In Defense of the .22 Rimfire

Let me start off by giving an example of a conversation I have both heard and have had before.

Me: Sir, why do you carry a 45cal 1911?
45 Guy: Because they don't make a 46!
Me: Yeah, they do. (S&W .460)

Most of the time, like in the example above, the reasoning for owning/carrying a .45 for defense is stopping power. Stopping power is the ability of a firearm or other weapon to cause a penetrating ballistic injury to a target, whether human or animal, enough to incapacitate the target where it stands. And I would have to mostly agree with that argument. A .45 cartridge will produce more force to the target than that of a comparable smaller caliber. But putting aside stopping power of a single shot, what of the other factors? Recoil, muzzle rise, and control are ones that immediately come to mind. What if the person needing to protect themselves from a threat is of a smaller frame? What then?

There are some guys I know that say, "Unless it starts with a 4, don't waste your time!". I on the other hand believe that anything can be used as a tool of defense. Or in the case of some crafty inmates, an offensive weapon. So, back to bullets, what is an effective cartridge for those ranging from small to extra large stature (OK, maybe not Andre the Giant)? What about the very small .22lr? I fully expect the typical response, but hear me out. The .22 cartridge is the one that a lot of us started with. So why is it such a stretch to think of it for defense. Again, putting aside stopping power of one shot, the .22 is much easier on recoil (practically has none) and recovery times for follow up shots are non-existent. Both these two factors help in muzzle rise, proper shot placement, and even apprehension.

No matter what you use to defend yourself, I think we can all agree that, you must practice the motions for when SHTF so you will be ready physically, emotionally, and most important mentally. With that being said, I wouldn't advise giving a small framed person a Glock G36 as their first, out the gate, firearm. Not because it is a bad weapon, but because the probability of them practicing becomes slim due to apprehension, fear of recoil, and the fact that they probably won't be that accurate. This is the reason many of us started with the extremely modest .22lr then worked our way up. Now, what does someone the size of Snooki (Why the hell do I know this!), who measures a towering 4'8" in height do if they have limited time, limited budget, and need to defend herself NOW do?

(Side Note: I referenced Snooki. If for some reason you do not know who Snooki is, look her up on Google... On second thought, don't Google her! Your life is better not knowing.)

Why not the .22lr rimfire? Because it has no stopping power? Because it does not start with the number 4? Because you are just going to piss off the attacker/criminal? Because it has never been used effectively for a defense round? If all this is true why then, have some of the most high profile, and low profile for that matter, used the small "ineffective" round to cause rifts in our history. Let me give you a few examples...

1. June 5, 1968 - 22-year-old Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan, shot Robert Kennedy with a .22 after he had just won the Presidential primary. Robert Kennedy died a day later.
2. March 30, 1981 - John Hinckley, Jr., attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan was hit once lodging the bullet 1" from his heart. White House press secretary James Brady, was paralyzed in the attack along with member of the Secret Service being injured. Hinckley used a .22.
3. Between 1968 - 1985, The Monster of Florence terrorized Italy by killing 16 victims. Many were couples. All killed with a .22.
4. 1989 - 1990 - Aileen Wuornos killed 7 men in Florida. Her weapon of choice? A .22 pistol.

Now, I know what can be said, all of these were at close range. And you are correct, but most personal defense is close range. Forbes magazine did an article based on a case study done of randomly picked incidents between 2003 and 2011 (link here). In this study, many were home invasions and close quarter confrontations. Unless you live in a Beverly Hills mansion, your home is not an open space palace. So again, this raises the question; why not a .22 as a possible defensive round?

I, for one, have never been shot at. I hope I never am shot at. But if a person IS shot at, will their mind say, "Is that the sound of a Desert Eagle or a Ruger Mark II?" Or will they think, "OH S**T, I'M BEING SHOT AT!!!!" Unless the criminal has had extensive training in knowing the sounds of specific firearms, I believe the latter thinking would prevail. So why not a .22 for defense? It's lighter, quicker, more accessible, less intimidating for the shooter, smaller frame gun, good for all ages, better accuracy, faster recovery, etc., etc., etc.

In closing, I don't believe the .22 is the end all be all when it comes to a defense round. There are plenty of bigger, more robust rounds that can stop an attacker in his tracks. But using a .22 isn't inconceivable either. It may have less, one hit, stopping power (odds are you are going to keep firing until the threat is stopped, as well you should). But isn't the power to stop the attack what we are looking for, and not the power to kill. No sane person wants to kill another human being; but will if forced to. Protection of yourself and your loved ones is key. Why not do it with the best weapon you have at the time? Even if it is a little pipsqueak .22.

JC

*P.S. Here is a defense story. since I posted a few criminal cases, I thought a good use of the .22 was in order (Link Here). Also, another great article on the ".22lr for self-defense".