I kinda want to get something small like this (Ruger LCR .22 LR) for concealed carry. I've never owned a gun before, and based on my reading revolvers sound more reliable (plus I've always thought they looked cool). Went with 22 because of that time ammo got super expensive and 9mm was ridiculous compared to what you could get going for .22.
But is this gun stupid? Is concealed carry stupid? It's okay if I'm dumb, I know very little about guns other than like the last few nights I've spent trying to research a good, small concealed carry.
Okay that's good to know. Yeah, I guess my problem was the gun forums lol, I've heard that revolvers were "reliable" from a few sources but it sounds like that's just a thing people like to say at this point.
About .22 - not only does it kill people slowly, it's also some of the least reliable ammunition. Misfires all the time.
I'd really recommend a decent 9mm semi auto + a somewhat basic .22 semi auto. The .22 semi auto will help you practice for way cheaper. Be sure to practice on the 9 too.
I really really like the M&P Shield EZ. My wife bought it because it's extremely easy to operate, and honestly almost all pistols should be that easy to operate. I literally could not find another handgun that she could physically operate at all.
- Loading rounds into the magazines is so fucking easy - there's a tab to pull down, you don't hurt your fingers at all.
- Racking is so fucking easy
- Shoots great, 10 rounds in a standard magazine
- Medium weight, so it's not tiring to hold but doesn't kick like a smaller pistol
Absolutely. It's not a be-all-end-all, but for a beginner I can't give an enthusiastic enough recommendation. When I go out into the woods I carry a Ruger American, a medium to large duty pistol with 17 rounds
Thanks for the recommend, I'm looking at it now. I really have no idea what I'm doing lol, appreciate it.
don't get a .22 for self defense, they're peashooters and you need more stopping power. If you just want a light gun for practicing marksmanship, then okay I guess.
you mentioned concealed carry multiple times, make sure you follow the applicable laws of your state for that.
a revolver is not really a great idea for concealed either. Potentially easier for bullets to fall out, etc.
if your state doesn't allow concealed, then don't fuck around with that. Instead consider getting something milder that you can keep in your pocket like mace.
I think you're making some good assumptions about what you want (a small, reliable gun for concealed carry) but I'll argue against .22 rimfire for reliability reasons - you can get light strikes on a .22 easily. Also if you're carrying for self-defense you shouldn't necessarily be taking ammo costs into consideration (beyond a certain measure).
If you are wanting a self defense gun, 22 is a bad idea. you want 9mm at least ,or for revolver a 357 or 38special.
It's not stupid if it's purpose is to have fun at the range.
If you want to cc get a P365 and call it a day tbh
Edit: Just get any of the popular compact/subcompact carry 9's and you will be fine, there is a reason this is considered the gold standard now - typically the best compromise between terminal energy and shootability with good capacity to boot
Great points from everyone else, but one other thing I’d like to add to the argument against a CC revolver is that generally revolvers have a double action trigger, which means every single trigger pull will be heavy and thus less accurate (unless you already have years of experience shooting DA pistols), while most seni-autos have a much lighter striker fire trigger, or at worst a DA/SA trigger where only the first pull after disengaging the safety is double action.
Ruger
Yes, stupid gun.
Jk of course. The best gun to have is one that shoots, but a .22 is not reliable stopping power or ammo comrade
Thanks, good points to consider. Yeah I might be moving, one of the areas I might end up in let's you cc without a permit if you're over a certain age, so that part will be easy. But I'll of course consider the rest. I'm looking at the LCP Max, thanks for the recommend.
I feel like this is kind of an expensive gun for what it is, but maybe that's just me...
That's true $719 sounds pretty freaking nutty for a .22LR revolver.
I picked up a Ruger MKIV new and the machining/QC on the underside of the upper was honestly disappointing considering the price. Loads of burrs, some tear-out where they milled across the section where the barrel threads in during assembly, areas unprotected from rust by the finish with some rust present.
Yeah, there are plenty of nicer guns to be had for less money at just about any gun shop. And there's nothing wrong with going used either, as long as the firearm has been inspected and if necessary refurbished by a professional gunsmith, which they usually are at most halfway decent stores.
Lol yeah idk why but I've always thought the tiny little snubnose revolvers in movies looked cool.
Ignore everybody saying that a .22 caliber round can't be used for self defense. More people are killed from .22 caliber rounds in the US than rounds of any other caliber - this is due both to how common they are, and also how common the belief that the round is non-lethal is.
If you're looking for the most effective self defense firearm, the answer is the one that you will carry with you and practice with. A small concealed pistol is great for that purpose, and choosing one with the price of ammo in mind is perfectly valid - as long as you go to the next step of actually buying a ton of ammo and practicing with it. You don't have to be Lyudmila Pavlichenko, and with a small pistol you won't be, but the level of proficiency you need to have is to be able to draw the gun quickly and operate it without thinking about the process.
On the topic of revolvers versus semiautos, a semiauto is just better. A hundred years ago there was a legitimate debate between the reliability of a revolver and the increased magazine size of a semiauto, but the magazines are so reliable now that it doesn't exist anymore beyond the imaginations of gun forum people. The most effective overall buy for self defense is a compact double-stacked pistol with nothing extraneous attached to it, because the added shots will make you basically 100% deadly at short ranges.
I don't disagree that a bigger bullet is better, I disagree that a bigger bullet is necessary.
This guy did a study of 1800 real-world shootings over ten years, and found that there were relatively small differences between handgun calibers in terms of ability to stop an attacker. Most self defense shootings result in the attacker breaking off from shock and pain regardless of the caliber, and the only way to have a greater than 50% chance of physically stopping an attacker in one shot is to use a shotgun or a rifle.
Is it so important to you that your attacker is dead before they hit the ground? If so then the .357 magnum is the only viable handgun choice, but you should really be carrying a shotgun. If all you care about is personal protection, then .22 is fine.
He talks about the "one shot stop" percentage in a follow up article and concludes that other calibers are more likely to have higher rates of fire than the average .22, allowing the shooter to squeeze more rounds off before the attacker even knows they're being shot at and skewing the stats. In any event I was not basing my comment on that percentage, I was basing it on the overall findings of this and other surveys into real world self defense uses of handguns.
You seem to have misunderstood the "failure rate" in that article. The "% of people who were not incapacitated" is not a measurement of the percentage of people who carried on attacking their victim despite being shot, it's people who didn't fall to the ground within five feet of where they were standing when they were shot, meaning that about twice as many people hit with low caliber rounds run away from the person with a gun.
I defy you to find an example of someone who carries on attacking after being shot when the shooter isn't a cop or a troop. It just doesn't happen unless a person is really desperate - a mugger or home invader will always flee from gunshots.
No, you’re the one misunderstanding. This is the exact quote on what he determines % of people not incapacitated: “What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them”
Your quote about “not falling within five feet” is from the average number of shots needed to incapacitate. It has nothing to do with the failure rate. I’m begging you to actually read the article.
You are being dense on purpose. There is no reason to believe that his definition for "incapacitation" changes between categories - if he defines incapacitation as stopping your attack or falling within five feet of where you were shot, then that also means that those not being incapacitated didn't do those things.
This thread is going nowhere. Look at this -> :countdown:
I said
people who didn’t fall to the ground within five feet of where they were standing when they were shot
he said
If the person shot was in the act of running (either towards or away from the shooter), he must have fallen to the ground within five feet.
I know I didn't quote him directly, but you have to either be a dumbass or an asshole to not realize that that was what i was talking about.
Enough talking about this old as dirt article, here's a more recent one that demonstrates my point.
this is such a simple thing the only explanation for your continued replies is that you're fucking with me. last reply, i swear:
his explanation for failure rate is as follows:
What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them
of course the definition for incapacitation is relevant for the failure rate, because the failure rate is defined as the percentage of people who were shot but who did not meet the criteria for being incapacitated, ie they continued attacking their victim or did not collapse within five feet of where they were shot. His failure rate is not using some other, unstated definition for "not incapacitated", it is using the inverse of the established definition for "incapacitation".
There's really nothing more I can do but type the thing in the linked page in sightly different ways over and over, and I've done that enough times so I'm going to stop.
