domestically (USA) by multiple producers in increments of BILLIONS of rounds annually, and by all worldwide producers in increments probably approaching a trillion or more per year. Packaging varies. Promotional sales will vary. The same manufacturer's name, product number, and SKU may give some indication of contents of the packaging, but the actual contents may vary widely.
 
Good job on helping a new shooter find their way. There are too many that don't take into consideration how a new shooter feels, and they suggest something that, while easy to shoot to them, is not the best choice and scares some away from the sport.

My only change would be to start with the 22 ( revolver and semi-auto ) then move up to something bigger, but not use the j frames or micro guns. They can be a challenge to shoot for people who have some experience. For a new person they are a handful, and not very good for teaching a newbie the ropes.

My other half has gone out shooting with me numerous times, and while she enjoyed the 22s,and my .36 black powder revolver , anything much bigger she wasn't too interested in. She did like the 39-2 I have, but it was right on the edge of her comfort zone.

I wouldn't have her shoot the 642 or PA-63 I have because they would be more of a turn off for her.
 
What an uninformed, uneducated and untrained individual likes is largely irrelevant. They have no knowledge or experience in which to make any kind of informed decision. What they prefer in the context of shooting after one range visit means little in the context of what would be an effective self-defense choice.

Most gun guys tend to be "shooters", whose training is limited to static range shooting, who want to get people involved in range shooting in the same manner they do it and approach personal defense from this perspective, but shooting and armed self-defense(fighting with a gun) are two very different things, just like there is a big difference between certain martial arts and practical unarmed self-defense. If a woman is solely interested in learning effective H2H methods and rape prevention skills, she is going to have to undertake training that is relatively strenuous and involves some compromising positions. The local mcdojo will likely be more fun, easier to learn and perhaps not involve participating in training methods utilizing techniques which many find uncomfortable, but she won't likely learn skills that would be applicable in an actual assault and instead simply gain a false sense of confidence.

I've lost count of the number of people who my mother said have recommended she get a .22, but the reasons they give for their suggestion are always isolated to target shooting. My mother is a pragmatic, and is only interested in choosing the most effective tool for the most likely realistic scenarios she will face as an armed civilian and her weapon of choice is an S&W 442. She chose this weapon after thoroughly educating herself by studying the competing arguments for and against various weapons, considering the most likely potential threats and scenarios she would encounter as an armed civilian, her likely response and how each weapon would be used and perform in them and came to the conclusion that the supposed negatives of the .38 snub really only applied to target shooting and it's strengths were likely to be beneficial in the most probable actual personal defense situations. Shooting, being a shooter, the shooting or gun community had nothing to do with it as it shouldn't.

A .22 is no doubt better than nothing, but I would never recommend one for personal defense unless there was some sort of severe physical impairment. No way would I ever want my wife or mother to depend on one in matters of life and death.
 
What an uninformed, uneducated and untrained individual likes is largely irrelevant. They have no knowledge or experience in which to make any kind of informed decision. What they prefer in the context of shooting after one range visit means little in the context of what would be an effective self-defense choice.

Most gun guys tend to be "shooters", whose training is limited to static range shooting, who want to get people involved in range shooting in the same manner they do it and approach personal defense from this perspective, but shooting and armed self-defense(fighting with a gun) are two very different things, just like there is a big difference between certain martial arts and practical unarmed self-defense. If a woman is solely interested in learning effective H2H methods and rape prevention skills, she is going to have to undertake training that is relatively strenuous and involves some compromising positions. The local mcdojo will likely be more fun, easier to learn and perhaps not involve participating in training methods utilizing techniques which many find uncomfortable, but she won't likely learn skills that would be applicable in an actual assault and instead simply gain a false sense of confidence.

I've lost count of the number of people who my mother said have recommended she get a .22, but the reasons they give for their suggestion are always isolated to target shooting. My mother is a pragmatic, and is only interested in choosing the most effective tool for the most likely realistic scenarios she will face as an armed civilian and her weapon of choice is an S&W 442. She chose this weapon after thoroughly educating herself by studying the competing arguments for and against various weapons, considering the most likely potential threats and scenarios she would encounter as an armed civilian, her likely response and how each weapon would be used and perform in them and came to the conclusion that the supposed negatives of the .38 snub really only applied to target shooting and it's strengths were likely to be beneficial in the most probable actual personal defense situations. Shooting, being a shooter, the shooting or gun community had nothing to do with it as it shouldn't.

A .22 is no doubt better than nothing, but I would never recommend one for personal defense unless there was some sort of severe physical impairment. No way would I ever want my wife or mother to depend on one in matters of life and death.

Well, here is where you and I completely disagree.

I will have a woman who is confident and will be eager to come out and continue to hone her skills and can make her own choices rather than push something on her due to worrying about caliber effectiveness rather than skill and have the firearm sit in the drawer unused forever.

We gained a once "scared of guns" woman to the fold rather than pushing her into a "service caliber" because the internet told me I have to have one for self defense and then she is still scared of it and never uses it.

Not to mention she can't even hit the target so her five rounds of 38 special go everywhere but where they are supposed to go due to stress, recoil, grip, and trigger pull. What good is it? She should have just carried an axe.


Or should her husband just force her to train with a 38 which she hates? That would be great for her. I am sure she would look forward to that.


Kudos to your mom but not all humans are created equal, and for your info, I am almost 50, in great shape, workout four times a week, train for self defense and hate target shooting.

I am 100% confident I did the right thing and a year from now, she will be a better shooter because of it.
 
Last edited:
What an uninformed, uneducated and untrained individual likes is largely irrelevant. They have no knowledge or experience in which to make any kind of informed decision. What they prefer in the context of shooting after one range visit means little in the context of what would be an effective self-defense choice.

Most gun guys tend to be "shooters", whose training is limited to static range shooting, who want to get people involved in range shooting in the same manner they do it and approach personal defense from this perspective, but shooting and armed self-defense(fighting with a gun) are two very different things, just like there is a big difference between certain martial arts and practical unarmed self-defense. If a woman is solely interested in learning effective H2H methods and rape prevention skills, she is going to have to undertake training that is relatively strenuous and involves some compromising positions. The local mcdojo will likely be more fun, easier to learn and perhaps not involve participating in training methods utilizing techniques which many find uncomfortable, but she won't likely learn skills that would be applicable in an actual assault and instead simply gain a false sense of confidence.

I've lost count of the number of people who my mother said have recommended she get a .22, but the reasons they give for their suggestion are always isolated to target shooting. My mother is a pragmatic, and is only interested in choosing the most effective tool for the most likely realistic scenarios she will face as an armed civilian and her weapon of choice is an S&W 442. She chose this weapon after thoroughly educating herself by studying the competing arguments for and against various weapons, considering the most likely potential threats and scenarios she would encounter as an armed civilian, her likely response and how each weapon would be used and perform in them and came to the conclusion that the supposed negatives of the .38 snub really only applied to target shooting and it's strengths were likely to be beneficial in the most probable actual personal defense situations. Shooting, being a shooter, the shooting or gun community had nothing to do with it as it shouldn't.

A .22 is no doubt better than nothing, but I would never recommend one for personal defense unless there was some sort of severe physical impairment. No way would I ever want my wife or mother to depend on one in matters of life and death.

So I suppose that your position is that regardless of her skill and comfort level, she should have a larger caliber gun that she can't shoot well, won't practice with and wouldn't carry than a .22 that she is comfortable and capable of using.

While I see the .22 as one of the last possible choices, it is far preferable to being unarmed.

Like shoes, guns are NOT a one size fits all solution and the arrogance to suggest otherwise is defeating the goal of enabling someone to defend themselves.
 
Well, here is where you and I completely disagree.

I will have a woman who is confident and will be eager to come out and continue to hone her skills

I am 100% confident I did the right thing and a year from now, she will be a better shooter because of it.

Considering the demographics and background of those that make up the majority of this forum, I'd expect most members will disagree with me on this topic. I'm ok with that.

What skills is she honing that will help her in an actual defense scenario?

Being a better shooter on the context you presented will not necessarily make her more capable of defending herself effectively.
 
Good job. I'm sure it will work just fine for her.

I worked violent crime on Indian reservations in the wild west for 17 of my 25 years in the FBI. I worked many, many shootings (both fatal and non-fatal) and the predominant caliber was the lowly .22 LR (because everybody had one.)

I didn't have a single shooting where a person continued their aggressive behavior after being shot (or shot at) with a .22 caliber weapon. Not one.

I have come to believe that hardware (gun type, caliber, ammo selection) is the least important aspect of self defense.

PS - when my geezerly wrists and hands finally succumb to years of .45 caliber abuse, I have a very nice Beretta Model 87 .22 standing by to see me through my golden years.

euoCMBd.jpg
 
Last edited:
Considering the demographics and background of those that make up the majority of this forum, I'd expect most members will disagree with me on this topic. I'm ok with that.

What skills is she honing that will help her in an actual defense scenario?

Being a better shooter on the context you presented will not necessarily make her more capable of defending herself effectively.

Confidence and lack of fear of handguns. That right there is the best reason. Can’t understand how you don’t get that.
 
Confidence and lack of fear of handguns. That right there is the best reason. Can’t understand how you don’t get that.

False confidence is not a good thing and fear can be overcome with a minimal amount of education and proper training.
 
Considering the demographics and background of those that make up the majority of this forum, I'd expect most members will disagree with me on this topic. I'm ok with that.

That's Great cuz I disagree with you..

What skills is she honing that will help her in an actual defense scenario?

You are REALLY asking this question?? Seriously????? The lady is only developing the ONE basic skill that is required to survive a self defense situation: The ability to hit the Target!!! EVERY self defense thread I've read all boils down to one thing and it's NOT caliber or the amount of ammo the gun holds. It's Bullet Placement, Center Mass..... Period...

Being a better shooter on the context you presented will not necessarily make her more capable of defending herself effectively.

From what I read the lady wants a caliber she's comfortable with which will make her extremely capable.. So what context are you talking about??

My post is in the quote above....;):cool:
 
Back
Top