Misplaced Pages

This is an archive of past discussions about .22 long rifle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

.22 shortage

We've had a shortage of .22 LR's here in the U.S. at least for a couple years now. I haven't come across any reliable sources on the topic yet, but would this be a topic worth including in the article. It could be dicey trying to include content on it since there's a lot of speculation out there as well, but I figured I'd float the idea out there in case anyone else had thoughts on maybe tackling it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's a worthy of a short addition, but you don't want to give it undue weight. It would require good sources.MartinezMD (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious about what caused the shortage, and is it worldwide. I don't think it should rate much of a mention, if it is restricted to the US only. --Dmol (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Why redirect .22 caliber to this article?

Is there a reason for redirecting .22 caliber and .22 to this article simply because this is the most common .22 cal? Why not redirect them to .22 (disambiguation) instead? 72.198.26.226 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You could have done it yourself. I agree with you so I did it.MartinezMD (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Because this is the most common type of .22-caliber ammunition, and it is the one people are almost always referring to when they say/write ".22 caliber". Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

MartinezMD: Yeah I know I could have done it, but sometimes it's best to talk first. Thanks for doing it. Faceless Enemy: It seems we disagree with you. 72.198.26.226 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way. ".22 caliber" should refer to the actual diameter (as in the disambiguation page), but the common usage is incorrectly unspecific. I'm not sure how WP policy on redirects says to address that sort of situation. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I get your point, but I don't think it's wise to assume that a reference to ".22 caliber" refers to any specific round. Consider the following hypothetical first sentence for this article: "The .22 Long Rifle rimfire (5.6×15mmR – metric designation) cartridge is a long-established variety of .22 caliber ammunition, and in terms of units sold is still by far the most common in the world today." If we treated ".22 caliber" as equivalent to ".22 Long Rifle", the sentence would be recursively self-referential (or something like that). We would be saying that something is a variety of itself. 72.198.26.226 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

For .22 caliber I don't feel too strongly about the redirect. But for plain .22 I definitely did. It's a number, not a caliber and I felt the redirect was too much of a leap to make.MartinezMD (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, can one of you create a discussion at redirects for discussion? I reverted the change at .22 as it was a longstanding redirect. But others may feel differently than me. Natg 19 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

done. Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_8#.22

Would a paragraph about popular rifles improve the article?

I was considering adding popular .22LR rifles like the Marlin 60, but im not sure if it was appropriate for the topic. Thanks - AH (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to define popular. It would be very subjective. --Dmol (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The .22LR "has been used successfully" on animals much larger than coyotes!

It's not IDEAL, but the .22LR has been used on deer, and successfully, by many people. This text seems to suggest the largest animal ever killed by a .22 LR is a coyote. You could theoretically kill a moose using one, and it has probably been done. This isn't advisable to try, but it can be done. I know for a fact deer have been killed using this round. AnnaGoFast (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Humans are larger than them, and many have been killed by the .22. In theory, a shot through an elephant's eye into the brain would be fatal too. The paragraph needs better phrasing and the recommendations from reliable sources. MartinezMD (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright I made some changes to the paragraph, with sources. What do you think?MartinezMD (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you are not an expert shooter with full knowledge of an animal's anatomy, the largest game or vermin that can be ethically taken with one .22 LR round would be about 25 pounds within 100 yards. If you have superb marksmanship skills and surgical anatomy knowledge, yes, you can take deer with a .22, but few meet that measure. I know that the 1930s Depression drove a lot of people in the mountains to that extreme, for there were few deer on the old home place in the 1950s. Today, if you don't use at least a .30-30 or a .50 muzzleloader on deer, the game warden will show you no mercy. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You are linking to advertisement

The link to 'videos' http://stoppingpower.info/?title=.22 directs to an advertisement nothing to do with the article.

Thanks for the notice. It looks like the page expired and was not renewed. Removed it. MartinezMD (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)