Originally Posted by
AndyLate
I was skimming a review of a small, inexpensive .22 pistol (Keltec P17) and at the end the talk turned to advantages of .22 LR pistols. The points were basically cheap ammo and low recoil for new shooters. To give the reviewer credit, self defense was not mentioned. Another review by American Rifleman did state that .22 pistols are an alternative defensive gun for people who cannot shoot a more powerful pistol.
I really wish people who should know better would stop.
.22s (especially semi-auto pistols) are terrible for self defense. Rimfire cartridges are inherently less reliable than centerfire, and adding a heel-based bullet just introduces more potential failures. If you cannot shoot/manipulate a larger caliber pistol, how will you clear the inevitable malfunction with a rimfire pistol.
At least with a double action revolver, pulling the trigger again gives the shooter a fresh cartridge. Of course, a new shooter or one with reduced grip strength will struggle to actually hit something while fighting the trigger pull.
A decent quality .22 LR pistol is great for teaching new shooters, as long as it has a decent trigger pull and sights and acceptable accuracy. Ammunition cost, low recoil, and reduced muzzle blast all contribute to valuable and enjoyable learning.
But they are a poor choice for self defense. I would argue that it's worse than no gun for someone that does not shoot it often.
Would I keep a Ruger Mark II as my only pistol? Sure, and I have, but I can load, unload, clear malfunctions in the dark with it and positively hit what I aim at. I also augmented it with a centerfire handgun as soon as I was able.
Andy
PS/EDIT: I should say I can positively hit with it at home/self defense range.
Bookmarks