TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:My advice stands, the LCP and similar weapons offer better capacity and performance while remaining easy to conceal. Also the LCP is slightly thinner and lighter.

It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which you very much regret having bought either the .22 or the derringer. Example: you bought the derringer, and you are accosted by a gang of 5 "yoots" with hostile intent in a parking garage. You pull the derringer. They're thinking "5 of us... 2 boolits.... game on!" Or, you pull the 5 shot .22. They're thinking "Oh how cute! A little .22! My little sister will love that thing when I give it to her!" Or, here's one which could apply in either situation: one of the hostiles pulls a G19 out of his waistband and says "Puhleeze... I'll take your little 'ol gun too."

Unless all your clothes are make of skin tight lycra, it is hard to imagine a scenario where you couldn't conceal an alloy-framed snubbie or an LCR.

so does this make the 18 rounds I can cram in my g19 (15 + 2 in the grip exension + 1 in the pipe) better then a single stack .45?
just asking. I know the awnser.

trust me Im not fighting this logic. I know that bigger is better.

Im still not willing to be the test subject for a .22 mag even with its light 135lbs of energy

A derringer is a novelty at best. If it's a choice between the 2, pack the .22 magnum.

Embalmo wrote:A derringer is a novelty at best.

Abe Lincoln might disagree.

According to Ballistics By The Inch the 9mm Luger cartridge has almost twice the muzzle velocity of the .38 special or the .45 acp in a 2 inch barrel (all these comparisons are for similar grain weights.) Even the mighty .357 mag doesn't have the velocity of the 9mm Luger at 2 inches. So, if you're going to choose a short barrel weapon for deep concealment reasons, I would find a 9mm revolver or pistol with at least a five shot capacity. After all, if the purpose of carrying really is self defense, then you want as much defense as possible in that small package.

If I was going to buy a derringer for self defense, I would definitely choose the .410 over the .38 or .45. You're much more likely to hit the BG with a shot pattern eleven inches wide than you are with a single bullet, and the harassment factor is much higher as well. Imagine getting hit in the face and chest with lots of lead pellets. You'd be way too busy trying to get rid of the irritation to continue the attack if you were still able to function. If you must buy a two shot derringer, at least get it in 9mm. You're more likely to be able to handle the recoil and the velocity will help in stopping power. But a derringer is a close quarter weapon not suitable for more than about a ten foot radius. So it's usefulness is limited at best.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=P34v983P2j4[/youtube]

heres my vote for a derringer.

I love my little .22 Mag NAA Pug.


Sure, a J-frame snubbie would be a much better defensive weapon. It would aslo be about three times larger.
The Pug goes places other guns couldn't, and/or it provides backup to my compact 1911.

Not made for long-range accuracy.

I did manage this 1.75" group (best of two groups) at a measured 7 yards (21 feet) off-hand, kneeling. (With my shots somewhat rushed because the wind kept blowing my target over.)

Unfortunately, the center of the group is almost 5.5" from my point of aim.

I have since drifted the rear sight over a bit to correct the windage. No adjustment for elevation.

blue wrote:Those .22mags are losing most of their power with the SHORT barrel's and are very close to the .22lr which is VERY WEAK out of that short of a barrel. (chronograph them-shocking!)

Have you chronographed them? Do you have the numbers? I don't have a chrono, or I would have been out there checking the same thing.

I've always suspected that the .22 Mag suffers greatly from the short barrel but figured it was still better than a .22LR.
In my testing of Winchester Supreme 34-grain .22 WMR JHP vs. water-filled one-gallon plastic milk jugs, the bullet failed to expand. That tells me that it doesn't have enough velocity to make it expand. Means that you gain no advantage from hollow points.

The bullet punctured all four jugs. This caused me some headscratching since there were two holes in each of the first three jugs and only one hole in the fourth jug, I expected to find my bullet in the fourth jug. It was not there. I found the bullet in the third jug. Evidently, it hit the side hard enough to puncture the third and fourth jugs, but did not escape the third jug. Bullets typically expand slightly better in water than in ballistic gelatin.

I think I found the jacket in the second jug. But it could have been the first, I had them mixed up by the time I noticed the jacket in there.

This was a one-shot test, so it by no means tells me everything I want to know. I'd like to repeat it 10 times and compare results. Any one shot might be a fluke.

When I carry my .22 mag I think of it as an "up close and personal" last-ditch weapon. As in, it's up against a vital area, in direct contact, in other words, like a knife. Not the best of situations, of course. I make no excuses for it as it is what it is, an up close, last-ditch weapon.

PUCKER wrote:When I carry my .22 mag I think of it as an "up close and personal" last-ditch weapon. As in, it's up against a vital area, in direct contact, in other words, like a knife. Not the best of situations, of course. I make no excuses for it as it is what it is, an up close, last-ditch weapon.

Well, I've never fired either. But this analogy convinces me that if I'm up close enough that it's like a knife, it's better to just use my knife. Unlimited "rounds", no need to ever reload. If the threat does not stop, you can slash sideways.

On the other hand, the knife is silent. I've read reports of people who did not see the knife their attacker had thinking they were only punched when stabbed. If it really is as loud as a .357, that's a bonus in really getting your attacker's attention.

I thought I had replied to this thread, but I guess I didn't...

If you're in a situation where you're using a pocket pistol / derringer, it's likely to be a close battle (within arms reach). If I've got to use a derringer, I'm going with a .38. I'd rather deliver two holes from a .38 than a .22. Place that little puppy right under their chin / jaw bone, and two brain shots will do that trick. Will a .22 do that? Maybe...but I would rather go with the bigger round.

Everytime talk starts about using a 22 cal for a carry weapon it is always pointed out that there has been so many people killed with a 22. You normally here how it is the weapon of choice for hit men. Ah but how many of the numerous 22 related deaths were in a self defense scenario.

I suppose it can be a great offensive tool, but does it measure up as a self defense weapon. My opinion is no. If I am looking at someone with a 9mm, or a 40, I don't want to have a 22 in my hand.

I know it gets hot in Texas, and many other places, but when it comes to sacrificing some comfort, or fire power I will usually be just a little uncomfortable.

As far as your original post: the choice between (5) 22mag vs (2) 38, I find neither acceptable as a primary weapon to be used to defend myself and family.

blue wrote: T.A.M. is right on target!

Generally a .38 cal is considered to be the minimum size to get the job done. This goes back to the early 1900's with MANY 'examples' of it JUST BARELY doing the job, and many times it has FAILED. That is why most LEO, and MILITARY moved up in power.

Those .22mags are losing most of their power with the SHORT barrel's and are very close to the .22lr which is VERY WEAK out of that short of a barrel. (chronograph them-shocking!)

The ONLY thing going for it, is that everyone present may be laughing so hard that you can get a head start on a exit.



Blue

The NAA site provides comparative ballistics (both .22 LR and .22 WMR) from the same short barrelled models at

http://www.northamericanarms.com/naaveloc.html

. The magnum has more velocity than a LR from the same barrel. It is what it is, and I consider it more effective than a knife, especially because it lets one stand a little further out of reach than in knife proximity.

cheezit wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:My advice stands, the LCP and similar weapons offer better capacity and performance while remaining easy to conceal. Also the LCP is slightly thinner and lighter.

It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which you very much regret having bought either the .22 or the derringer. Example: you bought the derringer, and you are accosted by a gang of 5 "yoots" with hostile intent in a parking garage. You pull the derringer. They're thinking "5 of us... 2 boolits.... game on!" Or, you pull the 5 shot .22. They're thinking "Oh how cute! A little .22! My little sister will love that thing when I give it to her!" Or, here's one which could apply in either situation: one of the hostiles pulls a G19 out of his waistband and says "Puhleeze... I'll take your little 'ol gun too."

Unless all your clothes are make of skin tight lycra, it is hard to imagine a scenario where you couldn't conceal an alloy-framed snubbie or an LCR.

so does this make the 18 rounds I can cram in my g19 (15 + 2 in the grip exension + 1 in the pipe) better then a single stack .45?
just asking. I know the awnser.

trust me Im not fighting this logic. I know that bigger is better.

Im still not willing to be the test subject for a .22 mag even with its light 135lbs of energy

That's why I mentioned the BG with the G19, versus the GG with a derringer or a 5 shot .22 mag. I could have just as easily mentioned a BG with a single stack .45, and the same would have held true. If you're going to go with a 9mm, then carry lots of bullets. If you're going to go with a .45, carry fewer bullets, but carry a backup magazine. I don't make fun of the 9mm, except in a joking around kind of way. It's a serious caliber. For that matter, so is a .38 Special. It's that two .38 Special cartridges is not enough. Five of them is barely enough.

cheezit wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:My advice stands, the LCP and similar weapons offer better capacity and performance while remaining easy to conceal. Also the LCP is slightly thinner and lighter.

It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which you very much regret having bought either the .22 or the derringer. Example: you bought the derringer, and you are accosted by a gang of 5 "yoots" with hostile intent in a parking garage. You pull the derringer. They're thinking "5 of us... 2 boolits.... game on!" Or, you pull the 5 shot .22. They're thinking "Oh how cute! A little .22! My little sister will love that thing when I give it to her!" Or, here's one which could apply in either situation: one of the hostiles pulls a G19 out of his waistband and says "Puhleeze... I'll take your little 'ol gun too."

Unless all your clothes are make of skin tight lycra, it is hard to imagine a scenario where you couldn't conceal an alloy-framed snubbie or an LCR.

so does this make the 18 rounds I can cram in my g19 (15 + 2 in the grip exension + 1 in the pipe) better then a single stack .45?
just asking. I know the awnser.

trust me Im not fighting this logic. I know that bigger is better.

Im still not willing to be the test subject for a .22 mag even with its light 135lbs of energy

That's why I mentioned the BG with the G19, versus the GG with a derringer or a 5 shot .22 mag. I could have just as easily mentioned a BG with a single stack .45, and the same would have held true. If you're going to go with a 9mm, then carry lots of bullets. If you're going to go with a .45, carry fewer bullets, but carry a backup magazine. I don't make fun of the 9mm, except in a joking around kind of way. It's a serious caliber. For that matter, so is a .38 Special. It's that two .38 Special cartridges is not enough. Five of them is barely enough.

I agree get a LCP its def more narrow then the Derringer and its very small especially without a lazer on it. Get some Double Tapp .380 ammo and you should be good. I agree that I hate to carry anything lighter then a 40 caliber but!

Its better to have a small gun than no gun.

I don't have the measurements at hand, but I'm pretty sure that the width of the cylinder on the NAA is at least as wide as a LCP.