The .22 for Defense

In Defensive Firearms for Tight Budgets, I mentioned that handguns and rifles chambered for the .22 Long Rifle cartridge were not ideal for defense but could be pressed into service in an emergency. Since the suitability of a .22 as a primary weapon for defense is hotly debated with strong opinions on both sides of the aisle, I wanted to address this subject more fully.

On one hand, the modest little .22 has killed its fair share of people and game over the years and it has been used successfully by assassins, poachers, and citizens of every station for purposes that far exceed its limitations. On the other hand, its rimfire primer is more subject to failure than centerfire primers and its humble ballistics cannot be depended upon to produce a one shot stop on either a human assailant or a large, aggressive animal. Yet, ever since Smith and Wesson introduced the Model 1 in 1857, small .22 caliber handguns have been rather popular, despite their limitations, for those desiring a light and unobtrusive repeating firearm for defense.

Many of these handguns have been (and still are) quite inexpensive in comparison to larger, more powerful firearms, which makes them easier to acquire and their modest recoil makes them rather easy to control. One of my favorites, the Beretta 950 BS, in .22 Short, is no longer in production but they are often found used for around $150. I have found them to be quite satisfactory for carrying in a trouser pocket. The accompanying photograph shows eight shots fired from a Beretta 950 BS at seven yards (twenty-one feet), offhand.

If a .22 Long Rifle (or the less powerful .22 Short) is used for defense, its limitations must be understood. While accuracy is important in any defensive situation, it is critical when relying upon small, relatively slow .22 caliber bullets. A single, well placed shot may not immediately stop a determined attacker and a round carelessly lobbed towards center mass will be even less likely to end a confrontation; thus, multiple well placed shots in rapid succession may be necessary. Personally, if possible, I would eschew center mass with a .22 and deliver my rounds to the assailant's face, particularly the area between the eyebrows and the cheeks. Penetration to the brain would be an added bonus but at the very least, a blinded attacker will be less effective in carrying out his assault.

While it is prudent to be able to quickly clear the action and chamber another round with any semi-automatic that is used for defensive purposes, it is especially critical with a .22 because rimfire primers are more prone to misfires than are centerfire primers. Some semi-automatic pistols in .22 caliber, like the Beretta 950 BS and the Beretta Bobcat do not have extractors. Though they are well made pistols and I am quite fond of both, a misfire with either at an inopportune time could prove fatal since clearing the action requires tipping the barrel to eject the bad cartridge before another cartridge can be chambered; this is a more time consuming process than simply racking the slide. Perhaps a double strike will detonate the offensive cartridge in such an instance but I have never trusted a cartridge after it has failed once.

Having a firearm readily available and being able to consistently hit the target with it are two absolute necessities if one intends to successfully use a gun for self defense. While .22s are not ideal defensive weapons, they are affordable, available in easily carried configurations, and their ammo is cheap enough to allow regular practice. By understanding their limitations and applying good marksmanship skills, the .22 rimfire can prove useful for defense. Though I have heard many state that they would not stake their life on a .22, I have seen many owners of $1,000 plus Government Models in .45 ACP demonstrate that they would be far better served by carrying a club for defense due to poor marksmanship skills, little commitment to practice, and sensitivity to recoil.