I have heard several times over the last couple weeks that .22 caliber bullets are far more hazzardous and deadly than any other sized bullet for the fact that it doesnt have the mass or velocity to penetrate through the body, but instead travels around inside the body when contact is made. I even heard that .22 bullets have been known to enter the leg and arm, and exit out the other side of the body, shredding everything in its path.

Im not sure that this is true or false, but I want to see some data to prove this myth one way or the other.

Noow I have to ask which .22 cartridge are you referring to?

.22 short
.22 long rifle
.22 hornet
.22-250
.222
.223
There are many, many more.

Use FIND.....!!!!

And no, it's not the most deadly bullet. In fact it rates pretty low...

How far a range are we talking.

20 yds possibly
100yds it would bounce off someones head

And I'm pretty sure he's talking about a .22LR because how popular they are because they are so easy to buy in bulk.

If the .22LR rounds I use are the most deadly, then why am I allowed to shoot a "dinger" target up in Big Bear when all other calibers are not allowed to shoot it? A .22 cal. projectile is the smallest caliber firearm projectile that I know of. They are the slowest and have the least mass. That lack of momentum does mean that they stop first, but it's not the only weapon caliber that stops inside the body.

If the .22 LR was the most effective caliber then every LE agency in the country would be issuing it. .22 caliber is indeed the deadliest caliber as far as number of deaths caused. This is mainly due to the availability of cheap guns and ammunition to street gangs and criminals. Death from injury and infection does not equal effectiveness as a self defense caliber. Most gang members nowadays are moving to more powerful handguns like the Glock "fohty" for the same reasons that other citizens and law enforcement use service caliber guns. Yes bullets can be deflected by bones, but the bullet going in a leg and coming out the shoulder is immpossible as such projectiles run out of steam after penetrating about 10" of muscle tissue.

What kind of round of .22 are eveyone talking about ? there is several types 22. long, .22 magnum, .22 short.

Well, trying to say if it could be the most deadliest of all the .22 round, not sure for it to say that. By watching the Israeli Mosssad most talked about "Wrath Of God" mission from the 1972. When They used .22 round to actually perform their retaliating killings around the world, with exact precision using berettas.
That's what became their signature, so it kindda demonstrate that its effective in some way.

When I first heard that story, about 40 years ago, the story was that more people are killed with .22s because, since there are so cheap and plentiful, most people were shot with .22s. I have also been told that .22s are so dangerous because they tend to bounce around inside a body. I own several .22s, but my preference for a home defense round is the .45 ACP+P

The 22 long rifle is the one in question. and as for being dangerous, it does not have the power to take down an human, but what happens is, it will fragment into many pieces if it hits a bone, thus causing a greater amount of damage, and even harder to find in the body.

Just for some users info. the 22 is not the smallest round. the 17 HMR is the smallest, but in no means is it non-leathel. it travels at a much greater speed than a standard 22LR. and has a ballistic tip. A very deadly round. and it is only 17grain

The 17 HMR may be the smallest, but the .25 ACP is arguably the least lethal of all contemporary firearms.

By the way, the .17 is listed at 20 & 25 grain.

I think this myth may stem from a period in which there were very large numbers of cheap .22 revolvers in the hands of criminals and gang-bangers.
This was some time ago, when the rather screwy regulations about imported firearms came into effect. Many quality weapons were barred, but by adding adjustable sights and other bits to really cheesy weapons, manufacturers like Rohm were able to import thousands of these things.
As a result, for a while the .22 may well have been the "most deadly", but only in terms of numbers of homicides committed, rather than the actual effectiveness of the round.

I have some shady background experience in this. Meaning, I know a lot of friends that know crazy people. And I can tell you that the .22 is extreamly deadly, but not because of the bouncing around part. Most professional assassins use a .22 with a silencer for 2 reasons. You won't even be able to hear a click in the next room, and if you do a head shot, then YES, it will bounce around in the brain and kill the victim. HOWEVER, it is true that if you shoot someone in the leg, it stays in the leg. All the musicle tissue. The head however only has one muscle, the brain. So, yes, it will bounce around, yes it's deadly, no it won't leave the body at a random location.

quote:

The head however only has one muscle, the brain.

ROFL!!!

No....22's are not, will not, be the most deadly. Yes 5.56 is fast and powerful....but size matters. Period.

Everything larger: 9mm, 38 cal, 40 cal, 45 cal, 50 cal....is MO BETTA...providing there is sufficient charge behind them.

This applies to all things...howitzers, mortars, Naval Guns, etc. Bigger is GENERALLY better. Period

quote:

Originally posted by macdaddy:
No....22's are not, will not, be the most deadly. Yes 5.56 is fast and powerful....but size matters. Period.

Everything larger: 9mm, 38 cal, 40 cal, 45 cal, 50 cal....is MO BETTA...providing there is sufficient charge behind them.

You take an .45ACP and I'll take a 5.56mm and we'll see who wins... You cannot stake the effectiveness of a bullet by the calibe size alone. The .45 may be big and heavy (at around ~200gr, about 4x the mass of a 5.56mm), but it is also moving x4 SLOWER than a 5.56mm or even a 7.62mm for that matter. In terms of mass vs velocity when it comes to ballistics, velocity is more dynamic of the two.

quote:

You take an .45ACP and I'll take a 5.56mm and we'll see who wins... You cannot stake the effectiveness of a bullet by the calibe size alone. The .45 may be big and heavy (at around ~200gr, about 4x the mass of a 5.56mm), but it is also moving x4 SLOWER than a 5.56mm or even a 7.62mm for that matter. In terms of mass vs velocity when it comes to ballistics, velocity is more dynamic of the two.

I never said that. Read my post...I said "if it had the charge" to back it up. I'm sure you know a 5.56mm is a 22 Cal. One could be a pistol round...the other an assault rifle round.

If you want to compare Rifles vs. Rifle...same rules apply. The 5.56 is a relatively weak round, compared to 30.06, 7.63mm, 30 cal, etc.

These are very general statements...but basically true. Dare you to shoot a charging RHINO with 5.56mm...get my point?

quote:

Originally posted by macdaddy:
I never said that. Read my post...I said "if it had the charge" to back it up. I'm sure you know a 5.56mm is a 22 Cal. One could be a pistol round...the other an assault rifle round.

If you want to compare Rifles vs. Rifle...same rules apply. The 5.56 is a relatively weak round, compared to 30.06, 7.63mm, 30 cal, etc.

These are very general statements...but basically true. Dare you to shoot a charging RHINO with 5.56mm...get my point?

Then you need to make your point more clear. Your OP suggested that just because 5.56mm is nominally a .22, that "Everything larger: 9mm, 38 cal, 40 cal, 45 cal, 50 cal....is MO BETTA".

And I'm not sure what you mean by 7.63mm, but if you mean 7.62x39mm, the 5.56mm is a comparable round to it (ie they are about equally effective) even though the 7.62mm is a bigger bullet. If you meant the 7.62mm NATO, then yes the 5.56mm is weaker...but it's also in a totally different class of round. The .30-06 and the ".30cal" are the same thing.