This may put some nickers in a twist

Regardless of what you term "effectiveness" my main point was that a group of very competent antiterrorists did not seem to believe the .22 was a "peashooter".

Yes, but it didn't happen the way you said. Anyway, what kind of "very competent antiterrorist" would choose a .22 pistol to go up against adversaries armed with AKs and grenades? One unlucky slob got in the way a .22 "pea" and succumbed. The incident doesn't prove the effectiveness of the .22 as a defensive round. Were the Swiss security forces that showed up and ultimately ended the fracas in the El Al incident armed with .22 pistols?
 
Often carry a Walther/S&W P22 stoked with 13 Aguila 60gr. SSS subsonic. Usually have a custom built 4" long sound "moderator" attached, or along for the ride with the other 6 mags.
 
I have a SR22 with Stinger for EDC. If the need is ther I will fire more than once. 3-4 Stingers at center mass, or dispursed around the body will stop someone.
 
Well, I haven't give it much thought honestly. But it's better than nothing, right?!. True, RFK was successfully killed by a .22 but still, I would not solely depend on it.



Sometimes I carry a blowgun with poisoned darts for SD. Is perfectly concealable, even when I wear shorts :D

"Better than nothing" is not an absolute, because too small a gun can give one a false sense of security and bravado, possibly leading to engagement, when retreat would have proved the better option to consider.
 
NAA 22 magnum in a pocket as a minimum. Never go unarmed. Most of the time the concealed carry is a small .38spl or a small .357. Open carry full size is a 9mm, a .357 or a 45colt.
 
"Better than nothing" is not an absolute, because too small a gun can give one a false sense of security and bravado, possibly leading to engagement, when retreat would have proved the better option to consider.

I agree, but considering retreat shouldn't have anything to do with the caliber of your pistol. If it's the better option you should do it, no matter what kinda artillery you carry. You still can engage later if you have to, but "advancing in another direction" (Gen. Douglas MacArthur) and calling for the Cavalry might be a better option depending on the situation.
 
I agree, but considering retreat shouldn't have anything to do with the caliber of your pistol. If it's the better option you should do it, no matter what kinda artillery you carry. You still can engage later if you have to, but "advancing in another direction" (Gen. Douglas MacArthur) and calling for the Cavalry might be a better option depending on the situation.

Well, that's a tiresome, obvious argument isn't it. The point is whether you think you can stop the threat.
 
Aphelion: "Were the Swiss security forces that showed up and ultimately ended the fracas in the El Al incident armed with .22 pistols?"

Since the event occurred at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, I don't believe that any Swiss security forces "showed up and ...ended the fracas..."
 
Aphelion: "Were the Swiss security forces that showed up and ultimately ended the fracas in the El Al incident armed with .22 pistols?"

Since the event occurred at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, I don't believe that any Swiss security forces "showed up and ...ended the fracas..."

Wiki and other sources put the attack in Zurich.
 
In the hands of people who know where to place their shots and are calm and collected in the delivery of same, the .22LR is an amazingly effective caliber.
This is why the .22LR has often been used for up-close assassination, and all the arm-chair pontification regarding the "lowly" .22 LR's effectiveness is rendered moot by historical fact.

Shooting a human in the head at close range with a suppressed, "low power" .22LR is really no different than shooting a large Brown/Grizzly bear in the head with a top-loaded .357 Magnum. BOTH will cancel the ticket, but NEITHER is considered "adequate" when evaluated in concert with the "average" (charitable reference) person's skills.
 
In the hands of people who know where to place their shots and are calm and collected in the delivery of same, the .22LR is an amazingly effective caliber.
This is why the .22LR has often been used for up-close assassination, and all the arm-chair pontification regarding the "lowly" .22 LR's effectiveness is rendered moot by historical fact.

Shooting a human in the head at close range with a suppressed, "low power" .22LR is really no different than shooting a large Brown/Grizzly bear in the head with a top-loaded .357 Magnum. BOTH will cancel the ticket, but NEITHER is considered "adequate" when evaluated in concert with the "average" (charitable reference) person's skills.

What a strange argument (and disrespectful to boot). Are we really picking calibers for headshots now?
 
Kilibreaux is just saying that if you can "place your shots", which will require a lot of fortitude, the .22 can deliver.

I don't see it as disrespectful ...
 
A lot of folks keep saying "proper shot placement". One problem is that a perfect shot isn't always possible when someone is trying to kill you.

An LEO family member was in an encounter with a large pissed off thug. The two were within arms reach of each other when the thug pulled a gun. They fought for control of the pistol for several seconds before the LEO was able to pull his 40S&W and shoot the thug in the stomach three times. As a result of the shots, the thug dropped his pistol and the LEO was able to gain control of the situation. Shots to the thug's stomach weren't ideal shot placement, but that's all he had available during the struggle. If it had been three shots with a 22LR, things may have turned out differently.

I've killed a number of large animals with a 22LR to the brain, but I've also had them skip off with a less than ideal shot or when the animal turned their head slightly.

I won't bash anyone for their carry choices, but if I'm going to carry a gun, I prefer larger calibers in the same sized weapon.
 
Back
Top