Location, Location, Location

As readers know, I have had, for a couple of years, a link to the Greg Ellifritz's stopping power study via buckeyefirearms.org.  Based on that study, my posts on various calibers and their effectiveness easily get the most traffic of anything on this blog.  Regular readers also know that in addition to my inexplicable fascination and mystical connection with the .22WMR, I have acknowledged that a .22LR, especially from a reliable rifle like the Ruger 10/22, might not be a bad defensive weapon.  For some people.

In fact, that is the very weapon that I have taught my mostly non-shooting, small, somewhat frail and very recoil-sensitive wife to shoot and which she keeps within reach in the bedroom. 

So I happened across this video on Youtube, put up back in January of 2013, in which a gentleman, imikewillrockyou, asks what is the Best home defense weapon?  He is looking at the Ellifritz study as well, primarily, at the average number of rounds to incapacitation.  He concludes that the shotgun with 1.22 is equivalent to the .22LR with 1.38 rounds.  And he's right that the difference between those two numbers is not really significant.

But there is another number in that study that one might want to consider.  The percent of people who were not incapacitated is 31% for the .22 (and by the way, that's an aggregate -- we don't know the breakdown for rifles versus handguns, short, long, long rifle, high speed, standard, etc.).  For shotguns, only 12% were not incapacitated.  Twelve percent versus thirty-one percent is a significant difference.

Basically what we know is that anyone who is shot with anything, if they are going to be rendered, shall we say, inoperable, is down and out after two or three rounds in the average situation.  Some who are not incapacitated leave the scene and go seek medical attention, go into hiding, try to find their mommy, whatever.  But, in theory, an armed attacker who was not taken out could continue their aggression and possibly kill you.

I understand the gentleman's point, and, as I say, I have no problem letting my wife use the .22LR because I know she cannot handle a 12-gauge or even a 20-gauge.  She can't rack the slide on an autoloader, so she also has a .38 revolver on her side in the nightstand.  When a person has to shoot, as Tuco says, they need to shoot.  If one is so fearful of muzzle blast and recoil that they hesitate at a critical moment, the result may be worse than if they had not been armed at all. 

Far better to have a .22LR that will be fired than a 12-gauge that won't be.

I want the reader to understand that I'm not in disagreement with imikewillrockyou's general conclusion.  What this really points up, once again, is that the caliber wars are mostly senseless.  I think, all other things being equal, I would rather have my 870 than my 10/22 when repelling boarders. 

Things are rarely equal.  Shot placement is always the most critical factor.  No matter what kind of a gun you are using, a single shot to the head will stop 75% of attackers. 

If a person is most accurate with a .22LR and better able to put shots into critical areas, he or she may well be better off with that firearm.  Nevertheless more power, velocity, and momentum -- if the person can handle it -- will give the defender a better chance of stopping an assailant and ending the threat. 

If a .22LR is chosen, I would pick a rifle over a handgun and a semi-auto or pump over a bolt-action, with perhaps a red dot sight or something similar to aid more rapid and accurate target acquisition.

Anyway, I appreciate imikewillrockyou's video and the opportunity it gives me to think about my own choices.