I am always surprised (or maybe not) at how many times in the Armed Citizen column of The American Rifleman the .22 rifle comes up as the weapon that saved the day....
Not sure I would run subsonic ammo though.A suppressed 22lr carbine is a solid choice for someone who is recoil sensitive or has accuracy issues with a pistol.
Not sure I would run subsonic ammo though.
Strictly a numbers game. There are a lot of .22s out there. Answer this, why are there so many instances in the same column about people using guns to defend businesses and homes? Keep in mind that the percentage of violent crime around the home is much lower then when out and about. Answer is simple really, it's because people have guns in their homes and place of business. Very few people actually carry guns. So lots of .22 rifles in homes means they are likely to be present when needed.
I can point out one glaring shortcoming of .22LR over a standard centerfire gun or shotgun for home defense: inherently less reliable ignition with rimfire cartridges.
Want a rifle and you have someone who might be less tolerant of recoil or muzzle blast?
The obvious solution would be a lever action chambered in .357 Magnum, or you could go with any of a number of autoloader carbines (Hi-Point, etc.) chambered in either 9mm or .45 Auto.
Want a handgun for someone with similar personality?
Go with a 4" barreled revolver chambered in .38 Special and load it with ammo having relatively low muzzle flash and blast with the best (Speer Gold Dot, etc.) bullets available.
Want a shotgun for the recoil sensitive?
Why not a 20 gauge or even a .410?
Yes, a .22LR rifle would be better than a stick or nothing at all, but there are better viable options out there that come very close cost wise to the price of a .22LR rifle.
A suppressed 22lr carbine is a solid choice for someone who is recoil sensitive or has accuracy issues with a pistol.
[video]http://s647.photobucket.com/user/bearverine/media/VIDEO0005_zps1b1f004e.mp4.html?sort=3&o=54[/video]
I am troubled, because I was "raised" to shoot only to kill..,
.
Beautiful
I was raised shoot to stop the threat. Yes, killing them stops the threat, but that is not my intention. Stopping them is. If they died because of my shots, so be it.
Seems as if you missed the reason that I am troubled. I feel a conflict from my "raisin' " to the reality of today's situation. IN a society where sue first and figure what all it is we are suing for tomorrow seems to be the plan, maybe my grandfather's training AND example is a bit too old school.
I have often wondered how well we would all do if we went "less lethal." Park 4 or 5 .22LRs into some ******* who comes into your house to stop him for the moment, long enough to walk over and smash his jaw with the butt? Dunno.
I remember my mom shooting up a pack of hound dogs once to get them leave her "in heat" poodle alone. She did not kill anything she shot at and they were back the next day still "houndin' " but bleeding.
This is one of the things that troubles me about what seems like a great idea, at first. Then you think it through on both sides.