TexasCHLforum.com

austin-tatious wrote:

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.

Why not have both? viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35074" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

G.A. Heath wrote:You should consider taking a look at the Kel-Tec pocket pistols, the Ruger LCP, and similar offerings.

Neither of those would be my choice.

Consider that statistics show 40% to 80% of your shots will miss and that the only way to reliably stop an attacker is to score a central nervous hit or bleed out. A 22 does not cause a very large wound channel so yes it might kill a person but it will do it very slowly. Stopping an attack fast is what you want and a .22 will not do that. A 2 shot .38 isn't a good choice because statistics show that you will more than likely miss with both shots. Then take into account that both of these rounds will be shot out of a very short barrel so there's no telling how much they will penetrate and they will more than likely not expand so even if you score a hit your round might not penetrate deep enough to reach the vital organs at less than optimal angles.

wrinkles wrote:Consider that statistics show 40% to 80% of your shots will miss and that the only way to reliably stop an attacker is to score a central nervous hit or bleed out.

What study is this from? I'd like to see a source for this.

Sorry seems like I violated a forum rule so here's the link to the info.

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=56486" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mctowalot wrote: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.

My cylinder measures 7/8" (0.875") and according to Ruger's website, the LCP is 0.82" wide. So yeah, the LCP's thinner.

wrinkles wrote:Neither of those would be my choice.

Consider that statistics show 40% to 80% of your shots will miss and that the only way to reliably stop an attacker is to score a central nervous hit or bleed out. A 22 does not cause a very large wound channel so yes it might kill a person but it will do it very slowly. Stopping an attack fast is what you want and a .22 will not do that. A 2 shot .38 isn't a good choice because statistics show that you will more than likely miss with both shots. Then take into account that both of these rounds will be shot out of a very short barrel so there's no telling how much they will penetrate and they will more than likely not expand so even if you score a hit your round might not penetrate deep enough to reach the vital organs at less than optimal angles.

Caveats, because I've seen hundreds of gunshot patients... If you hole an aorta with a .22, it is almost certain that the wounded person will be completely incapacitated within a couple of seconds, and dead in well under a minute. I still wouldn't advise carrying one, but I have seen a number of people shot dead with .22s, who all died fairly quickly.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

wrinkles wrote:Neither of those would be my choice.

Consider that statistics show 40% to 80% of your shots will miss and that the only way to reliably stop an attacker is to score a central nervous hit or bleed out. A 22 does not cause a very large wound channel so yes it might kill a person but it will do it very slowly. Stopping an attack fast is what you want and a .22 will not do that. A 2 shot .38 isn't a good choice because statistics show that you will more than likely miss with both shots. Then take into account that both of these rounds will be shot out of a very short barrel so there's no telling how much they will penetrate and they will more than likely not expand so even if you score a hit your round might not penetrate deep enough to reach the vital organs at less than optimal angles.

Caveats, because I've seen hundreds of gunshot patients... If you hole an aorta with a .22, it is almost certain that the wounded person will be completely incapacitated within a couple of seconds, and dead in well under a minute. I still wouldn't advise carrying one, but I have seen a number of people shot dead with .22s, who all died fairly quickly.

Totally agree, if you happen to score a hit to a vital such as an aorta, bleed out will be fast. What are the chances that you will score such a hit with a small caliber bullet, at least with a larger bullet your chances are better at causing such damage.
Coming back to the short barreled projectiles mentioned .22 and .38 the chances are that neither will expand when they hit the target and according to Duncan McPherson's book, table 8-3. Projectile Penetration Model Parameters, ø (Bullet Shape Factor)," Bullet Penetration.
A round nose projectile will roughly cause a wound channel 66% it's diameter. So a non-expanded .22 cal bullet will roughly crush .15 caliber hole while a .38 cal bullet will crush .23 caliber hole in tissue. Not a whole lot of difference but it still gives you an edge. An expanded .38 cal HP, let's say expanded to .65 cal, after expansion will crush tissue .82% of it's expanded diameter or .53 cal hole in tissue. The bigger the hole the better the odds the faster the bleed out, the sooner the threat stops.

74novaman wrote:

wrinkles wrote:Consider that statistics show 40% to 80% of your shots will miss and that the only way to reliably stop an attacker is to score a central nervous hit or bleed out.

What study is this from? I'd like to see a source for this.

Looked more into it. So this is from a study done in 1970 concerning NYPD. Just so we know where these numbers are coming from.

Actually there are several studies quoted in the post I linked to. Some are from the 90's and 2000's. NYPD 2000-2001, Miami 1988-94, Portland 1984-92 and Baltimore 1989-2002.

wrinkles wrote:Actually there are several studies quoted in the post I linked to. Some are from the 90's and 2000's. NYPD 2000-2001, Miami 1988-94, Portland 1984-92 and Baltimore 1989-2002.

Google NYPD Sop-9 data. it was a study done in 1970. That was the only actual study I saw referenced in the link you posted (just because it was posted on another forum does not make it a credible source to me). The rest were, frankly just numbers and %s with no linked study from any official source. And the fact they were claiming it was NYPD 2000-2001 when the NYPD SOP-9 that I could actually find online was done in 1970 doesn't exactly make me trust the rest of the numbers.

But you're welcome to believe whatever you want, of course.

Edit: My research was done in about 5 mins. If you can dig up NYPD Sop 9 data from later years, I'd love to see it. But I'm not sure how a study from 1970 regarding cops carrying revolvers in new york city affects me as a civilian in Texas carrying concealed 40 years later.

No I don't have data Dr. Roberts has access to newer data that is not publicly available, that's the info I included. You might try PMing him at the link to see if he can provide the into I'm not associated with a LEO agency so I can't get it. I believe this data because he is one of the nations top terminal ballistics expert and consults for many of the nations state and federal LEO agencies.