Food for thought FWIW.
Like said earlier, whatever she chooses is better than the alternative.
Hits with a .22 are better than misses with a .38.
Many many years back I read a study comparing the .22WMR vs. the .22LR, admittedly it was done with a rifle barrel.
For the test two identical rifles were chosen, the only difference was the chambering.
The test started with full length barrel, shot over a chronograph and data was logged for each shot. They shot something like 10 times for an aggregate at each stage of the test.
The barrels were cut at one inch increments, a ten shot string was recorded and averaged. This was repeated until the barrels were cut to the forend of the stocks.
IIRC, the conclusion was that the WMR using a slower powder needed the extra length of the barrel to utilize the powder charge.
When the barrel reached a certain reduced length, the efficiency was dramatically reduced, to the point that it made little difference between the LR and the WMR. The WMR was always faster, but at a certain length, the difference was very small and insignificant.
Therefore, based on cost and availability of ammo, limited pistol selection and muzzle blast and efficiency, if it were me, I'd go with LR in a revolver, especially a snubby.
Tip...
Years back, I bought a tool steel die from an outfit in Sacramento that you inserted a .22LR, ran the tip of the bullet over a file and ended up with a TC solid.
These days, they sell a TC solid bullet, but I still make my own.
This bullet is THE proven hunting shape. Large metplat, hard hitting, mushrooming, penetrating.
I've hunted with it, it's far superior to any other design. Hits like a sledgehammer, mushrooms and drives through whatever it hits - this at standard velocity.
Might want to look into these bullets. Soup up the old .22, give it some spice.
|