[JMcDonald]

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

FMJ 22lr? I believe in using a round with a record of having good, reliable stopping power. The 22lr isnt one of them.

No, FMJ centerfires and hollow point rimfires.

And, Im not going to argue that the .22lr doesn't have a record of reliable stopping power. However, only recently has anything more than subsonic, LRN rounds been consistantly used in .22s. A 36gr bullet traveling at 1050fps has less than 90ft-lbs of energy. A 40gr bullet traveling at 1450fps has almost 190ft-lbs of energy, which is thus way different than the rounds used in most stories, especially from further in the past. Not only that, but at those velocities expansion to .33"+ while still getting 12" of penetration is now easily possible, which is much better than the .22" hole a LRN leaves.

As far as power goes, I practice with powderless rounds with 11ft-lbs of energy and it will still leave a splintering hole in my 3/4" plywood back"stop" if I miss the target. And I know cows are often executed with .22 pistols and cheap ammo (I.E. a LRN coming at maybe 800fps, or roughly 50ft-lbs of energy), and we're talking right between the eyes.

Rex, while I am not too worried about skull penetration given what Ive seen, read, and calculated, your statement does raise concerns that Ill be testing soon.

[jimkim]

Quote:      

However, only recently has anything more than subsonic, LRN rounds been consistantly used in .22s.

How do you define recently? Standard velocity 22lr ammo has been supersonic for over 100 years. Why do you think they call it standard velocity?

Quote:      

which is thus way different than the rounds used in most stories

"Stories" A better term would be "actual historic accounts". They would yield real world data and would indicate the viability of this round for defensive uses.

Quote:      

Not only that, but at those velocities expansion to .33"+ while still getting 12" of penetration is now easily possible, which is much better than the .22" hole a LRN leaves.

12" of penetration seems a little much. Doesn't that indicate it zips on through with very little if any energy transfer. Was that tested on cadavers? Were they wearing coats and clothing? Have you tested it on ballistic gelatin wearing a heavy canvas jacket?

Quote:      

As far as power goes, I practice with powderless rounds with 11ft-lbs of energy

The term was stopping power.
Stopping power is a colloquial term used to describe the ability of a weapon to stop the actions of an individual through a penetrating ballistic injury. This term is not a euphemism for lethality; it refers only to a weapon's ability to incapacitate quickly.

Quote:      

And I know cows are often executed with .22 pistols and cheap ammo (I.E. a LRN coming at maybe 800fps, or roughly 50ft-lbs of energy), and we're talking right between the eyes.

Not many people will let you put a muzzle to their head and shoot them right between the eyes. All that said in the end it is your money and your life. I hope you never have to use that thing to defend yourself. I wish no one did.

[Rex in OTZ]

Coon hunting went pretty well when we went to solids of 40 grain weight, we had experimented with Hypervelocity rounds of various brands and if they did feed they were all over the place accuracy wise (old era .22's utilized wernt happy) we stayd with what got results and loss of fur in those day's was a hit in the pocketbook as they were bringing as much as $40 ea some nights we cleard $200, My recomendation is go hunting and see what works because what looks good in the box may not alwase perform the way you desire, Hollow points are pretty chancy ammo to be throwing at any sizeable critter past 30 yards. The may bag rodents & such ok and they make a neat plop sound when you nail a prairie dogs but they alwase made the hole & disapeard so no necropsy's to see how they performed, my guess they crawled in ther and took awhile croak. see "favorite long distance .22's" we had guns that were accurate enough.

[JMcDonald]

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

How do you define recently? Standard velocity 22lr ammo has been supersonic for over 100 years. Why do you think they call it standard velocity?

Ive always heard standard velocity as 1050fps, which is subsonic.
Detail Page for Part # 0032
And, while showing a slightly higher velocity, Wikipedia also shows that "standard velocity" rounds are still technically subsonic.

Recently as in the last few years. And while supersonic ammo has been available for some time obviously, my reading tells me its use was not as common as it is today. Thus, many of the "when I was a kid" accounts are likely to involve "standard velocity" LRN rounds.

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

"Stories" A better term would be "actual historic accounts". They would yield real world data and would indicate the viability of this round for defensive uses.

By "stories" I was not at all implying any degree of exaggeration or lack of truth. It was simply a perfectly acceptable word to describe what I was talking about. If you'd like, you can mentally substitute that word for "accounts" or "reports."

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

12" of penetration seems a little much. Doesn't that indicate it zips on through with very little if any energy transfer. Was that tested on cadavers? Were they wearing coats and clothing? Have you tested it on ballistic gelatin wearing a heavy canvas jacket?

First of all, do you understand ballistics gel testing? You don't seem to as this is the second time you have questioned or ridiculed it. 12" of penetration typically means it will most likely stop within the torso of a target. That is the calibration the FBI set when using ballistics gel, because rounds that could achieve 12" of penetration could penetrate deeply enough into a target to damage vital organs without carrying so much energy as to pass through the target and continue at a high velocity (thus wasting its energy).

If you do understand the methods and standards of ballistics gel testing, but simply don't believe that value, then I suggest you email the guys at www.brassfetcher.com and tell them what you think.

Also, check out this article if you are one of the relatively few gun guys who hasn't seen it (its been posted on every gun forum Ive visited in the last couple of months). It will answer some questions you have. If you don't want to read it, then Ill give you the cliffs:

A "standard velocity" 40gr (1050fps) round penetrated through an entire turkey, 9 layers of clothing (6 of which were cotton shirts, and 3 of which were a canvas raincoat), a piece of duct tape, as well as the full turkey it was wrapped around, all from 250 yards away.
Lethality of the 22LR- Results! - Sniper's Hide Forums

A 1050fps, 40gr round has a little under 100ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, over 50ft-lbs at 250 yards, and around or a little less than 50lb-ft at 300 yards.

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

The term was stopping power. Stopping power is a colloquial term used to describe the ability of a weapon to stop the actions of an individual through a penetrating ballistic injury. This term is not a euphemism for lethality; it refers only to a weapon's ability to incapacitate quickly.

I know what stopping power is. My only point was that even at a measely 11ft-lbs of energy, it is still leaving splintering holes in 3/4" plywood. I am talking about using rounds with over 15 times that amount of energy.

Also, in my other thread there are several "stories" about how lethal or damaging even these small bullets can be at even further distances.

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

Not many people will let you put a muzzle to their head and shoot them right between the eyes.

We are really having a breakdown of communication. I was not implying that "if I can get close enough to put the muzzle to their head, then I could kill them!" I was giving an example that even at ~50 ft-lbs of energy, they are easily penetrating one of the hardest and thickest parts of a cow skull, which is already much beefier than a human skull. At 190ft-lbs muzzle velocity, it wouldnt drop below 50 ft-lbs until over 300 yards. My point is that if 50ft-lbs of energy is enough to penetrate one of the thickest parts of an already-thicker skull than what we have, then I should have no concerns at the ranges Id be shooting at.

However tomorrow Im going to do a bit of testing of my own to see what simply some 36gr, 1255 fps (125lb-ft) HP rounds can do.

[jimkim]

Quote:      

First of all, do you understand ballistics gel testing? You don't seem to as this is the second time you have questioned or ridiculed it.

Quote:      

Were they wearing coats and clothing? Have you tested it on ballistic gelatin wearing a heavy canvas jacket?

I understand ballistics gelatin testing. This was the critical question in this paragraph.

Quote:      

All that said in the end it is your money and your life. I hope you never have to use that thing to defend yourself. I wish no one did.

This was my acknowledgment that you make your own decisions. It is your life . You were warned which is all we can do. If we didn't try to warn you of possible flaws in your thinking. We would be remiss in our duty to you as a fellow human being. I'm out. I will now ignore this and any future post by JM as pointless exercises in rhetoric.

[JMcDonald]

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

I understand ballistics gelatin testing.

Apparently not as much as you thought. First, you laughed when I mentioned FBI penetration standards, and paraphrased my statement in a way showing that you did not understand what I meant, either. Second, you assumed that by achieving 12" of penetration, that it means it would zip right through a target (assuming we were talking about torsos), which is not what 12" of penetration symbolizes. Lastly, you mentioned "energy transfer," and also questioned if any energy would be transferred all. It would be physically impossible for a round to transfer no energy into its target, and for a round to stop within a target means it has put all of its kinetic energy into said target. "Energy transfer" is an extremely overrated subject when talking about "stopping power." Hydrostatic shock only occurs from projectiles at very high velocities (rifle calibers) with much higher energies than any common pistol can provide. With pistol calibers and small calibers like the .22lr, it is simply about how deep the bullet goes and how big of a hole it makes, which turns out to be most efficient when the power of the cartridge and the diameter of the expanded bullet are balanced in a way that a little over 12" of penetration is achieved with the most expansion possible (bigger hole is better, but it has to have enough penetration to reach and pass through vital organs).

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

You were warned which is all we can do. If we didn't try to warn you of possible flaws in your thinking.

Exactly. You question POSSIBLE flaws in my thinking and I've given fact after fact showing why they are not actually flaws. You simply don't want to believe them. Still, I do appreciate people telling me I am wrong, though, with at least some evidence, as it makes me go dig around even further to make sure I am not. If I didn't find any evidence supporting why I was not wrong, then I wouldn't say I was right and would likely change my plans to match the new realization.

Quote:       Originally Posted by jimkim

I'm out. I will now ignore this and any future post by JM as pointless exercises in rhetoric.

I'm sorry you are hurt that your beliefs about the .22lr have been proven false, and that you are too insecure to admit you might learned something you didn't think was true the day before. Finally, I am sorry you are so insecure that you can't handle debating with someone with a better grasp on some idea than yourself. The typical "I don't understand it-" or "I don't agree with it, so it must be stupid" mindset.

But, b'bye.

I suppose this is it, then, eh? Anyone else feel free to give me facts to show why I am wrong (and please do if you have them), but don't waste our time simply stating that I am wrong or stupid, without any evidence.


The opinion of 10000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject - Marcus Aurelius.**

**The same saying deals with lots of topics, from the oil crisis (its sad how many people actually think gas prices are the president's fault), gun bans (how many people hate or fear guns, but know nothing about them or their principles), to how many people drastically underestimate .22lr rifles.

[knightRider]

i can't believe he is still ranting . if you didn't pimp out your ugly car you could afford a real gun with big boy bullets ! lmao

Originally Posted by JMcDonald

[knightRider]

thats gotta to be the ugliest thing i have ever seen. i bet you have 500 bucks in the stereo !

[JMcDonald]

Quote:       Originally Posted by knightRider

thats gotta to be the ugliest thing i have ever seen. i bet you have 500 bucks in the stereo !

I don't care if you think its ugly. Lots of people don't. *shrug* And the fact that you mention "pimping" and a $500 radio tells me you are not the utilitarian type of person who would appreciate a vehicle like this.


BTW, it has no radio.


And, as I stated, here is the point in the "debate" (what is left of one) when the sore losers start using irrelevent points to try to discredit their opposition in an attempt to remove some strength from their original argument with which they could not hold up against.

[knightRider]

hahahaha

[wunhunglo]

[QUOTE][A "standard velocity" 40gr (1050fps) round penetrated through an entire turkey, 9 layers of clothing (6 of which were cotton shirts, and 3 of which were a canvas raincoat), a piece of duct tape, as well as the full turkey it was wrapped around, all from 250 yards away. /QUOTE]

My questions are.............was this turkey alive at the start of the testing or well dead, did it still have it's feathers on or was it "dressed"?

[JMcDonald]

Eh, you can read the article. I am not going to nit pick back and forth about the little details that likely make no difference all. The fact that it had nine layers of dense clothing should more than make up for any lack of feathers. Whatever I say someone will find some reason to disbelieve or discredit it, no matter how insignificant it might be.

BTW, knightrider, you say I was "ranting."

To Rant:
-to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way;
-To speak or write in an angry or violent manner;

There has been nothing extravegant, angry, vehement, or violent in any of my posts, unlike those from some of your teammates, and from yourself.

[knightRider]

two words , summer's eve .

[TexasT]

Quote:       Originally Posted by knightRider

two words , summer's eve .

You could really make it one word. hehehe

[JMcDonald]

Darkknight, you really are an argumentative genious. I don't know why you aren't out there ruling the courtrooms! I mean, calling someone a girl is *gasp* an entirely new, unstoppable defense!

BTW, here are some examples of .22lrs used in tactical situations (against human targets) with success.

SV-99 Sniper Rifle.
..."There is a joke among Russian arms designers: those who are used to developing "serious" assault or large-caliber sniper rifles, they mockingly call the .22LR weapons nothing but "fly killers", which means, this caliber is treated like something unacceptable for a combat weapon. Of course, this is only a joke. "...

Tactical Operations (Tac-Ops) Green Hornet"Tac-Ops related a story to us where a [.22lr rifle] was used to shoot and kill a suspect who drew to fire at officers."

"I was told by Vietnam veterans that Viet Cong fighters used old [.22lr] plinkers as weapons of close combat and sniper rifles successfully deployed in towns."

Also, I just shot a 1/16"(.065") steel pipe with a 36gr, 1250fps HP round and it went through one side and bounced off the inside of the other wall. This was through a wadded up towel (for accoustics) and a cardboard box (to help prevent a ricochet). Given that car door sheet metal is about .020", or less than 1/3 that thickness, and doors typically have a thin layer of fabric and a bit of paper or cardboard, that shows that even at 125ft-lbs of energy, it would easily penetrate the two .020" pieces of sheet metal and a bit of extra thin material that would make up a car door.

However, there's more. The relationship in penetration between material thicknesses is not linear, but exponential. My 20gr powderless rounds with a measely 11ft-lbs of energy can go through 3 steel cans, which have .006" walls each or .036" alltogether. So, it only took 11ft-lbs (less than 10%) of energy the to still penetrate over half the material thickness. Basically, I am saying that penetrating a car door should be even easier than saying "if it penetrated .065" of steel, then it can penetrate .04" of steel." Ill have to go buy the actual material, but at this point I am quite confident that a good .22lr round will pass through a car door and remain lethal after doing so.

And, again, the bullets I am talking about are 11% heavier, move 16% faster, and have over 50% more energy than the ones I just tested with.

[rascaldog]

Mr. McDonald. I have read your posts and considered your arguments for the .22. While I think everyone would agree as a suvival weapon the .22 would be fine as long as what you are pursuing did not return the favor. I will agree that the .22 has taken everything that walks on the face of the earth. But just because you "can" cut your grass with a pocket knife thats not the best way. In a real combat situation you are not going to have the ability make all headshots. You are going to have to shoot and move without taking time to look back and seeing if you made a kill. I don't think you are going to change any minds on here as to the viability of the .22 as a SHTF weapon. But if that is what you have and you feel comfortale with that choice by all means have at it. Because a .22 does beat a pocket full of rocks. Just so you know I have a .22 similar to what you have that I keep in the pack on my ATV. I have a 16" carbon fiber barrel on mine but with beter scope. I have never run into anything more dangerous than a squirrel or rabbit though. Just remember it's not an argument when you demand that everyone agrees with you.

[JMcDonald]

My point was that I dont think it will only take headshots to stop an attack. Good .22lrs penetrate deeply enough to meet FBI penetration standards, and leave decent sized holes. Most people will go down and not get back up with two or three .33" holes reaching to the back of their chests. Hell, even one will be enough to at LEAST deter an attack or wound them enough to give me further advantage in the situation, as someone mentioned.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Federal%...0Point%20.html

http://www.brassfetcher.com/CCI%20Ve...Dot%20JHP.html

I didnt demand that everyone agree, I only asked that people open their minds and acknowledge the validity of my arguments, instead of simply tell me I am stupid. I understand that many people might feel comfortable with larger caliber weapons. Hell, even I, as I stated, am planning on still carrying a 9mm auto as a BUG with a little more power, and also a Mosin Nagant to carry in the BOV for real power. But, I just expected more people to say "hmm, good points, (even if I don't feel the same way)" OR to say "interesting ideas, but here is why those aren't important / aren't valid: [insert facts]." Maybe I expected too much?

[TexasT]

If you're looking for validation, you won't find it here.

[JMcDonald]

Ive provided many unrefuted arguments supporting my beliefs and plans, and the only thing you, the opposition can tell me is that you don't accept any of it. My only mistake has apparently been the overestimation of my peers.

I apologize for trying to open your minds to new ideas.

[TexasT]

More like an overestimation of your gun.