How would you rate the .22 lr as an anti-personel round and for tactical situations?

Question

I'm just really curious to know what oppinions are on this. Just say you were in a tactical survival situation where a bunch of thugs were attacking you with mixed weapons mostly AK's and all your group had was .22 rifles. How would you fair in semi-open terrain of between 50 and 200 yards of open space? How about in more closed terrain of between 10 and 100 yards of space?

Answer 1

I grew up in Rhodesia in the 1960's and 1970's. We got out in 1976. I recall my family having problems with poachers and fears of black militants. My father purchased a .22 magnum, I believe it was a Marlin in 1967 or 1968.
By 1974, we had a security "detail" to protect our home and the homes of some others in the area. The leader was an army veteran, 3/4's white, but some black and Indian in his background as well. He had seven troops under his command. At any given time, two were out on patrol. Between the 8 of them, there were three Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 2's, perhaps the greatest bolt action rifle ever.
Rather than being a deterrent, this security detail seemed to provoke violence. In 1975, they engaged in a fire fight with terrorists. My father joined in with his .22 magnum. Eventually, the police and army got to the area and chased the terrorists away, about 5-6 of the terrorists were killed, one of our guards was wounded. We found a wounded terrorist on our property. My father got him in the neck at about 100 yards about half an hour earlier. All the dead ones died from .303 fire. Two AK-47's were recovered. In another battle, my father was wounded. He killed a man at about 50' with the .22 magnum. They recovered an SKS carbine with this terrorist. My father survived being shot in the upper thigh by the SKS, while the terrorist died from a shot that went right through the nose and eye socket.
It wasn't a question of who had the better weapon. It was a question of who was the better shot. Several months later we left knowing our homeland was no longer safe.

Answer 2

.22lr vs AK mean that the best option is to run your butt off in the other direction at least that's what I'd do

If it was at night then a suppressed .22 would be hard to beat as far as trying to stay hidden but i would rather go to 300 yards and start shooting with a bigger cal 223 308 30-06 or other large .cal

if the guys with the .22's can't go anywhere they would get destroyed the AK guys would take casualties but they would definitely win

Answer 3

There is a reason why the .22 Long Rifle isn't used in a tactical situation. As a weapon of opportunity it beats a stout stick but 200 yards of open space? The guy with the AK has the advantage. Close range? Anything can happen but if I had my choice I wouldn't bet my life to a .22 rimfire or centerfire! Make mine the FAL 7.62x51.

Good luck.

H

Answer 4

The only way you MIGHT have an advantage is in a night situation, with suppressed weapons and night vision scopes. A 22 lr can be almost completely silent when suppressed, and accurate enough out to about 100 yards, or just a bit more, depending on wind/ammo, etc.

The Mossad has used suppressed 22 lr in certain situations. There is a Marlin Papoose barrel with built-in suppression that you just screw on to the receiver, for example.

In a daylight, conventional firefight, you would lose badly - Unless you were fighting untrained, stupid rebels shooting from the hip.

Answer 5

I would rate the .22 Long Rifle cartridge as decent for an anti-personnel round as long as it is used for headshots only. Assuming mostly equal numbers, the two "groups" could be on equal terms if the guys armed with AK's have never fired a gun in their lives and your team kept their cool and shot accurately. AK's have moderate recoil and inexperienced shooters typically have their subsequent shots miss high or wide.

A good bolt-action .22 with a suppressor can be deadly at 100 yards in the right hands. The question is not the weapons, but the people using them. Look at the Columbine shooting for example. They expended roughly 300 rounds of ammo between them, and only killed 16 people.

Training is 95% of any battle.

Answer 6

Bringing 22's to confront a bunch of bad guys with AK's would not be a good thing. Kinda like bringing a knife to a gun fight.The most you could hope for would be for the guys with 22's to get a few of their group to flank the AK dudes and take a few of them out,take their AK's and extra ammo and as as Sir Bobby suggested., "Get back into the fight."

10-100 yards the guys with 22's would spend all their time and energy "ducking" AK-47 roundfs whizzing around them..No time for accurate or sustained return fire.......

Answer 7

The .22LR has practically negligable penetration capability as opposed to a 7.62mm round. If you're in semi-open, we could say that means a few trees, some cars, etc. Don't count on the .22LR to be able to shoot through anything but thin plywood and glass, and don't count on any shot other than to the head to do any amount of damage.

If you're only shooting .22LR, you need to shoot like you've only got one round. We were taught to shoot in a 2"x4" rectangle in the eyes and a 2"x4" rectangle in the center of the chest.

Answer 8

If you had good aim and they couldn't hit a mountain, you'd do fine. Why, are you planning on being attacked? If so, I'd pick some better weopons, and be more selective about terrain. For example, I'd want guided missiles for weopons, and an ocean between us.

Answer 9

Thats a big thumbs down buddy. .22 long rifle is used for things like squirrel and rabbits. A might bit smaller than a person.

Answer 10

Let one of them get REALLY close - shoot him, and take his AK-47 and ammo.

You are now free to roam around the gunfight.