TexasCHLforum.com

drjoker wrote:It's quite telling that the US military use a .223 caliber (or 5.45 mm) rifle that's basically the same width as .22 lr but just more powerful for better shooting at longer distances.....

That statement isn't even close to true. Allow me to list just a few of the differences:

1. .22LR uses a soft lead bullet, sometimes coated with a copper "wash," but there is no real jacketing.
2. .223/5.56 bullets are jacketed, usually with copper, but sometimes with bronze or steel, and some 5.56 bullets contain a steel penetrator rod inside the lead core.
3. .22LR bullets are in the 30-40 grain range.
4. .223/5.56 bullets weigh in the 40-90 grain range.
5. .22LR bullets are travelling between 1,000 to 1,400 feet per second.
6. .223/5.56 bullets are traveling (with the exception of deliberately sub-sonic loadings, which are rare) between 2,800 to 3,200 feet per second.
7. The most powerful .22LR loads are capable of generating a maximum muzzle energy of about 200 ft lbs.
8. The minimum muzzle energy in a .223 round is about 1,125 ft lbs.....5.5 times more powerful than the .22LR at its hottest.
9. The maximum effective range for a .22LR is about 150 yards, although ballistic drop makes its practical range far shorter than that. If I shoot a man in the head at 150 yards with a .22LR, unless I hit his head exactly right, there is a very significant chance that the bullet will just glance off of his skull and give him a big headache.
10. The practical effective range for the .223/5.56 is 300-400 yards. If I shoot a man in the head with it at 150 yards (duplicating the .22LR shot), it will likely blow a large chunk of his skull clean off......with all the attendent brainburger.
11. .22LR can occasionally over-penetrate, but it usually doesn't, and when it does, the exit velocity/energy is nearly gone.
12. At self-defense distances, a .223 will not only likely over-penetrate, it can do so with enough velocity/energy to severely injure or kill the person behind your intended target.

I could go on and on, but there are a zillion reasons why simply comparing the bullet diameter in comparing the two cartridges is an invalid exercise. Take for example .30 carbine versus .300 Winchester Magnum. Both use .308 caliber bullets, but one is nearer to a .357 magnum than a real rifle cartridge, and the other is being used by today's American snipers to take down targets at ranges out well past 1,200 yards. So that's not even close to a valid comparison. Neither is comparing a .22LR to a .223.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Well, that's a unique point of view.

As long as I can have a helper hold down the bad guy so that I can give him a contact shot to the top of his noggin,
I guess I'd be fine with a .22 LR also. :-)

However, the way I envision an encounter with a 2-legged reptile I'll stick with my current weapons, and will
probably go to .45 when I get something new. YMMV.

SIA

I feel the same way. If a self-defense situation includes hooking the BG on a tethered line, with somone holding the line so the BG is about 18 inches away, and I'm concerned about not causing excess damage to his hide and meat, then of course I'd use a .22.

However, were I ever to be in a situation, I don't think even with Texas handgun laws I'd be able to keep the BG as a trophy - so making a mess with a .40 wouldn't bother me.