Back on the farm, when we butchered cattle, we would kill them with a single shot of a normal .22. That’s from the other side of the fence, close to 50 feet away. If it can take down a 1000 lb steer, how much better do you think a person will fare?
From what I’ve read about military firearms .22 is a caliber used in rifles only. If any one has a link to details of a .22 pistol it would be interesting to see.
Don’t forget, however, that people have survived multiple medium caliber gunshot wounds to the head. It is all a big game of chance.I don’t wanna get shot with anything. I wouldn’t try to kill a 1000lb steer with a .22, either.
There’s tons of .22 caliber pistols out there. Every major gun manufacturer makes them. The military may not use them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t out there. Here are several models of Smith & wesson .220 caliber pistols.
The .22 LR and .22 short are common calibers in both psitols and rifles for civilian use. The Ruger 10/22 is a common rifle in the US.
Depends upon the velocity. Type I vests are as low as you can go, and a lot of stuff goes through it. Type IIA, which is standard police wear, will stop most .22s, except higher velocity rounds from rifles. I believe the next level, Type II, will stop those.
Not quite. Bullets produce a temporary cavity when they pass through tissue, the size of which is dependent upon a number of factors. The largest temporary cavity is generally created when the bullet goes through its yaw cycle or else expands. The temporary cavity damages tissue by stretching it past the tissue’s elastic limit. If the tissue isn’t stretched past this point, it survives very well.
Rifles can generate large temporary cavities, thereby allowing them to create more tissue damage than pistols, whose temporary cavities are generally not large enough to do additional damage to most tissues.
–Patch
Say, as long we’re talking about firearms does anyone know of website that has detailed information and pictures on ammunition? Military and civilian, pistol and rifle, hollow points, dum-dums, etc etc…?
I have tried in the past searching for one but I only came up with sites that were selling ammo, and they only had info on specific brands, was a bit limited…
It seems as if the OP has been answered, a .22 is a bad thing to be shot with.
It is an extremely fast round and tends to do a lot of bouncing around once it is inside the body.
Also, due to its small size, it is really hard to trace the ballistics on as well. That is probably why the mob, as referenced above like it.
Here is an intersting link to find out more about different kinds of handguns. http://www.handgunreview.com/
hansolo: Just move to Johnson county and avoid that crap… 
(from KC, too)
IIRC, the DC snipers were shooting .223 hornet rounds, slightly larger than .22, but obviously deadly.
Also, bear in mind that online references regarding commercially manufactured rounds will only provide ballistic information for their products.
Lacking reloading capability, I save brass, and tell friends what is desired in the reload. Who’s to say what an aftermarket reloader puts in a cartridge, subject to reasonable limitations.
That .22 LR ammunition would fit in a handgun, right? Would it give a greater muzzle velocity than .22 short or are there differences in the powder formulation that make it less suitable for handguns? I’m guessing that the powder in rifle ammo might burn slower, since the bullet is in the barrel longer.
From my understanding, they were using Lake City 55gr good ol’fashioned 5.56x45 XM193.
Correct. It’s the same cartridge.
**
The .22 short is simply a .22LR with a shorter cartridge case, and therefore has a lesser powder charge. For the same barrel length, a .22 short will have a lower muzzle velocity than a .22 LR.
The DC snipers were using a version of the AR-15, which shoots the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. I do not know offhand if they were using hollowpoint ammo or not.
Although the diameter of the bullets are essentially the same, the cartridge designs are much, much different, and the wound ballistics of the 5.56mm cartridge is more severe. Go to this article for a diagram comapring the wounding potential of these two cartridges.
–Patch
People, people people. Not all .22s are created equal! The .223 (M-16) is a whole different ballgame from the .22LR which you find in handguns. (And before someone mentions target pistols in .223, I don’t think anyone is getting mugged with bolt action handguns).
To answer heresiarch - IIRC from an article I read some time ago .22LR hits max velocity in about an 18" barrel. You’d have to look at the stats on the ammo in question, but usually velocity numbers are quoted for a rifle length barrel, and the velocity would be substantially slower from a handgun. I am unaware of any .22LR ammo designed specifically for handgun use, but there may be some special target brands that are. Not the sort of thing you’d likely find on the street. In any event, target .22 ammo tends to favor lower velocity and accuracy. Some of the hyper velocity .22 (CCI Stinger comes to mind) can be a bit eratic. Probably because they use a lower weight bullet.
patch and Rhum, you are both justified in your responses. But I doubt that anyone with any firearms experience would not be able to distinguish between a .223 5.56mm NATO cartridge and a .22 cartridge.
Anyone who confuses the two in a firearms post is clearly talking out of his or her ass.
I’ll bring up my anecdote again that the .22 short is such a slow round that I have actually seen the bullet as a blur in the right light while out target shooting. I also have seen a .22 short fail to break a beer bottle at about 50 feet with a direct hit (it chipped it badly, but didn’t shatter). Perhaps it was a poor/damp round that time; I don’t know why. So, a .22 short is about as weak a round as you can get. It’ll still kill under the right circumstances, or at least seriously wound, but the odds of doing such are not comperable to other guns.
(I remember an anecdote from a police officer shot on accident in the thigh with a .22LR, who said it felt like “someone took a ball-peen hammer and hit me as hard as they could with it”. IIRC, the bullet penetrated to the bone, but did not break the femur. Reputedly, it missed his main blood vessel (femoral artery) by about a centimeter. He had a sizeable enough scar, in any event.)
I’ve heard something similar to the OP, only it was in the context of the .22 short round, specifically fired from those tiny derringers with almost no barrel. These weapons have an effective range of only a few feet, after which the .22 round will not have enough energy to typically be able to penetrate the skull.
Frank Serpico was shot by a .22 weapon like this at point-blank range. He had his head stuck in a door and the criminal put the pistol right under his nose and pulled the trigger. The bullet rattled around inside his nose and jaw, and never got through to the brain, so he had reconstructive surgery and was good as new.
But don’t try it at home.
A .22LR bullet can have as much as 165ft-lbs of energy. That’s a pretty good wallop. The .22 short has about 70 ft-lbs of energy when fired from a rifle, and much less when fired from a small pocket pistol. And the bullet has less mass, so it slows down faster.