My personal experience with the .22LR has me shying away from it in self-defense due to - as many here have noted - inconsistencies in ignition.
This can be mitigated somewhat with revolvers, but with a couple of failures-to-fire, we're starting to really take a percentage of the firepower available...that's not necessarily ideal, either.
Overall, my firm belief is that any firearm is probably better than no firearm: similarly, that while yes, to assume that brandishing a firearm will stop aggression is bordering on magical thinking, the truth is that this does happen.
Reading this thread reminded me of another: this one from 2012, on M4Carbine.net, and features the interesting participation of
SouthNarc, aka Craig Douglas, of ShivWorks. For those who are unaware, Mr. Douglas is one of the most sought-after integrated combatives instructors in the industry, and is known to work *_with_* those who are physically challenged (he came through town once, and I had to decline a friend's offer to take the class as I was coming off a rather serious injury; Mr. Douglas personally reached out to me to see if there was anything he could do, so that I would be able to attend).
Of his posts, I find this one to be most insightful:
SouthNarc on M4Carbine.net said:
...Thousands of untrained people defend themselves succesfully with sub-optimal firearms every year.
To say that an untrained person is better off unarmed than armed is absurd. I don't think it's optimal but do we really believe that unarmed is better than armed? If so then I'm not sure there's any elaboration that can get us to a consensus.
Similarly, Greg Ellifritz wrote this interesting blog piece a while ago:
Written by Greg Ellifritz Since my handgun stopping power study was published last month in American Handgunner Magazine, I've received several questions from readers about my data. I expected to be castigated
www.activeresponsetraining.net
Would I *want* a .22LR for self-defense?
No, I definitely wouldn't.
But if I had to, for whatever reason - even if it is literally right now, as I stand able-bodied?
I'd rather have it than not.
I'd rather shoot the threat a couple - or even just once - with the .22LR and *then* have to fight him off physically.
That all said, I'm wondering what y'alls thoughts are about the .22WMR cartridge in this role.
I have only one firearm in this chambering, a Kel-Tec PMR30. Years ago, I bought it as a transitional teaching tool for my young (she just turned 14 last month), looking at it as a stepping stone between her .22LR Browning Buckmark and a full-sized 9mm handgun.
It's a lot of fun - a tremendous amount of muzzle blast and noise (which are the reasons why I haven't yet presented her with this option), but there's a distinct lack of felt recoil: the 30-round magazine in semi-auto is gone almost as fast as a full-auto Glock 18's happy stick (OK, no, the cyclic rate is not even close, but you get what I mean
).
I initially invested in some 6 spare mags, banking against the likelihood that if she liked the PMR, she might want a CMR too. With a 30-round stick that's a fraction of the weight of a 15-round 9x19 magazine, that's a lot of firepower.
But in terms of this weapon - the PMR 30 - I don't know that it can be successfully employed by individuals with weakened grip-strength or limited upper joint dexterity. When I purchased the gun, I happened to be at a large shop as they were running a sale. It was there that I noticed that unique examples of the gun offered differing trigger paths as well as were noticeably easier/harder to hand-cycle the slide. Given that it was during off-peak hours that I visited the store, the salesman and I went through some two dozen examples of the gun, to find one with a trigger path that I thought was reasonable, and which was reasonably easy to rack.
So, maybe not this specific gun, but rather, I'm interested in your thoughts on the .22WMR?
