枪友会

 找回密码
 立即注册
搜索
热搜: 入门 指南 攻略
查看: 9111|回复: 45

[安防设备] 有关使用.22lr 做家防的统计和分析,请大家讨论

  [复制链接]

27

主题

90

帖子

2292

积分

高级枪友

Rank: 2

积分
2292
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2017-8-16 04:35 | 只看该作者 |只看大图 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 Charlotte 于 2017-8-16 04:54 编辑

我是个新手,第一次买枪,就是看了很多有关.22lr 做家防的文章,所以买了一把MP15-22。不过好像这里的大侠们对.22lr不太感冒,所以贴上来讨论一下。如果实在不行我再去买一把12GA或者223。

Using the .22 for Self Defense
8:00AM FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2013
by Greg Ellifritz

Since my handgun stopping power study was published last month in American Handgunner Magazine, I've received several questions from readers about my data. I expected to be castigated by all the big bullet aficionados for reporting honest data about the "mouse gun" calibers. That wasn't what I received.
All the email that I got was from .22 advocates telling me that I misinterpreted my data and that the .22 is the best defensive cartridge ever invented. Really? I'm open to an honest discussion about the relative merits of carrying a .22 in certain situations, but I promise you that if I was to grab a gun right now, knowing that I would be getting into a gunfight, my .22s would be VERY low on the list.
Here's a summary of the data I reported and the heart of the controversy:
Caliber% stopped after 1 shotHow many shots to stop% that did not stop
.22 (short, long, long rifle)60%1.3831%
.25 acp49%2.235%
.32 (acp and long)72%1.5224%
.380 acp62%1.7616%
9mm Luger47%2.4513%
.38 spl55%1.8717%
.357 magnum61%1.79%
.40 S&W52%2.3613%
.45 acp51%2.0814%
The .22 required the least number of shots to stop an attacker as compared to the other cartridges. Some folks used that number to bolster their choice of the .22 as the best defensive sidearm available and criticized me when I stated that I don't believe that's true. Here is one of the emails I received:
"I am surprised that you did not accept the "fact" evident in the data that the lowly .22 is actually more effective than the high power cartridges: 9mm, 40sw and 45 acp! Your statement "those are likely psychological stops rather than physical incapacitations" is not supported by any data you offer. Rather, it appears to be a purely prejudicial statement which spoils your excellent efforts at conclusions based upon data. In fact it is very counter-intuitive. You are proposing that "mouse gun" is more intimidating than a 45 ACP so it scares more people off than the very big opening in a 45 barrel!
If you have data supporting this counterintuitive conclusion, please share. My conclusion is that you are doing a disservice by not acknowledging that average folks are much better off carrying .22's for their own personnel safety. Inaccurate shot placement of high power cartridges might just get us Joe average citizens injured during an attack."
First, let me make myself perfectly clear. Shot placement is vitally important. If you can’t hit with your chosen carry gun, pick something else. You should certainly be able to pass Gila Hayes’ five rounds, five seconds, into a five inch circle, at five yards test cold, every time you shoot. I would prefer even better performance than that.
If you can't meet that standard with one of the common service calibers and can do it with a .22, I would prefer that you carry the .22. No problem at all with that decision. But most of us don't have a physical limitation and can learn to handle a bigger caliber with a minimal amount of training.
The reader asked me to explain why I considered the .22 stops to be more likely "psychological stops" as opposed to physical incapacitations. That's easy to explain...and it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the muzzle.
There are only two mechanisms for physically incapacitating someone with a handgun. The first is a shot to the central nervous system (CNS). A bullet placed into the brain or the upper spinal cord will usually stop someone instantly. Can the .22 do that? Certainly, but I think a brain or CNS shot is less likely with the .22 than with a larger caliber.
Arguably, the .22 is more accurate and controllable than a centerfire pistol. That would make brain and CNS hits more likely (if one was aiming there). The problem is the historic lack of penetration in the .22 round. They are notorious for failing to be able to penetrate the skull. I had a doctor in my class last weekend who told me about a patient he treated who had eight .22 bullets under his scalp and none had penetrated into his brain! The patient was conscious, alert, and asking for a beer!
Most .22 rounds also lack the ability to penetrate deep enough to reach the spinal cord on a front to back shot on an average human male. It's for these reasons that I doubt the .22 stops were the result of brain or CNS hits.
The only other mechanism for physical incapacitation is through blood loss. On average, a bullet that penetrates deeper and/or makes a larger hole will create more blood loss. We already established that the .22 doesn’t penetrate very deeply and it certainly doesn’t make a big hole. That takes blood loss out of the equation.
If the .22 bullet doesn't cause CNS disruption or extensive blood loss, it won't physically incapacitate an attacker. That's why I commented that the .22 stops are likely to be more psychological in nature.
The data is what it is. I can't change that. My study showed that people were stopped with fewer shots from the .22 than with any other caliber. Does that mean the .22 is the best choice? Not necessarily. There could be other factors that caused the smaller number of shots until incapacitation...
I’m just pulling numbers out of thin air, but let’s just postulate that it takes five seconds after a person is shot for him to realize he is hit and abort the attack. The average number could be higher or lower, but it doesn't matter. It will still take a few seconds for the bad guy to process the fact that he is shot and decide it’s in his best interest to escape before being shot again (a psychological stop).
If we are dealing with psychological stops and not physical incapacitations, firing additional rounds at the attacker during this five second time frame isn't likely to influence his behavior quicker. The processing takes the time that it takes. Anything that will slow the rate of fire will reduce the number of rounds that the attacker soaks up before he aborts his attack. In other words, the small number of rounds until incapacitation could be more the result of slower firing rate than superior cartridge performance.
Is the .22 likely to have a slower firing rate? In handguns carried for defensive purposes, yes. Most .22 defensive handguns are of relatively low quality. They are extremely small and difficult to shoot quickly. Compare the rate of fire between a NAA Mini revolver in .22 and a 9mm Glock. Which do you think you could shoot faster?
The .22 rimfire round is also more prone to malfunctions than any centerfire round. A malfunction will also decrease the rate of fire. Rate of fire wasn't factored into my study and could have caused the low numbers for the .22.
Another fact that many people haven't considered is the difference between police and armed citizen gunfights. My friend Claude Werner often points out that when a criminal is involved in a gunfight with the police, the stakes are higher. The criminal knows that the cops won't stop until he's dead or in jail. That’s not true with a gunfight against an armed citizen. The armed citizen just wants a break in the fight. If he can cause the criminal to flee, he wins and stops shooting.
When criminals fight the police, they are likely to fight harder and take more rounds before giving up, because they know giving up equals a long prison sentence. Giving up and running away when fighting an armed citizen has no such negative consequences.
Many of the gunfights involving 9mm, .40, and .45 calibers in my study were police gunfights. Very few of the .22 data was from police gunfights. The very nature of the differences between the victim characteristics in the different gunfights could also account for the smaller number of rounds taken by those hit with the .22.
Here's the good news for the .22 carriers...
In Claude's lifetime study of defensive gun uses, he has yet to find a single case where an armed citizen was killed by a criminal after the criminal had taken at least one .22 round. In the case of civilian defensive gun usage, the criminal almost always flees after the first hit. I have been unable to find any gunfights that prove Claude wrong.
But take a look at the third column in the table above…
That's the statistic that most .22 advocates choose to ignore. It’s the percentage of people who were not physically incapacitated after any number of rounds. It's roughly three times higher with the .22 as compared to the service caliber cartridges.
Yes, the criminals fled, but they were not incapacitated. They could continue to fight back if they choose to. If you were to face the rare motivated criminal who presses the fight, would you want a .22 or something else? Encountering the motivated criminal who presses the fight against an armed citizen is exceedingly rare, but it is a possibility. Should you prepare for the statistical norm or the statistical anomaly? In my view, I think it’s best to prepare for the worst possible outcome, rather than the most likely. Statistically, you are unlikely to ever need a gun at all, yet most of my readers want to prepare for the worst, so they carry a gun. Why wouldn't you use the same logic when choosing an appropriate defensive sidearm?
My best advice to you is to carry a gun that is reliable and shoots well. If your preference is a .22, it will probably serve you well. My preference is to carry something a little larger whenever it's convenient.
Greg Ellifritz is the full time firearms and defensive tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department. He holds instructor or master instructor certifications in more than 75 different weapon systems, defensive tactics programs and police specialty areas. Greg has a master's degree in Public Policy and Management and is an instructor for both the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy and the Tactical Defense Institute.






27

主题

90

帖子

2292

积分

高级枪友

Rank: 2

积分
2292
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2017-8-16 04:44 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 Charlotte 于 2017-8-16 04:45 编辑

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

3:00PM FRIDAY, JULY 08, 2011
by Greg Ellifritz
I've been interested in firearm stopping power for a very long time. I remember reading Handguns magazine back in the late 1980s when Evan Marshall was writing articles about his stopping power studies. When Marshall's first book came out in 1992, I ordered it immediately, despite the fact that I was a college student and really couldn't afford its $39 price tag. Over the years I bought all of the rest of Marshall's books as well as anything else I could find on the subject. I even have a first edition of Gunshot Injuries by Louis Lagarde published in 1915.
Every source I read has different recommendations. Some say Marshall's data is genius. Some say it is statistically impossible. Some like big heavy bullets. Some like lighter, faster bullets. There isn't any consensus. The more I read, the more confused I get.
One thing I remember reading that made a lot of sense to me was an article by Massad Ayoob. He came out with his own stopping power data around the time Marshall published Handgun Stopping Power. In the article, Ayoob took his critics to task. He suggested that if people didn't believe his data, they should collect their own and do their own analysis. That made sense to me. So that's just what I did. I always had a slight problem with the methodology of Marshall and Sanow's work. For consistency purposes, they ONLY included hits to the torso and ONLY included cases where the person was hit with just a single round. Multiple hits screwed up their data, so they excluded them. This led to an unrealistically high stopping power percentage, because it factored out many of the cases where a person didn't stop! I wanted to look at hits anywhere on the body and get a realistic idea of actual stopping power, no matter how many hits it took to get it. So I started collecting data.
Over a 10-year period, I kept track of stopping power results from every shooting I could find. I talked to the participants of gunfights, read police reports, attended autopsies, and scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot.
I documented all of the data I could; tracking caliber, type of bullet (if known), where the bullet hit and whether or not the person was incapacitated. I also tracked fatalities, noting which bullets were more likely to kill and which were not. It was an exhaustive project, but I'm glad I did it and I'm happy to report the results of my study here.
Before I get to the details, I must give a warning. I don't have any dog in this fight! I don't sell ammo. I'm not being paid by any firearm or ammunition manufacturer. I carry a lot of different pistols for self defense. Within the last 2 weeks, I've carried a .22 magnum, a .380 auto, a .38 spl revolver, 3 different 9mm autos and a .45 auto. I don't have an axe to grind. If you are happy with your 9mm, I'm happy for you. If you think that everyone should be carrying a .45 (because they don't make a .46), I'm cool with that too. I'm just reporting the data. If you don't like it, take Mr. Ayoob's advice...do a study of your own.
A few notes on terminology:

Since it was my study, I got to determine the variables and their definitions. Here's what I looked at:
- Number of people shot
- Number of rounds that hit
- On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body. To be considered an immediate incapacitation, I used criteria similar to Marshall's. If the attacker was striking or shooting the victim, the round needed to immediately stop the attack without another blow being thrown or shot being fired. 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 also excluded all cases of accidental shootings or suicides. Every shot in this study took place during a military battle or an altercation with a criminal.
- What percentage of shooting incidents resulted in fatalities. For this, I included only hits to the head or torso.
- What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them
- Accuracy. What percentage of hits was in the head or torso. I tracked this to check if variations could affect stopping power. For example, if one caliber had a huge percentage of shootings resulting in arm hits, we may expect that the stopping power of that round wouldn’t look as good as a caliber where the majority of rounds hit the head.
- One shot stop percentage - number of incapacitations divided by the number of hits the person took. Like Marshall's number, I only included hits to the torso or head in this number.
- Percentage of people who were immediately stopped with one hit to the head or torso
Here are the results:

.25ACP                  
# of people shot - 68
# of hits - 150
% of hits that were fatal - 25%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.2
% of people who were not incapacitated - 35%
One-shot-stop % - 30%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 62%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 49%
.22 (short, long and long rifle)                  
# of people shot - 154
# of hits - 213
% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38
% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%
One-shot-stop % - 31%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%
.32 (both .32 Long and .32 ACP)                  
# of people shot - 25
# of hits - 38
% of hits that were fatal - 21%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.52
% of people who were not incapacitated - 40%
One-shot-stop % - 40%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 78%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 72%
.380 ACP                  
# of people shot - 85
# of hits - 150
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.76
% of people who were not incapacitated - 16%
One-shot-stop % - 44%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 62%
.38 Special                  
# of people shot - 199
# of hits - 373
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.87
% of people who were not incapacitated - 17%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 55%
9mm Luger                  
# of people shot - 456
# of hits - 1121
% of hits that were fatal - 24%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 34%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 74%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 47%
.357 (both magnum and Sig)                  
# of people shot - 105
# of hits - 179
% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.7
% of people who were not incapacitated - 9%
One-shot-stop % - 44%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 61%
.40 S&W                  
# of people shot - 188
# of hits - 443
% of hits that were fatal - 25%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.36
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 45%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 52%
.45 ACP                  
# of people shot - 209
# of hits - 436
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated - 14%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%
.44 Magnum                  
# of people shot - 24
# of hits - 41
% of hits that were fatal - 26%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.71
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 59%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 88%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 53%
Rifle (all Centerfire)                  
# of people shot - 126
# of hits - 176
% of hits that were fatal - 68%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.4
% of people who were not incapacitated - 9%
One-shot-stop % - 58%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 81%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 80%
Shotgun (All, but 90% of results were 12 gauge)                  
# of people shot - 146
# of hits - 178
% of hits that were fatal - 65%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.22
% of people who were not incapacitated - 12%
One-shot-stop % - 58%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 84%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 86%

Discussion:

I really would have liked to break it down by individual bullet type, but I didn't have enough data points to reach a level of statistical significance. Getting accurate data on nearly 1800 shootings was hard work. I couldn't imagine breaking it down farther than what I did here. I also believe the data for the .25, .32 and .44 magnum should be viewed with suspicion. I simply don't have enough data (in comparison to the other calibers) to draw an accurate comparison. I reported the data I have, but I really don't believe that a .32 ACP incapacitates people at a higher rate than the .45 ACP!
One other thing to look at is the 9mm data. A huge number (over half) of 9mm shootings involved ball ammo. I think that skewed the results of the study in a negative manner. One can reasonable expect that FMJ ammo will not stop as well as a state of the art expanding bullet. I personally believe that the 9mm is a better stopper than the numbers here indicate, but you can make that decision for yourself based on the data presented.
Some interesting findings:

I think the most interesting statistic is the percentage of people who stopped with one shot to the torso or head. There wasn't much variation between calibers. Between the most common defensive calibers (.38, 9mm, .40, and .45) there was a spread of only eight percentage points. No matter what gun you are shooting, you can only expect a little more than half of the people you shoot to be immediately incapacitated by your first hit.
The average number of rounds until incapacitation was also remarkably similar between calibers. All the common defensive calibers required around 2 rounds on average to incapacitate. Something else to look at here is the question of how fast can the rounds be fired out of each gun. The .38 SPL probably has the slowest rate of fire (long double action revolver trigger pulls and stout recoil in small revolvers) and the fewest rounds fired to get an incapacitation (1.87). Conversely the 9mm can probably be fired fastest of the common calibers and it had the most rounds fired to get an incapacitation (2.45). The .40 (2.36) and the .45 (2.08) split the difference. It is my personal belief that there really isn't much difference between each of these calibers. It is only the fact that some guns can be fired faster than others that causes the perceived difference in stopping power. If a person takes an average of 5 seconds to stop after being hit, the defender who shoots a lighter recoiling gun can get more hits in that time period. It could be that fewer rounds would have stopped the attacker (given enough time) but the ability to fire more quickly resulted in more hits being put onto the attacker. It may not have anything to do with the stopping power of the round.
Another data piece that leads me to believe that the majority of commonly carried defensive rounds are similar in stopping power is the fact that all four have very similar failure rates. If you look at the percentage of shootings that did not result in incapacitation, the numbers are almost identical. The .38, 9mm, .40, and .45 all had failure rates of between 13% and 17%.

Some people will look at this data and say "He's telling us all to carry .22s". That's not true. Although this study showed that the percentages of people stopped with one shot are similar between almost all handgun cartridges, there's more to the story. Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...
In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this.
One other factor to consider is that the majority of these shootings did NOT involve shooting through intermediate barriers, cover or heavy clothing. If you anticipate having to do this in your life (i.e. you are a police officer and may have to shoot someone in a car), again, I would lean towards the larger or more powerful rounds.
What I believe that my numbers show is that in the majority of shootings, the person shot merely gives up without being truly incapacitated by the bullet. In such an event, almost any bullet will perform admirably. If you want to be prepared to deal with someone who won't give up so easily, or you want to be able to have good performance even after shooting through an intermediate barrier, I would skip carrying the "mouse gun" .22s, .25s and .32s.
Now compare the numbers of the handgun calibers with the numbers generated by the rifles and shotguns. For me there really isn't a stopping power debate. All handguns suck! If you want to stop someone, use a rifle or shotgun!
What matters even more than caliber is shot placement. Across all calibers, if you break down the incapacitations based on where the bullet hit you will see some useful information.
Head shots = 75% immediate incapacitation
Torso shots = 41% immediate incapacitation
Extremity shots (arms and legs) = 14% immediate incapacitation.
No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!
Conclusion:

This study took me a long time and a lot of effort to complete. Despite the work it took, I'm glad I did it. The results I got from the study lead me to believe that there really isn't that much difference between most defensive handgun rounds and calibers. None is a death ray, but most work adequately...even the lowly .22s. I've stopped worrying about trying to find the "ultimate" bullet. There isn't one. And I've stopped feeling the need to strap on my .45 every time I leave the house out of fear that my 9mm doesn't have enough "stopping power." Folks, carry what you want. Caliber really isn't all that important.
Take a look at the data. I hope it helps you decide what weapon to carry. No matter which gun you choose, pick one that is reliable and train with it until you can get fast accurate hits. Nothing beyond that really matters!
You may also enjoy this Greg Ellifritz story: A Parent's Guide to School Shootings
Greg Ellifritz is the full time firearms and defensive tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department. He holds instructor or master instructor certifications in more than 75 different weapon systems, defensive tactics programs and police specialty areas. Greg has a master's degree in Public Policy and Management and is an instructor for both the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy and the Tactical Defense Institute.
For more information or to contact Greg, visit his training site at Active Response Training.
回复

使用道具 举报

15

主题

355

帖子

6561

积分

高级枪友

Rank: 2

积分
6561
板凳
发表于 2017-8-16 05:20 | 只看该作者
学术党。
回复

使用道具 举报

22

主题

1901

帖子

1万

积分

老牌枪友

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
12098
地板
发表于 2017-8-16 05:41 | 只看该作者
回复

使用道具 举报

42

主题

805

帖子

1万

积分

老牌枪友

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
18375
5#
发表于 2017-8-16 05:45 | 只看该作者
就一句话, .22 好使的话 为啥很少有甚至几乎没有罪犯使用.22来进行犯罪?
这文章太缺乏严谨性。 把好几个变量信息给丢掉了。
至关重要的时间, 时间去哪了?
你给我几十分钟我突突个几百发.22 对方肯定能stop。命中率再差也有几十发能打中吧。
然而前提是对方不还手 你就站在那打。
如果对方有武装 对你进行反击,你能有多少时间来防卫?
换做.45acp 你要是找好机会 就一发打在劫匪躯干上 对方不躺也丧失基本行动能力了。

之前看到过一个.22的例子, 罪犯在倒下之前挨了60多发.22。
再给你甩几个因素文章没有的:防卫者基本信息,弹药可靠性,挨打者基本信息,射击距离。。。。。
再多的你自己去想吧,最终决定是你自己的事情。
你觉得对自己和家人生命负责了就行。 建议你去上ccw/cpl 课程 这样你还能了解事后涉及到法律的问题
回复

使用道具 举报

97

主题

986

帖子

1万

积分

老牌枪友

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
11376
6#
发表于 2017-8-16 05:55 | 只看该作者
太长,但.32和.380 ACP是什么鬼?那么好使?
回复

使用道具 举报

8

主题

2980

帖子

2万

积分

元老枪友

Rank: 4

积分
20949
7#
发表于 2017-8-16 06:13 | 只看该作者
PSA 发表于 2017-8-16 05:55
太长,但.32和.380 ACP是什么鬼?那么好使?

是啊,文章说这两个acp的停止率是最高的,有常识的人都不会相信。
回复

使用道具 举报

48

主题

640

帖子

1万

积分

老牌枪友

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
11225
8#
发表于 2017-8-16 06:22 | 只看该作者
Alpha粑粑 发表于 2017-8-16 05:45
就一句话, .22 好使的话 为啥很少有甚至几乎没有罪犯使用.22来进行犯罪?
这文章太缺乏严谨性。 把好几个 ...

我觉得考虑22主要是给老人和女性考虑的吧
回复

使用道具 举报

1172

主题

2万

帖子

13万

积分

国宝枪友

少林寺驻武当山办事处大神父上校政委王喇嘛

Rank: 5Rank: 5

积分
132169

开坛元勋NRA终身会员三枪客认证教员携枪执照

9#
发表于 2017-8-16 06:26 | 只看该作者
这个问题也算是本站月经贴了。

还是那句话,有啥都比空手强。如果能选的话我是不会选22,停止力是一方面,最主要的是22高度不可靠性,还容易走火,让我上膛放家里,再指望他防身,实在无法接受 但我并不觉得别人用这个有什么问题,只要你了解了所有22的弊端就好。
When You're Up To Your Nose In Shit, Keep Your Mouth Shut. -Jack Beauregard
回复

使用道具 举报

1

主题

14

帖子

169

积分

中级枪友

Rank: 1

积分
169
10#
发表于 2017-8-16 06:27 | 只看该作者
.32 acp.380acp 好歹以前也是军用的口径。不过要论子弹便宜,威力足够,还是得数9mm吧。
回复

使用道具 举报

91

主题

3395

帖子

1万

积分

老牌枪友

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
19118

三枪客携枪执照

11#
发表于 2017-8-16 06:36 | 只看该作者
.22 也有.22lr和.22mag之分。后者作为个人防卫还是可以的。楼主好好看看。我是没兴趣读完了。
回复

使用道具 举报

398

主题

3645

帖子

2万

积分

元老枪友

Rank: 4

积分
29105

三枪客

12#
发表于 2017-8-16 06:44 | 只看该作者
不流行,就是有原因的。
回复

使用道具 举报

29

主题

672

帖子

1万

积分

老牌枪友

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
12925
13#
发表于 2017-8-16 06:52 | 只看该作者
兄弟,实践才是真理。
回复

使用道具 举报

42

主题

805

帖子

1万

积分

老牌枪友

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
18375
14#
发表于 2017-8-16 07:28 | 只看该作者
Jaguar 发表于 2017-8-16 06:22
我觉得考虑22主要是给老人和女性考虑的吧

是啊, 基本是给对枪械没有太多操控能力的人使用的。 所以这也是文中没提到的。。
回复

使用道具 举报

27

主题

90

帖子

2292

积分

高级枪友

Rank: 2

积分
2292
15#
 楼主| 发表于 2017-8-16 07:49 | 只看该作者
谢谢各位。看来我还是要再买一根散弹枪
回复

使用道具 举报

1

主题

3115

帖子

2万

积分

元老枪友

Rank: 4

积分
20307

携枪执照

16#
发表于 2017-8-16 08:29 | 只看该作者
Alpha粑粑 发表于 2017-8-16 05:45
就一句话, .22 好使的话 为啥很少有甚至几乎没有罪犯使用.22来进行犯罪?
这文章太缺乏严谨性。 把好几个 ...


回复

使用道具 举报

55

主题

635

帖子

6663

积分

高级枪友

Rank: 2

积分
6663
17#
发表于 2017-8-16 08:43 | 只看该作者
个人感觉22仅有的好处就是子弹便宜轻便。9毫米鲁格的后坐力并不是很大,我见过很瘦的女同志轻松驾驭的。
回复

使用道具 举报

18

主题

1986

帖子

9954

积分

老牌枪友

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
9954

携枪执照

18#
发表于 2017-8-16 08:50 | 只看该作者
Charlotte 发表于 2017-8-16 09:49
谢谢各位。看来我还是要再买一根散弹枪

兄弟,俺也是刚入武的,这坛里的能人、大侠颇多,多听听他们的建议没错。
回复

使用道具 举报

112

主题

4369

帖子

3万

积分

元老枪友

Rank: 4

积分
38081
19#
发表于 2017-8-16 09:32 | 只看该作者
.22栓动步枪给小学生入门用,这是我觉得唯一能用到.22的地方。上周带上初三的侄女第一次摸枪,9mm的塑料/全金属各一把,各打10发体验后说沉的枪更好打,打完一盒50发还想打。
Hatsan Galatian .22/ Hatsan BullBoss .22
Beretta 92, CZ75, Ruger RPR
回复

使用道具 举报

74

主题

788

帖子

5815

积分

高级枪友

Rank: 2

积分
5815
20#
发表于 2017-8-16 09:38 | 只看该作者
当年在中国被射钉弹 打过手心 钻心的疼  半个月就好了 手肿的像熊掌
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

触屏版|枪友会

GMT-8, 2024-10-31 15:35 , Processed in 0.047159 second(s), 20 queries .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表