View Full Version : The .22 pocket pistol the BEST for civilian personal defense?

Jody Hudson
November 30, 2000, 07:14 PM
Of course it is... I know... I'm a contrarian on this topic and others! :)

My argument is regarding, note here; CIVILIAN PERSONAL DEFENSE (not police, military, or defense agains bears or rhinos):

First: We should all agree that the weapon we have with us all the time as a civilian, is senior to the one we don't have when it's needed. A person therefore who decides to carry a firearm full-time will more likely carry a smaller lighter gun more of the time... than the same person will carry a larger heavier gun.

Second: For many folks concealment is difficult in MANY situations. Not everyone can wear baggy clothing with the shirt tail out and a vest or coat all the time. The .22 pocket pistol can be concealed almost all the time; no matter what one is wearing. One of my old clients (a "wet" agent for the US Govt.) used to carry a Walther TPH even when he wore his Speedo swimming suit. In that situation he pushed it into two condoms, one within the other and secreted it "up tight and out of sight". By the way this same professional, whose jobe was personel removal, had two larger guns for his job; a .22 caliber Ruger Mark 1 and a .22 caliber AR-7 Explorer.

Third: If one has to fire a handgun in self defense; shot placement is paramount to any other factor after the factor of "having it with you". There are many .22 pocket pistols that are more accurate than most larger calibers; until you get to 9x18, 9x19 or .45. I agree here that before the advent of the super .22 such as Aquila, Stinger and especially Quick-Shock that the .32 was superior in power and equal in accuracy. The .25 is not more powerful and is not any longer any more reliable according to my experience.

Fourth: In the "old days" it was often enough to show your gun when needed; in that situation a Desert Eagle or a 10 gauge double barrel is nice to pull; that is NOT a good idea anymore. Once the firearm is pulled out (brandished the prosecuting attorney will say) you are at severe risk of going to court whether or not you fire. So it is NOT a good idea to pull your gun to stop the fight any more unless you are on-duty law enforcement. The .22 pocket pistol can be gotten to and pulled out ready to use, or kept where it doesn't show and with your hand on it and finger ready for the trigger, until time to draw and fire. That readiness is far more difficult to achieve with any other caliber.

Fifth: The .22 can be fired in practice far more affordably than any other caliber. With extensive practice, which is most sensible if one decides to carry a weapon; the draw and shot are improved.

Sixth: The old arguments about power, reliability and effectiveness of the .22 are lessened dramatically when the discussion of the pocket .22 for defense includes; that the tiny pistol will be loaded with Aquilia, Stinger or BEST of all... Quick-Shock.

The Quick-Shock is tremendously effective in a water saturated and somewhat confined media; such as a living meat body. Those who doubt the effectiveness of the Quick-Shock should do a test and take several pistols of different calibers out and test them on cheaply available large vegetables and melons, # 10 cans of tomato paste or beef stew, or out of date meat from the grocer or butcher. In fact, as I was becoming a believer I decided to try the Quick-Shock out on a large ham... Scary!!! Not much left to eat... Better yet try one on some living animal that needs killing for food or to eliminate a feral threat (legally I hope).

When my son and I tested the Quick-Shocks against even the "best" larger and more expensive calibers on numerous hydroshockable media we decided in favor of the .22 Quick-Shock. Try it yourself before you take me on with this argument please. I know I've seen the ballistic gelatin tests claiming that the Quick-Shock is not effective. I also am personally aware of tests on numerous tests which included large cabbage, pumpkins, melons, pigs, cows, feral dogs, diseased fox, and some more... no I don't know of any tests on humans and won't likely either. Those folks who use .22s on humans, and there are some who do this as a job, don't talk to me about such things.

OK... I agree... Bigger is better... when available. When I was younger (40 years ago) and the relevant law was not enforced; I carried an over and under 12 gauge sawn down to nearly pistol size (11" end to end). And when I lived, walked and camped in the swamps of central Florida 20 years ago, I carried a very short and legally modified pump 12 gauge 4 shot which was sawn at the end of the magazine tube and just behind my right pinkie when I held the trigger. So if we are going to talk pistol caliber for stopping power -- sure... 12 gauge, 10 gauge, or best of all a VERY (flare signal) Pistol are better; they can be had for a price. But will it qualify as "always with you" per my first argument above?

Quantum Singularity
November 30, 2000, 07:56 PM
This is a good topic (and interesting).

One question:

Regarding the Quikshok: does it penetrate enough? In my understanding, it splits into three small projectiles. After splitting the overall bullet weight is drastically reduced and hence so is penetration. Has anyone done penetration tests on .22 Quikshok ammo???

Jody Hudson
November 30, 2000, 08:19 PM
For instance:
Hard Asian Cabbage of about 14" in diameter growing in the field; penetrated and blew out a hole about 3 inches in diameter from the back side (larger exit hole than a .223 hollow point out of an 18" barrel made by the way!!!) AND the interior of the numerous cabbages we shot into was SOUP when we opened them in an area of about 5 inches diameter.

#10 Tomato paste can at a little over 100 yards out of my S&W model 41 .30 carbine hollow point out of my M-1 Carbine hit the can and made an exit hole of about 2" with splits in the can. The Quick-Shock out of the Model 41 (by the way the Quick-Shock is as accurate as most target ammo in all the rifles and pistols I've used it in) did a similar size exit hole and blew about a 4 inch split in the lid seam top and bottom with at least a third of the paste blown out.

Watermelon; a watermelon about 12 inches in diameter and about two feet long; the .223 hollow point out of an 18 inch rifle barrel blew the end out of the watermellon. The Quick-Shock split the watermelon in several places and sprayed out melon soup but only penetrated about 14 inches. The pistol was the little Walther TPH pocket pistol. We went and bought several more mellons and had similar results. One melon we think was overly ripe (more liquid) and the Quick-Shock pretty much turned the first foot of that to soup and chunks. When we put jackets and shirts around the mellons we saw no difference. There seemed to be no plugging of the hollow point or if there was it didn't seem to matter.

Quantum Singularity
November 30, 2000, 08:58 PM
Is there anyway of knowing how well Quikshok would penetrate human body?

Jody Hudson
November 30, 2000, 09:11 PM
I am not willing to be involved in that test; not as transmitter, receiver or spectator. I suggest that animals, farm animals, predators and feral menaces are the suggested test medium. Got a goat? :0 ... or a Bull? :() Deer are a good choice as they are able to pump incredible ammounts of adrenalin in a split second giving them an invincibility factor similar to a thug on PCP. If you know a deer poacher; they usually use a .22 -- just buy them a box of Quick-Shock and ask for test results.

Other than that... I guess whomever is doing dirty deeds for some government or other criminal organization may be willing to do a test for you. I don't know any that will tell me about such tests.

Quantum Singularity
November 30, 2000, 09:18 PM
"I suggest that animals, farm animals, predators and feral menaces are the suggested test medium. Got a goat? :0 ... or a Bull? ) Deer are a good choice as they are able to pump incredible ammounts of adrenalin in a split second giving them an invincibility factor similar to a thug on PCP. "


I hope you don't mean to test it on somebody's dog? Hunting an animal for food is one thing, but killing an animal to JUST test an ammunition's effectiveness is another. Doesn't ballistic gelatin do a good job of predicting wound cavity's?

BTW, if it were up to me I'd rather see convicted (violent) felons on death row be "tested" than a helpless animal.

Jody Hudson
November 30, 2000, 09:25 PM
Out here in the boonies and we are near a huge resort area. There are hundreds, if not thousands of dogs and cats running feral and wild in the woods and swamps. The dogs are often running in packs of 5 to 10 in the case of large dogs and sometimes 20 to 40 when they are smaller such as the terrier types. Feral cats are usually in packs of 10 to 30 but can be as many as 50. The cats, as all house-type cats are wont to be, are sport killers and often kill just for the fun of it.

This time of the year smaller packs of cats and dogs roam the streets of the towns in the early hours of 2 to 5 am. After that they are back into the surrounding woods and bogs. Some folks feed them and thus draw more.

It is not considered to be polite or PC to shoot them. They are a disease menace.

Quantum Singularity
November 30, 2000, 09:31 PM
I understand: (I thought you were condoning shooting people's pets--true domestic dogs). In your case, the dogs are half wild and potentially dangerous.

Being a dog owner, I must have misread your intentions. I apologize for the confusion...

Quantum Singularity
November 30, 2000, 09:32 PM
Why is no one else responding to this topic? It would make an interesting debate...

Jody Hudson
November 30, 2000, 09:46 PM
I had to shoot many feral dogs and cats, about 15 years ago and used the Stinger. It was quite effective on the dogs with head shots but not the cats. It would often blow a hole out of the heads of the cats and I'd find them 50 yards or even in one case a quarter of a mile away. For the cats the CCI CB Caps; a .22 cal. slow and heavy indoor shooting round were the best. There were no Quick-Shocks back then. One of the local folks here has used the Quick-Shocks on feral cats who ruin his property by digging into the under floor insulation of his mobile homes looking for mice. He has claimed that the cat's heads normally explode with the Quick-Shocks. I have not seen it and only have it second hand.

I have only the personal observational experience of a couple of diseased fox -- not any wild cats or dogs so far with the Quick-Shocks. The Quick-Shocks took the running fox down like falling rock in one shot from a Trailside when a 9mm +P HP had not slowed it.

By the way... I am a dog and cat lover too but not a lover of diseased and/or dangerous and damaging feral and wild critters. I do not have a current need or reason to shoot the feral animals as I did some 15 years ago -- on an almost nightly basis.

Quantum Singularity
November 30, 2000, 09:53 PM
Why is no one else responding to this topic? It would make an interesting debate...

IMO, .22 LR is a better stopper than .25 ACP. It is also more inherantly accurate than .32 ACP. .32 ACP holds a stopping power edge over .22 though. For me, a Glock 26 is small enough to carry anywhere and its power level is decent (9mm close to 90 percent one shot stops).

For those who physically can't carry anything that recoils more than .25 ACP IMO the .22 lR is a better choice. Almost every source I have seen lists the .22 LR as being a slightly better stopper than .25 ACP. Also, the ammo is cheaper and one can practice with it more than .25 ACP.

Jody Hudson
November 30, 2000, 09:59 PM
Thanks for the responses QS...

I agree with you EXCEPT that the Quick-Shock .22 seems to be like going up several calibers from a regular HS HP .22

The difference between a .22 Quick-Shock and the .22 Stinger is like the difference between a 9mm and 12 gauge in some cases... It's got to be seen to be believed!!! AND I was a huge supporter of Stingers... til I tried the Quick-Shocks!!

Quantum Singularity
November 30, 2000, 10:04 PM
"Thanks for the responses QS...

I agree with you EXCEPT that the Quick-Shock .22 seems to be like going up several calibers from a regular HS HP .22

The difference between a .22 Quick-Shock and the .22 Stinger is like the difference between a 9mm and 12 gauge in some cases... It's got to be seen to be believed!!! AND I was a huge supporter of Stingers... til I tried the Quick-Shocks!!"


Your very welcome. This is a great topic that you created. I wish others would chime in though. I have a box of Quikshok .22. I think youv'e got me convinced to use that instead of stingers in my Ruger 10/22 rifle. Just curious, what is the stopping power in your opinion of 22 Quikshok? Is it as good as .32 ACP (which Evan Marshall has at 60 percent)?

Jody Hudson
November 30, 2000, 10:31 PM
Just at a guess I would say it is well over the .32 and more in line with the best 9mm... When we shot the huge cabbage we shot many dozens with every thing we had as the local farmer had left several acres in the field when frost hit them and ruined them for the market. This gave them a bit of a hard skin and they were VERY firm inside as cabbage is.

There was nothing that performed like the .22 Quick-Shock on them until we got to 12 gauge!!!!!!!! The .308 was almost the same. The .223 was less. All pistol calibers and we had all but the .357 were less than the .22 QS in the cabbage. We spent hours shooting and testing all we brought. WE WERE IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND WE STILL ARE AFTER MORE TESTS ON EVERYTHING WE CAN FIND.

November 30, 2000, 10:46 PM
I happen to like the Quick Shok ammo. I blew a blackbird pretty much in half one time, and I also anchored a pretty good sized groundhog at about 40-50yds using the Quick Shok.

As for personal defense, I am not sure. I would have to think that bone would make the bullet split prematurely and not allow penetration. I am a big Stinger fan as well, and prefer the Quick Shok in a varmint killing application.

I will say, I carry Stingers in my Phoenix Arms HP-22 and it loves them.

The Sundance Point Blank derringer I have is usually loaded with Stingers,too.

Stephen A. Camp
November 30, 2000, 10:57 PM
Hello all. Kudos to Mr. Hudson on an interesting topic and to those who have responded. I've enjoyed reading it so far so I guess I'll chime in. (Mr. Hudson, your use of "contrarian" makes me wonder if you trade on the stock market?)

First, I've done very little testing with this round as I normally don't shoot rimfire too much. My only .22 handguns are a SIG P210 conversion and an old S&W M41; I tested out of the latter with it's approx. 7" bbl.

In water jugs, my observations were very, very similar to Mr. Hudson's. In water-soaked, supersaturated phone books, the little .22 bullets did reliably break into pieces as advertised.

A sitting jackrabbit at about 35 yards went belly up when one shot hit him just behind the shoulders and none of the pieces exited. He did the "Culey Shuffle" for a few seconds and shuffled off his mortal coil. The second jack was running from my right to my left (I'm right-handed so this was perfect) at about 20 yards. I hit him approx 2" behind the shoulder and again, no exits, but he just tumbled and was expired. Very good performance in my view.

I won't get into my views concerning ballistic "floors" on self-defense except to say that placement is paramount. I do not carry a .22, but, as has been stated, there are bound to be folks who do out of necessity or preference. I know I wouldn't carry a TPH, even a German one that works as they literally eat me alive. Perhaps a German PPK, PP, or some such if I just had to. I'm not even up on revolvers enough to know which models might be the best for this.

The mechanism of collapse or incapacitation depends upon many factors and many varying opinions are expounded. There is usually some truth in all of them. I lean toward the "medium weight for caliber and fast" over "heavy & slow" with .45ACP 230 gr HydraShoks being an exception or 255 gr HCSWC @ 950 ft/sec out of .45 Colt. I think that there is something to temporary cavitation, but don't think its effect manifests itself in all "targets" at all times as high velocity rifle rounds can. My favorite of all calibers is 9x19mm loaded with 124 gr JHPs @ 1280 ft/sec.

As to the .22 QuikShok for defense: IF you can get a frontal shot that is unobstructed and get the round(s) into the high-center chest area and unhesitatingly keeping pouring them (accurately) in IF needed, you very well might do fine. I do think that an arm in the way or having to plow through a shoulder from the side could present problems for this light round.

Not in the immediate future, but as soon as I can without rushing, I'll find the .22 QuickShoks I have around here somewhere and do some testing and chronographing and report back. I'll try to find some more commonly carried handguns like Rugers, etc to test from such that the results might be more valid than with my longer barreled pistols.

Allow me to close with a true story from what was then Rhodesia. In the '70s, there was a Mau Mau insurrection in which numerous farmers and ranchers were being killed with machettes and such. A lady whose husband was gone for several days at a time found that she loved plinking golf balls on their spacious estate property. Her weapon was a 4" bbl'd Colt Woodsman. She shot and shot and shot and learned to hit and hit darned well. Well, cutting to the chase, she was attacked by Mau Mau and she killed 8 with one shot each to the head. No more tried or that was all of them; on that point I am not clear. Does that mean that her .22 solids were "manstoppers." Actually, yes it does IN HER HANDS; she could hit, maintained her cool and skill, and didn't hesitate to shoot.

Best to all.

November 30, 2000, 11:48 PM
up tight and out of sight?? with a tph .22

jeeeezzzzzzz....that doesn't mean what i think it does, huh??

i'm shore glad i ain't gotta carry nothing that concealed!

Oleg Volk
December 1, 2000, 01:43 AM
...why not Keltec P32? It is hard to fire accurately but .32 from it did a better job on test media than any .22 I have tested.

December 1, 2000, 02:40 AM
Frankly, I am skeptical of the claim that:

"There was nothing that performed like the .22 Quick-Shock on them until we got to 12 gauge!!!!!!!! The .308 was almost the same. The .223 was less. All pistol calibers and we had all but the .357 were less than the .22 QS in the cabbage. We spent hours shooting and testing all we brought. WE WERE IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND WE STILL ARE AFTER MORE TESTS ON EVERYTHING WE CAN FIND."

.38 special, 9mm no better than .22 QS? Or do I misunderstand?

Anyway, I'm with Oleg. Just bought a P-32 as an always-carry pistol. I understand this .32 weighs just 6 ozs. plus ammo. Very effective ammo available. Unless you're carrying "wet" style (yucchh), why carry anything smaller?

Good topic. What's the next guy's opinion.



Not as contrary as some. Still pretty contrary.

December 1, 2000, 06:32 AM
I think this argument has merit. My only change would be to substitute a small revolver for the auto. If there's a misfire, just pull the trigger again on a fresh cartridge.

Having said that, however, I find myself to be one of those people in the category of wearing everyday clothing which allows me to carry a big gun, so I do. Big holes beat little holes any day of the week. (But I would like that mini .22 w/QS for those very rare times when I can't wear my GM.)

Jody Hudson
December 1, 2000, 07:26 AM
I am not at all certain that I understand WHY the Quick-Shock is so amazingly better than calibers bigger and faster. I have a theory... The three little particles seem to create a large temporary cavity where perhaps the shock waves (at only about 1100-1300 fps I suppose out of a TPH) are somehow harmonizingly destructive. I also do NOT understand why or how the 3 little ragged particles are able to penetrate so well and so far... I have always been told that it takes big, heavy and streamlined to penetrate. I also can't really figure out how the .22 Quick-Shock had such a tremendously larger liquified chamber in several of these hard, dense, big cabbages than a +P 9mm or a .223 HP out of rifle!!!! The ONLY thing I can come up with is that the three projectiles are somehow GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS!

I do agree that shooting for center of mass is NOT what the Quick-Shocks would be best at. Thus I agree with the comment about arms etc. getting in the way. I am thinking only about head shots. The initial penetration of the QS is fine in anything I've tried. They seem to usually make it about 2 to 3 inches before the splitting starts to really cavitate the medium... although they seem to start splitting up almost the moment they get through the outer barriers and hit the moisture laden medium.

And of course they really shine out of longer barrells than a TPH I suppose. However, and I don't understand this either, there was little difference at over 100 yards in point of impact compared to point of aim between the QS fired from a model 41 and a rifle... and they were equally as accurate as target ammo or better.

I look forward to other's tests and arguments. Most of all I'd like some physics explanation that I can grasp to explain my observations. I have seen it but I don't Grok (fully and conceptually understand) it.

Jody Hudson
December 1, 2000, 09:34 AM
My son and I have each tried all the other pocket .32, 9mm, .45 pistols... all of them! To get the accuracy we have had to go up to the Makarov or the Glock 19 that we experience with the TPHs. None of the .32s have suitable accuracy for us as we need to use our pistols for predator control too. At 3 to 10 feet and with center of mass shots which is not our style or training accuracy is not an issue.

In fact I have a light, little, plastic Intratec double action derringer loaded with +P Ultra High Speed Quick-Shock .38s if I should ever be in a ghettto position again, where I am more likely to need up close and personal power.

When walking the farms and woods however, where feral dogs and cats are the rule and the threat; head shots and TPH Quick-Shocks are the only plan.

December 1, 2000, 06:13 PM
What about a J-frame snubbie firing .38 Special Glasers or Magsafes? No advantage there?

December 1, 2000, 08:07 PM
Jody H. wrote:I am not at all certain that I understand WHY the Quick-Shock is so amazingly better than calibers bigger and faster. I have a theory...The three little particles seem to create a large temporary cavity where perhaps the shock waves (at only about 1100-1300 fps I suppose out of a TPH) are somehow harmonizingly destructive.

Basically, your theory is correct. A single bullet sends out a shock wave which creates a wound cavity. When that bullet is split into three parts, each part sends out its own shock wave, and the area between the converging shock waves catches it times 3.

Jody H. also wrote:The ONLY thing I can come up with is that the three projectiles are somehow GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS!

I think that what you mean is that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

Jody Hudson
December 1, 2000, 09:36 PM
Yeah... 45...

I think I can visualize what you mean by the area catching it three times. Also from aviation an irregular object sets up more turbulance than a streamlined one. So I can see that those three shards of the Quick-Shock sending out three cones of heavy turbulance -- into each other makes a good reason for the innards of wet stuff like the cabbage just being violently shaken into soup!!!

And you are correct in your understanding of what I was trying to say; seemingly the sum of the shock waves of those three fast little parts of the Quick-Shock bullet is actually FAR greater than the shock waves of a whole bullet even if it's a heavier and faster bullet and thus... is greater than the whole unseparated single bullets.

Those things, those .22 Quick-Shocks are certainly amazing!!!

Thanks 45!

December 2, 2000, 01:40 AM
Both you and 45King basically have it right. Tom Burczynski (Hydra-Shok, Starfire, Quik-Shok, EFMJ designer) explained the dynamics of what a Quik-Shok does (the design principles involved), I’ll try and relate it here. When Tom designed the Hydra-Shok he used a post in the bullet cavity as a mechanism to channel hydraulic pressure to assist the opening of the hollow point. The same principle was used with the Starfire though a different mechanism was used.

While working on these designs and the physic’s involved with hydraulics Tom decided to apply another principle of hydrodynamics – that of if the pressure in a fluid column is raised the pressure in the fluid surrounding that column is also raised – in another design which became the Quik-Shok.

As a bullet enters fluid media that media acts to resist the bullet… this is what creates the initial large temporary would cavity. HPs create a larger temporary cavity because when the bullet expands it has a larger frontal cross-section, which causes greater pressures in the media. However, after a certain point the pressure created will start to subside while the bullet continues on creating its permanent cavity, which also has a very small temp cavity associated along its length. This is why you want to see a football shaped temporary cavity in 10% ordnance gel from conventional HPs.

Now, remember the above principle. What happens with the Quik-Shok is that it acts just like a conventional HP in that it enters the media and starts to expand. When the bullet reaches a certain expansion point the pre-stressed core separate (three segments). Mind you that the separation occurs while the bullet still have a lot of velocity. Due to the HP design of the Quik-Shok each of these segments are of a “quarter moon” shape. Upon separation and because of their shape each segment takes a path that is not parallel to the original bullet track. The segments yaw 180 degrees while continuing along their path.

Now, each one of the segments, traveling at an ever-widening cone is also creating a temporary cavity of its own. So you have three temporary cavities in which the hydraulic pressure in the media is being raised. Hydro physics dictate that the pressure in the surrounding hydro media will also rise. You basically get an over lap of the three temp cavities.

The larger caliber Quik-Shoks display this principle extremely well in Ordinance Gel. The Gel btwn the three permanent would tracks of the segments display fractures. What this translates to in living tissue is that the tissue btwn the three segments would either be destroyed or very seriously damaged. We have cast hearts (non-human of course… gotten from a butcher) in Gel and shot them with conventional HP and Quik-Shok. A conventional HP puts a hole in the front of the heart with a larger hole in the rear. The Quik-Shok literally tears the front of the heart open (in a Y type configuration) due to the above principle with three exit holes in the rear.

Add to the above the benefit of 3 chances of hitting a vital organ and you will come to appreciate the Quik-Shok design.

If you do a search when that function is enabled under the user name “TomBurczynski” you find topics where Tom has explained this much better then I and also results of his hunting experiences with Quik-Shok bullets.

Visuals help with the explanation – go to Triton Cartridge’s Quik-Shok Page (http://www.triton-ammo.com/quik_shok.htm) and towards the bottom you’ll see a static picture of a block of Gel just above the table. Click on it and wait for the high-speed video to load (it may take a few minutes) and what the loop a few times.

If you like the .22 Quik-Shok you’ll just love the Center Fire stuff from Triton. :D

Jody Hudson
December 2, 2000, 01:48 AM
Thank you very much!!!!!!! AND when do we get the Quick-Shock in 9x18 ????????????? Pushy aren't I! I want the best cartridge for the best pistol -- simple. ;)

December 2, 2000, 02:16 PM
Personally, I have real difficulty with equating a "magic" bullet in .22LR to almost any centerfire caliber with a decent self-defense round. While you're free to carry whatever you choose, I sure wouldn't pick a .22LR over something like the Keltec P32 for defensive use. If you can carry something like the TPH, you can carry the P32, and still have room in that pocket! The TPH is almost as large as my Colt Mustang Pocketlite, and I'd sure rather have my Mustang loaded with Remington GS than any .22LR round if I encounter a defensive situation where I need my gun. The argument that the size of the .22 gun will insure you have it with you doesn't wash with all the choices in larger caliber guns that are no larger than the choices mentioned in .22LR guns.

Jody Hudson
December 2, 2000, 08:02 PM
Hi JohnWill

I would FAR rather have the TPH loaded with Quick-Shocks with me than either the inaccurate and far less effective .32 or the far less accurate and less effective .380.

I count the accuracy heavily in my choice and all the TPHs I've owned and shot have been several classes in accuracy above any of the .32s (except an old pre '64 German PPK .32 I had) or .380s. So far I've never shot a .380 that I consider accurate or reliable compared to the TPH. And now with the Quick-Shock effectiveness this particular .22 round exceeds these also.

I understand your argument, but it has no merit with me because I KNOW the Quick-Shock effectiveness on hydroshockable fiberous materials -- compared to other calibers and rounds. The missing ingredient in your argument is the lack of experience with the .22 Quick-Shock.
Also I am decidedly NOT in favor of center of mass shooting for hunting or self defense... Never have been. Head shots are far more sensible, humane and effective for both.

Center of mass shots are a sensible alternative to practice and composure. And thus are the way to go in many cases. But as for me... TPH and QS is my choice. Next is Makarov because of reliability and accuracy (I just wish they had QS in 9x18).

If I think it will be rougher than that to stop what I'm after then I go with 12 gauge Quick-Shock which I have not tested yet. If I were in Polar Bear or Grizley country I'd have 12 ga in QS. I can't think of a reason to test the 12 gauge yet but if I were bear hunting I'd carry a 12 ga. with QS and a Glock double stack .357 or .45 with QS too. For back up after that only a heavy fragmentation incediary grenade or flame thrower would come up scale from those.

I know my opininions are contrary to what is usual. I said so in my first sentence of my first post. Try the .22 QS out of a mouse gun yourself... don't just take my observations as your gospel. I started this thread to encourage questioning and experimentation in hopes of showing an alternative to "what everyone already knows to be true -- but hasn't tested".

Have Fun... Try Them... I think you'll LOVE them. :)

glock glockler
December 2, 2000, 08:54 PM
Are there any gelatin results with various combinations of mouseguns, calibers, and rounds? This would be valueable info to have if one was going to invest in one. The arguements for a liddle widdle .22 are all very valid, in fact, Im thinking about getting myself one for Christmas.

December 2, 2000, 09:04 PM
I have never thought of the .22 as anything more than a plinking/ target round. However, your posts on the Quick-Shok make me think that maybe I CAN carry that Ruger MK-II as a self defense gun.

Jody Hudson
December 2, 2000, 10:15 PM
http://www.triton-ammo.com has lots of data and gel pics too.

http://www.outlandsales.com/qs.html to buy .22 Quick-Shock ammo

Jody Hudson
December 2, 2000, 10:20 PM
Regarding the Ruger Mark II for self defense carry...

If you are going to carry something that large please consider a Glock or something with Quick-Shock in one of the larger calibers.

The point of my contention regarding pocket .22s is that due to size and weight they are more likely to be on you than a larger gun. If you are going to carry the Ruger for self defense against humans... I'd go to a larger caliber and load with the QS in the woods perhaps the same.

December 3, 2000, 12:51 AM
Hi. My usual carry weapon is the Glock 26 loaded with 124gr Remington Golden Sabers. I will give serious consideration to the Quik-shok loadings in this caliber. However, I load my Taurus M605 with the .357MAG Quick Shok. I am capable of 25yd head shots with my MK-II. That is why I was musing about it.;)

P.S. I thought you were a TOTAL Makarov man!! :confused:
What do you load it with in the absence of a Quick-Shok loading in 9x18mm?????

I CAN get Quick-Shoks for my Mak!!! It's a 9mm Kurtz NYAAAAH, NYAAAAAH, NYAAAAAH ;)

December 3, 2000, 03:21 AM
About 5 years ago while still in the Corps I was invited to a private shoot held by a highly reguarded gun writer. At the sehoot Fernando Coelho and Tom Burczynski were present (as were other industry people). The highlight of that gathering was the gel demonstrations.

Numerous blocks of gel were shot with "hi-performance" HPs ranging from .22 - .45, following those shots blocks were shot with Quik-Shok of the same caliber. The results of these tests were that I started to carry Quik-Shok in my PDW. Tom Burczynski also explained the principles of the Quik-Shok to me (as stated by TritonCartridge) at a level this Jarhead understood.

What was most impressive was the block of gel shot by a 12 guage Quik-Shok. Can you say... Laid open! It the gel had been a living target you would have picked up a 5" or so cove of material out of its exit side.

My PDW as well as my wifes are stoked with Quik-Shok. My .22 in addition to my shotfun have a mag-tube full of them. I'm betting my life on these and from my research the odds are in my favor.

December 3, 2000, 08:22 AM
First, I think the 22 LR is often dismissed too quickly as a defense round though it's "stopping power" depends a lot on accurate placement as well as on the element of suprise. I've taken a lot of small game - and some not so small (feral hogs) with the 22 and have no complaints. It is (or at least was in my youth) commonly used in slaughter houses to dispatch cattle, hogs and goats. If it'll take a cow at one inch it should do ok on something the size of a human at the same range.

However, I'd hope that by useing a larger caliber (a .45 stubby is my personal choice), to be able to avoid having the contact distance get to the point of being measured in inches - or fractions thereof.

Sill, as I understand your post, something is better than nothing and that you feel folks don't afford enough respect to the 22LR in that catagory. I'd generally agree.

My difficulty with the very small 22s is that they (autos) have a very spotty record in the reliability department. I have a Walther TPH which has a miserable track record with any brand or style of ammo that I've been able to try. I have a little Jennings that is very reliable, but I wouldn't carry it because I don't truse the little sliding safety. I have a friend with the little Beretta chambered in .22 Short and it is a reliable little gun. He used to carry it in his shirt pocket or coat pocket when walking and once used it to send a very large and aggressive dog to that Great Kennel In The Sky. One shot to the head at close to contact range.

The small .22 revolvers don't get much smaller than the J-frame S&W, and while I'm a great fan of the little "Kit" guns with a 2 inch barrel, if I were to carry something of that size I'd opt for the .38 Spec. Besides, that size is getting almost too big to consider as a pocket gun with normal dress in a warmer climate.

That leaves the littlest oddities such as the NAA single action revolver and derringers such as the High Standard, preferably in .22 WRM. The little NAA is almost too small. In a high tension situation it would be too easy to fumble with it and accuracy wise it truely is meant to be a contact weapon. However, I am going to get one, (or maybe even two) just because, like the poor, it is something that will always be with you.

The derringer type guns I do not like. Mostly because of the unreliability of the latch system - but then again - at point blank range they can be effective. But I'd prefer one chambered in something larger than a .22.

Jody Hudson
December 3, 2000, 11:06 AM
I hope that I can whine to Triton effectively enough to get them to do 9x18 in Quick-Shock.

The TPH .22 MUST be worked on at least once and usually 2 or 3 times by a specialist to get it reliable. All of mine needed at least once and the 4 best ones went back three times after purchase. They were supposed to work when Walther or InnerArms finished them but both companies had consistent and terrible quality control. Even the one German pre-1964 TPH a fellow wrote me about had to go to a Walther specialist to get it right. Once they are fixed, they are reliable. They begin as accurate, thin and small; with reliability and Quick-Shocks they become awesome.

The Iver Johnson TP-22 is almost as small and almost as accurate (perhaps 20% less desireable in each category). They are also almost reliable but I was never able to get one entirely so with the smiths I had available.

So... I still favor the FIXED Walther TPH. But they have to be fixed. :(

December 3, 2000, 12:21 PM
Jody Hudson said:

"I would FAR rather have the TPH loaded with Quick-Shocks with me than either the inaccurate and far less effective .32 or the far less accurate and less effective .380."

And you're free to believe whatever you like about your magic bullet. I am amused by the comment that the TPH is more accurate than any .32 or .380, I'm curious as to how you come up with that statistic. My Colt Mustang Pocketlite puts 6 rounds into a 4" group rapid fire at 10 yards, so accuracy with it is a non-issue for defensive use. As far as either of the above mentioned rounds being less effective than your .22LR QuikShok, I can only hope that you never have to find out if you're right...

I went to the Triton web site, and it's interesting to note that when I select the QuickShok product, they only list it from .380 and larger calibers. Seems they're not as proud of the .22LR as you are. :)

In summary, friends don't let friends carry a .22LR as a defensive handgun.

December 3, 2000, 01:01 PM
I went to the Triton web site, and it's interesting to note that when I select the QuickShok product, they only list it from .380 and larger calibers.

There is a reason for that. Triton does not produce the Rimfire nor Shotgun loadings of the Quik-Shok. We produce the Centerfire version.

Never the less we are very proud of the Quik-Shok (in any loading).

[Edited by TritonCartridge on 12-04-2000 at 08:48 AM]

Jody Hudson
December 3, 2000, 02:16 PM
Hi John,

That accuracy is not good enough for me... :) But for center of mass shooting it is fine. But then you need a LOT more bullet than a .32. ;) My personal primary self defense is snakes, dogs and cats; all of which I want to take with a head shot.

You may have missed a LOT of the previous posts. Please go back and read the original purpose. And I look forward to discussion and argument. However you take a position based on "knowing best without needing to look, see or investigate" Take a look. Buy a box of QS and test it. Then let us resume the discussion. ;) I look forward to your enlightenment -- even if we still disagree.

Your argument so far with me and with QS is based on your supposition instead of experience and knowledge. We might as well be discussing the virtues of a woman I know and you don't. :)

The QS .22 is now owned by Blount; the people who own CCI Stingers and a lot more. I listed a source for the .22 ammo. I am glad you like your Mustang. Our purposes are different. AND I carry in the woods not the ghettos. If I

December 3, 2000, 05:30 PM
Let me guess, you can shoot dime sized groups rapid fire at 10 yards with your TPH, right? Give me a break...

As far as needing a lot more bullet than a .32, the Colt Mustang is a .380, so I have a lot more bullet. :)

If you're shooting snakes, I guess your .22LR is sufficient, I'd recommend you don't confuse the .22LR in any bullet type as a quality defensive round. Remember, the point of a defensive shooting is to stop an attack on the spot, not to eventually kill the purp. I know that .22's kill more people than any other caliber, but it takes longer to disable them than I'm willing to wait. If he has a knife, I'm probably sliced and diced before a magazine load of .22's will stop him.

To the Triton rep posting:

Is it your contention that a .22LR loading of the QuikShok is a better defensive round than any of the quality defensive rounds available in .380, say either HydraShok or Golden Sabre? If that is your position, do you have any evidence to back up the claim?

December 3, 2000, 05:41 PM
Is it your contention that a .22LR loading of the QuikShok is a better defensive round than any of the quality defensive rounds available in... snip...

Where, in either of my posts, did you get that?! In neither did I state that oranges are better then grapes. Nor an I going to "make a statement" to that effect now.

It is a matter of personal preference what combination gun/caliber/ammo one carries for personal defense. Mine happens to be a 88 year old design shooting a mid-40 caliber Quik-Shok projectial of over 229 grains. ;)

Jody Hudson
December 3, 2000, 06:07 PM
OK John,

I will still take the .22 Quick-Shock over a .380 unless I load the .380 with Quick-Shock and I have good accuracy with the .380. Otherwise I'm still a .22 QS kind of guy. :)

I still suggest that your argument is lacking the experience with the .22 Quick-Shock. Buy a box and try them and test them. Perhaps we will come to a least a near agreement. ;)

And we are still talking apples and oranges if you are talking fast and up close emptying of a magazine into the center of mass of a bad guy. I hope to not be in that sort of situation. The one time I was in a defensive situation -- the BG had a club raised at me, was far larger than I, had a .357 in his waistband. I had an Iver Johnson TP-22 loaded with Stingers. He laughed at me because my gun was so small. But he was looking down the barrel and decided to drop his club and his gun with his off hand as I told him to and leave.

The cops got his gun and I escourted him off my property at gun point (my .22, I didn't touch his .357). I then called the cops with his description, tag # and car identification. He like you considered the .22 inept. But he decided he didn't want one in his skull and stopped the attack.

Other than that one time all my other defense situations have been against feral critters, numerous dogs and cats and a few snakes down in Florida. AND that one time I needed to have a pistol was on my land and I DID have the .22 with me. I didn't have any of the other 300 plus pistols and a few revolvers that I owned at the time with me. He wouldn't have lauged at my Desert Eagle .44 or my .44 Ruger but I didn't have them with me. If I had known I was going to meet a bad guy that day on my property I would not have gone there; not even with 4 big .44 mags in my belt.

The point of my argument is that the one you have with you is FAR better than any that you don't -- and that a person is more likely to have a .22 or some other small gun, for instance your mouse gun as some would call it in .380. And if one must have a mouse gun, then the Quick-Shock is wonderful... including the .22 Quick-Shock which is my choice when I'm afield! :)

Hey John, why not try some Quick-Shocks in .380 against any other .380 ammo you have available. Perhaps that is the better alternative for you.

Take care,

December 3, 2000, 06:56 PM
Sure, I'll bite..

Assuming that 1 shot to the eye or nose, (with any caliber) will kill a man. No disagreements there right?

Then if the school of thought regarding which one is going to allow you to do that, then now you can start making a case for the .22's.

1) Practice makes perfect. Practice happens less often (I maintain) when it's $10/box of 50, vs. $10 for a box of 500 like say a .22 vs. a .45ACP. The more you practice, the more likely you are going to be proficient at the use of the weapon.

2) Second shot. Often times, aim is not very possible, or at least "quality time taken to aim" is not possible. With something like a .40 or .45, a double or tripple tap with on the fly adjustments for where the next shot is going to be is often not possible due to recoil. My girlfriend shot 10 shots into a 2" cluster rapidly with a .22. You all know what I mean when I say that with something like a 6" bull barrel like say a Ruger MKII, there's no recoil, and anybody who's ever handled a gun can empty a clip within 2 seconds, with good shot control and placement.

3) A .22 on you is worth more than 100 .45's at home when you need self defense.

4) Reactionary time. A .22 is quiet enough that if you miss with the first shot, the sonic reverb is not loud enough to trigger an immediate reaction from the would be perp, which might allow you time to pull off a second or third shot before the perp can react.

5) A .22 is not strong enough to go through bone or tendon, and so a rib cage shot will often bounce around in the rib cage, causing massive swiss-cheezing of your organs.

Combine all this, and a .22 is a pretty good defensive gun. Something like a Ruger 22/45 4" bull-barrel snub I would think makes one hell of a trail gun.


December 4, 2000, 12:33 AM
Well you know no one EVER gets shot JUST ONCE with a .22.

Minimum of 6 to 30 times in just a few seconds.

Plenty deadly when you add up all the chances of a hit on the central nervous system. :)

December 4, 2000, 09:50 PM
Jody, I would really like to try some of these, but I wonder what they will do in a semi-auto? Will they beat it up due to excessive power? Would I need to go to a little stouter recoil spring? I have an American arms PK22 that is a sweetheart to carry. Thanks, Willp58

Jody Hudson
December 5, 2000, 12:23 AM
I have heard two instances on the Web of folks considering that the QS was too hard on the gun. One of those claimed it was too hard on his Ruger 10-22 rifle which is a fine and well made rifle. I do not believe the two reports.

The pressures are within allowances for any modern .22 and likely any old one also. I would draw the line and NOT shoot any High Velocity ammo in a $50 derringer or a $70 pistol; otherwise you should be just fine if the gun is in good condition (that is not cracked or flawed in some way and just waiting for a problem to happen). I am not familiar with your gun but if it is currently made, I'd just check with the manufacturer. OR there is likely good advice and knowledge here on TFL from someone who does know your gun.

Have FUN! Do some tests!

December 6, 2000, 09:21 PM
Jody, man you are either crazy or the best *^&#@ shot out there. Do you think you go do a head shot on anyone in a shootout siutation, with any caliber or any gun? I don't know anyone who shoots for a living, (police, delta force, seals, recon, sas etc) that tries for a head shot in a shooting situation.

While I like the .22, especially WMR, my choice is normally .45, .40 or 9mm. But hey, to each his own. :)



Jody Hudson
December 7, 2000, 05:47 AM

From your signature line it seems we agree: Please re-read my entire first post which sets up my position on this subject and then respond again if you will.

Jody said (quote)
"My argument is regarding, note here; CIVILIAN PERSONAL DEFENSE (not police, military, or defense agains bears or rhinos): First: We should all agree that the weapon we have with us all the time as a civilian, is senior to the one we don't have when it's needed. A person therefore who decides to carry a firearm full-time will more likely carry a smaller lighter gun more of the time... than the same person will carry a larger heavier gun."... There is quite a bit more to that first post.

Yes, I am a good shot... because I practice and I practice almost entirely with only two pistols my .22 TPH and my 9x18 Makarov. Even more than my practice is that I seek always to NOT be where my defense should be against humans. My primary concern is against 4 legged danger. And yes, my defense is head shot. WHY... because as a hunter I can tell you that chest shots even with a 12 ga. slug are not fast stoppers. Head shots with a .22 are far faster.

If I were to need to use my pistol or even a shotgun against a human predator; my mindset is for multiple defensive shots and even then the second and subsequent shots to the head.

I have mentioned in the past that one of my police associates had a partner killed when a bad guy, having been hit with a magazine load of 12 ga. buckshot and slugs in the chest, killed the cop with the empty shotgun (using it as a club) and then ran off to die quite a distance away. His chest and guts were decimated, he lived long enough to kill. I have seen wild dogs, wild cats, even roosters, fox, possum and racoon take several shots to the chest from large caliber pistols and with super-defense ammo and still continue to attack or in the case of the fox to run.

Practice and experience is prone to give one different answers to a problem than contemplation and extrapolation. I have chosen what I am comfortable with and I found that too often I did not carry a larger pistol in the field when I should have.

It is, as you said in your signature line, what you have with you...

Take care,

Walt Sherrill
December 7, 2000, 08:37 AM
There's a similar thread going on elsewhere on this list regarding the relative merits of a small .22 (or .22 magnum) vs. the 32.

I'll repeat here what I said there -- and this parallels other comments here: if you're being attacked, have the adrenalin pumping, are moving, your target is moving, or must hit a relatively small target (such as the face, a small area of the chest) with .22 Quikshock ammo, you may just as well be whistling "Dixie" for all the good it will do you.

Hitting cabbages is one thing. Being scared to death, heart pumping, moving, trying to hit a moving target, etc., is quite different. A light weight projectile from a .22 is going to require PRECISE placement, and that simply may not be possible.

Give me a bigger caliber and a larger number of rounds. I want to improve the odds.

Jody Hudson
December 7, 2000, 10:02 AM
I agree with you Walt. However the .22 will be easier to hit with for me in your scenario than other pistols or at least as easy.

AND I have no evidence in the real world that ANY pistol to the center of mass will suffice to stop an attack reliably.
Thus in my home, The 12 ga "pistol" is loaded with 6 rounds of heavy trap and skeet load. I will place this, at the in-the-house range as the ONLY likely round to stop an attack with a center of mass volley. AND the longer barrel and two hand hold allows me a better chance of hitting center of mass in the situation you describe.

I fully agree with your scenario of moving and trying to hit a moving target and the andrenaline. Make mine an all the time .22 and 6 quick shots with the Quick-Shock leaving a single one left for the "dispatch" shot to the eye socket of the attacking predator.

By the way; I hope to get a Glock 36 from Santa and to add the heavy recoil spring which will allow the Easter Bunny to bring me a box of .45 mag Quick-Shocks.

And I will still carry my TPH and QS with me in the field and have the Super-Glock "just 'cause". You see I really do agree that a larger pistol would be nice. But I would seldom have it with me.

Walt Sherrill
December 8, 2000, 09:27 AM
I'll make one last attempt, but I think its a lost cause. You are convinced you have the answer. I hope you're right.

Shooting rabbits, wet phone books, large vegetables, or ballistic gelatin is not the same as shooting a person or large animal, with bones, dense muscle tissue, etc. Who knows he's at risk and might also be coming at you with a gun or knife.

A surprising number of .22 rounds tend to hit the victim and then roll around, under the skin. I've see a person shot in the head with a .22 round and the round went under the skin, halfway around their head, without breaking into the cranial cavity. I see no real reason to assume that a .22 Quik-Shock round will perform much differently, if it hits something hard.

(People do get killed with .22s, but its as often a fluke as a well-planned shot. A lucky confluence of things falling into place, just right.)

For effective stopping, you'd really want more than just a large wound cavity. People with large wound cavities bleed, but they can still function. (Check out the articles about the Florida FBI shootout. All of the perps there were hit with fatal shots, early in the exchange, but kept on coming.)

You want to be able to attack the central nervous system. I seriously doubt that any .22 round can do that short of a shot through an eye. And to do that you've got to be close enough for the perp to get you with a knife, and get them to hold still.

Based on what you've said, Quik-Shock ammo is unquestionably better than standard .22. But if you're shooting at someone who is clothed, who may have stuff in his pockets, who may turn away as you fire -- so that you must go through an arm or shoulder before hitting something more vital, etc. -- that small fragmenting .22 round isn't going to do what it needs to do. And a one-shot stop on a rabbit isn't a valid comparison.

Get the smallest gun with a larger round that you can handle. A small 9mm, perhaps. And then use Quik-Shock, if you're convinced of the efficacy of the round.

As for home use, a standard pump shotgun is the solution. I had one with a pistol grip for a while, but they're difficult to shoot well, and as with everything else, you've got to practice a lot. That kind of shotgun will beat you up long before you master it. And you need to master it.

And as I implied earlier, you have no margins for error when your life is in danger.

When I carry concealed (I have a permit) I carry a small Star 9mm Firestar Plus. It's small, light, very accurate, loaded with Golden Sabres. I've shot it in small IDPA matches and done very well with it -- in tough drills and exercises. I think that's a far better gun than any .22 (even those loaded with Quik-Shock).

I also have a .45 with night sights loaded with a 10-round magazine of Golden Sabres, a spare 10-rounder with it, and a bright flashlight. All of this sets in a quick-access gun safe bolted to the floor next to my bed. This is far more secure from theft, kids, etc, than a loaded shotgun might be, in my closet.

You're making a big bet with that .22. I hope you're right. But I'm pretty sure the odds aren't with you.

Jody Hudson
December 8, 2000, 12:44 PM
Walt your points are well taken. And we have gotten a lot of folks thinking. I hope that many folks re-read this entire discussion as it has been a worth while debate.

I have carried in the field (woods and farm fields) for over 40 years and the bigger the gun the less I would carry it. The exception was when I worked in the Florida swamps for a year, every day, far from the roads... the dangers there were, cats, gators, snakes, wild pigs, tens of thousands of wild brahma bulls that had escaped from rodeo stock farms, escaped long horn cattle from numerous huge cattle farms, bears, dog packs, and predator humans... I started out with a .44 mag and after seeing the tracks and visual sightings of various things that wanted rid of me - I began to carry a 30 round enforcer pistol with M-1 carbine ammo and a 5 shot 12 gauge pump "pistol" shortened to about a 13" barrel with a pistol grip, and a .45 loaded with very hot loads. The difference is there I had daily evidence of the need for something VERY strong and daily evidence that there were threats all around me.

Now I seldom have a close and valid threat in the fields and woods. And I'd not get much real estate sold here if I were packing like Road Warrior. I have my TPH with me all the time and it's proven on the things I need to use it on. If I were to get a carry permit I'd still carry the TPH and I'd carry it all day every day... and not notice it. AND that is the premise of why it's the best (per my position) -- because it's serious and always there.

September 13, 2002, 12:17 AM
This is a great thread. I am happy that TFL archives old postings.

I am just beginning to research high velocity .22 ammo, and would love to hear updates - either here or in our TFL Velocitor Thread (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114794)

September 13, 2002, 11:39 AM
Well, I don't know about the other folks, but I haven't suddenly started carrying a .22 for SD, I carry either my Colt Mustang Pocketlite or my Keltec P11. The Mustang gets loaded with GS, and the P11 gets HydraShok. I didn't see any reason presented to make me believe my choices were wrong two years ago, and I don't think I'll see any in a new thread. :)

September 13, 2002, 12:32 PM
Terminal Performance of Quik-Shok, CCI Stinger and Remington Viper _22 LR Ammunition


September 14, 2002, 11:02 AM
qkrthnu, those results don't surprise me in the least. :)

September 14, 2002, 02:19 PM
as I have a model 21A and over the years, have experimented with different ammo that works best for my pistol.

When I was breaking in the 21A, I had the misfortune, on occasion, of getting misfeeds and stovepipes. This I attributed to the breaking in process and the rim on the .22 long rifle cartridge.

I found that solid bullets, either Peters or Remington Thunderbolts work and feed through the 21A better than hollow points. Don't ask me why, but they seem to feed and shoot better.

The conclusion of the test was a little 'disturbing' when it mentioned don't use a .22 lr for self defense but rather a .25 ACP, if you want a small pistol for SD. I guess the liklihood of a misfeeding with the .22lr rims justifies the conclusion.

For me, since going to the solid nose bullets and making sure that the pistol and magazine are always clean, lubed and ready for action, I feel a 'little' more confident in the .22lr and the model 21A as a self defense gun. Perhaps this is why I'm going to the Kimber .45 ACP as my primary SD pistol.

September 14, 2002, 04:07 PM
Then I would dare say, respectfully, the QS is the most superior round for watermelons as well, providing you have the super accurate, low recoiling, and svelt TPH with you when you need it:rolleyes:

September 14, 2002, 04:24 PM
The biggest advantge of using .22 LR Quick Shock for sd is that it might save your hearing if you survive the fight!
I have a box of 12 gauge Quick Shock slugs that insire more confidence. Does any one know of statistics on QS slugs. There have been many claims of magic bullets over the years -- I have yet to see a true magic bulet. It aseems to me that ALL projectile designs are a tradeoff.

September 14, 2002, 07:12 PM
Wow,this is an oldie. I use the .22LR QSs for small vermin and such and they work very well but the limited tests I performed myself seemed to indicate that they (not suprisingly) lack deep penetration. I wouldn`t use them personally for SD. I have been known to use a .22 mag. mini revolver for a BUG or when I can`t carry a real gun for some reason but that`s quite seldom. Generally I`d much rather count on my trusty P-11 and 11rds. of 124gr.+P GDHPs. :) The QSs have merit though. I`ve tried them in 9mm,where I thought they still lacked a bit in penetration and 10mm (big fun!) where they seemed to penetrate fairly well. Best of all and maybe their best use IMO is the QS 12ga. slug. The carnage these things cause has to be seen to be believed! What`s more the pieces are big enought to assure good penetration while minimizing the kind of potential overpenetration (in a SD scenario) of Brenke type slugs. Marcus

Garand Illusion
December 20, 2005, 02:30 AM
Thoutht I'd make this one briefly rise from the dead ... it's a pretty interesting read.

December 21, 2005, 01:31 AM
well I'm try'n those quick shots for these pesky vermin around here. always had good results with stingers in the 10/22 but I guess the times they could be a changen. ;)

December 21, 2005, 07:42 PM
I carried a .22 Beretta tip up barrel for a few years before I moved up to a .32 I never felt unarmed with it.

December 22, 2005, 04:58 PM
after reading all this about that 22 quick-shok, my question is, will that round be safe to use in a small taurus pt22? and if yes, can it be bought from most any gun dealer's counter? reply please email at : [email protected]

December 22, 2005, 05:18 PM
You talked me into it:

December 22, 2005, 05:29 PM
just remember kinetic energy. If a quik-shot blows the crap out of a cabbage a 9mm doesn't, maybe its cause the 9mm is leaving intact. On a person we need kinetic energy. Its physics, the faster and heavier an object is going the more damage its going to do. I do agree in the case of ballistics that bullet type has a lot to do with it; but i'd stick with a 9mm. Remember that there are agencies out there who spend $$$$$$$ on ballistics testing and i've never seen a PD, or non-covert military unit, use .22's.

By the way, how much are quik-shots: I got some coyotes that keep going after my dog.


December 22, 2005, 11:04 PM
I would not feel comfortable carrying around something as small as a .22 . I do concede that it would be easier to carry b/c of size and weight. Also, brandishing the gun may just save your life because I doubt the bg would stop to look closey enough to see that it is just a .22 but do you want to stake your life on that? I wouldn't. 9mm or bigger for me.

December 23, 2005, 12:43 PM
Wow... that's some intersting discussion. A 16oz cup of water will probably put out any fire I'm ever liable to start too, but I'd still rather have a fire extinguisher...


December 23, 2005, 02:09 PM
Wow, after reading all these posts praising the incredable stopping power of a .22 cal Quick Shock I'm thinking of getting rid of my Ruger P345 and Kel-Tec P3-AT that I use for concealed carry and go to a much more powerful man-stopper; a .22 pocket pistol loaded with these fabulous Quick-Shocks:D

Mike Irwin
December 23, 2005, 08:04 PM
I carry a .22 regularly, and even I don't claim that it's the best for civilian defense...

December 23, 2005, 09:21 PM
Jody, I barked up the .22 tree a few time, its just like politics. Red State and Blue State. My take on the .22 is the following.

I would start a thread saying your thinking about a .22 pocket auto or a small frame revolver and I would get...Why don't you get a .380 auto or a .38 revolver. More stopping power? a .380 Kel-tec???...a lot more recoil (hold onto the exploding credit card) and less bullets, same thing with a revolver 5 round of .38 with more recoil instead of 8 or 9 round in .22 with a lot more accuracy.

Here is the problem with .22, especially a QS round, its going to have similar penetration problems as a glaser/magsafe. Sure it will cause a lot of soft tissue damage but bone penetration/fracturing is in question. Even a .22 lead round will have problems penetrating/doing damage to heavy bone then a .380 or a .38.

Moral of the story is ....Dare i say it...you can use a .22lr as a defensive round...you just got to know its limitations. It the perfect round for the elderly, or persons who cannot handle recoil, its also good for someone like me, who is a decent shot and can put a .22 round anywhere I wish with ease. I can't say that about my 9mm and .38.

December 23, 2005, 10:37 PM
I've been thinking this over since I saw this thread in the archives. Couple quick points here:

1. Assassination and self-defense are two completely different applications. Shooting an unsuspecting person in the back of the head is far, FAR different from trying to stop an armed mugger or a home invader.

2. Shooting watermelons is not the same as shooting people. Watermelons, tomatoes and other plants all are composed mostly of water bound up in rigid cell walls made of cellulose. Because the cell walls are rigid, they don't respond well to even low-level hydrostatic pressure, causing ruptures and dramatic effects when shot. Animal tissues have much more elastic cell walls, and are thus far more resistant to hydraulic pressures.

December 23, 2005, 10:52 PM
One of my old clients (a "wet" agent for the US Govt.) used to carry a Walther TPH even when he wore his Speedo swimming suit. In that situation he pushed it into two condoms, one within the other and secreted it "up tight and out of sight".


Thank you for that.

Anyway, yeah, I think in some cases where you need a REALLY compact pistol for concealment, it might work for you, as... cited... above... :barf:

Jody Hudson
December 24, 2005, 11:36 PM
I have been recently corresponding with a gentleman who is in the process of writing a play about Spies and TPHs. And, all of a sudden, this arises from the years...

I do not go as often into the woods as I used to, when this thread started.

I no longer take a TPH with me when I do.

We seem to have less wild and feral dogs in the woods these days for some reason.

Kel-Tec makes the P3AT now which shoots the .380 from a pistol about the same size and weight as the TPH.

Quik-Shoks are now available ONLY in .22 and perhaps in 12 gauge.

When I do go into the woods now and put something in my pocket, it is the Kel-Tec P11 loaded with Corbon DPX or my Glock 19 loaded with same.

The gunsmith who made my TPHs work will no longer work on them for anyone else because of a person who had bad manners and did not know that the TPH almost always needs several trips back to the gunsmith no matter how good they are.

I still like Quik-Shoks but like Velocitors too.

I am amused and amazed that this thread still lives after five years or more!!! :eek:

Merry Christmas and please everyone... BE SAFE! :D

Double Naught Spy
December 25, 2005, 01:24 PM
First: We should all agree that the weapon we have with us all the time as a civilian, is senior to the one we don't have when it's needed. A person therefore who decides to carry a firearm full-time will more likely carry a smaller lighter gun more of the time... than the same person will carry a larger heavier gun.

While the gun you have at the time when needed is senior to what you don't have, what folks seem to forget is the one you have may not be very good for self defense.

Folks who carry full time and who are serious about self protection will not cave in to only carrying a tiny pocket pistol most of the time.

I have enjoyed meeting many people over the years at various gun ranges who were giving their small guns a good workout. There is nothing like honing one's skills with 18 rounds out of P32 Kel Tec or 50 rounds out of a NAA Mini Revolver. Many would have targets at long distances like 5 or 7 yards and shoot horribly loose groups with patterns sometimes in excess of 12 or more inches.

There is always post hoc justification for carrying the small guns, shooting very little, and having poor groups. They are "always there" guns. As for shooting very little, my favorite comment is that the guns are designed to be carried a lot, shot a little. No doubt there isn't much wear and tear on a gun that isn't being fired, but just because the gun is supposedly designed to be shot a little isn't a valid justification for not practicing with the gun more or justification that you won't practice more with the gun because it isn't supposed to be shot that much. Which is more important, protecting the gun from wear and tear or practicing enough to protect oneself?

As for the poor shot groups, the response was often something like, "I won't be shooting it that far in real life, so the group size is good enough."

When it comes time to need to defend oneself, chances are we are not going to have the option of picking the time and place. So if you need a gun and all you have is some tiny caliber, your shots need to be exceptional since you won't be getting the benefit of the larger bullet sizes and power from larger caliber handguns whose power is still seen as questionable anyway. Recent events with folks like Mark Wilson and McKown (Tacoma Mall) are fine examples of where shot distances were not up close and personal. Of course, McKown didn't even bother to draw his gun, but he confronted the shooter verbally and the shooter gunned him down from several yards away.

If you carry small, take the time to become proficient with the small gun and the small caliber. It may mean that you wear out a few along the way, but if that is what it takes to make you proficient and you really want to be able to defend yourself well, then you have the added expense.

I have been repeatedly shocked by folks like over on KTOG who have had guns for several years that they carry for self defense through which they have fired less than 500 rounds.

Its only your life, right?

Jody Hudson
December 25, 2005, 01:47 PM
Good disertation, good points, DNS.

Note: the link in your signature is dead now.

December 31, 2005, 12:04 AM
:( I just sat here and read nearly all the posts (sorry i skipped from page 1 to page 3). I've enjoyed most of what i've read. Its neat to see a 5 year long debate.

Now it seems to me this discussion is about the age old debate of bigger equals better and controlled expansion with adequate penetration is the key. (it seems anyways; i'm kinda young in comparison to some here, no offense)

To get the story rolling, I got into guns because of a friend I ment in junior high school. Ever sense we have been debating on everything possible. This Christmas (how ironic) he got a book that was written by a New York "stake out" cop and his opinions on gun fighting. According to the book he personally was in 14 or so gun fights, and his department 252 or somewhere in the near. I have a horrible time recalling exact numbers but those are close. Either way, my friend cited me two quotes that recently changed my opinion on self defense pistols. First was "only two immediate knock down shots i've seen have been a 12 guage slug to the head and a .45 acp shot to the head." (again don't cite me.. relaying what i remeber.) The second was after shooting in BG 11 times in the face with .38 the guy went down. While calling in the description of the guy saying he was mid 30's the bad guy moaned "man.. i'm only 26." Once the ambulance arrived, he walked himself out. All 11 .38s punctured the skin of his face bounced off the bone and carried out. (i'm not knocking the .38 or promoting any other caliber here).

If interested send me a private message and i'll get you the title and author of the book. What was written might not be totally fact but it corresponds with the philosophy I first believed in, and now do again. "A .22 to the tear duct will stop any conflict."

Sorry if my opinions have trampled on anyone elses but my solid belief is shot placement matters more than anything. Even though the BG got hit 11 times in the face with .38 and didn't die, the shock to the head knocked him out. And really, when firing in self defense isn't that all that is required? Shoot to stop, not nessicarily to kill (but thats usually the outcome.):(

December 31, 2005, 09:19 PM
Hope is not a viable defense strategy.

January 9, 2006, 07:55 PM
You mentioned that you like cci velocitors as well as the quick shocks... I carry a phoenix arms HP22 until I can afford a better pocket pistol, and today have purchased a box of velocitors to carry.
Have you found the velocitors as effective as the quick shocks (I couldn't find quick shocks in my town).

I would like to also know what a tph is.

Also, you should feel encouraged that I used this thread as a major determining factor to start carrying a .22 for self defense.

Jody Hudson
January 9, 2006, 08:40 PM
The Velocitors are Heavier and Faster but do not have the incredible shock value of the QuikShoks.

However, since your purpose is self defense the Velocitors are excellent. Just remember shot placement becomes far, far, more important with less powerful rounds such as .22. I strongly suggest you practice 5 lightning fast shots into your first target area and two or three immediate shots to your second but more important target area for self defense with the .22.

Based on my sadly extensive experience with predator control of feral cats and dogs - if attacked I suggest you place about 5 fast shots into the center of mass and then two or three immediate follow up shots into the center of Central Nervous System control... in the case of feral dogs and cats this would mean BetweenTheEyes with those last three shots. That still leaves you a couple of shots to follow up with again into the BetweenTheEyes if the attacking animal continues to attack. With the .22 I suggest a LOT of practice using the entire magazine in a couple of seconds to immitate this sort of defensive shooting. IMO 8 shots in two seconds followed by two well aimed shots in the next two would be proper practice... Just my opinion.

Enjoy your HP22, they are a nice little pistol. Buy lots of ammo and practice!!!

Have Fun with your little Baby! :D

The Walther TPH is a tiny, thin, flat, light, exceedingly accurate .22 pistol that will usually cost in excess of $500 for the recent stainless steel and usually in excess of $750 for blued and probably in excess of $850 for German imports and more for the lighter alloy called Dural which will likely run $1,000 or so. Most often the TPH will take Three to Ten trips to a master gun smith to make it perfect but many people develop a deep love for the tiny, accurate, pistols WHEN they get them working perfectly. There are few gun smiths that work on them and far fewer that do a good job on them.

Walther TPHs are like a Harley Davidson motorcycle... people love them no matter how much they have to work on them and no matter how much they have to pretend they don't see the failures to function.

With a lot of practice and the gunsmithing needed to get one right, you can become exceedingly accurate with a TPH and put the bullets in small targets at, even long distances... amazingly small targets!!!

The threads here can be very informative and I use them to help me make choices as well. Most of us are on a never ending quest to find better and better guns and ammo for our purposes and these threads help us find our next, better, choice.

Enjoy... :D

January 9, 2006, 10:28 PM
this is a long winded thread and I sorry that I don't have the patients to read it allthrough. but for me the .22lr from a semi-auto format is ify, from a revolver the .22lr makes more sence. my cw of choice is the .38 snub given it's inadequacies it is concealable and reliable and with training accurate.in mine I load it with 158gr.+p speer fmj's. but that's just me.

Jody Hudson
January 9, 2006, 10:43 PM
Why from a revolver? The velocity from a revolver is a bit less due to the loss at the cylinder to barrel gap. Also, the revolver takes up more room in concealed carry, by far in this case.:o

YUP, bigger calibers are better... but that is outside this discussion you know.:p :D

Those hot .38s DO put the little and supposed ineffective .38 in a much better light... :D

December 23, 2007, 11:32 PM
I have, over the last few years read and re-read this thread. It's longevity is amazing!! And I am just as amazed that so many respondents seemed to take your comments to mean a .22 is best for SD. I understood you to mean, 'anything is better than nothing and a .22 with you is better than a .45Cal at home.' Seems you said that early on.

I carry (w/permit) almost all the time. I am fortunate enough to have most of the guns discussed so far and none is as carry friendly as the TPH. I am in a warm climate so I want something that is truely 'pocketable'.
I have two American TPH's, neither have been worked on (to my knowledge, both bought used but in NIB cond.) I have put at least a thousand rounds through each with zero malfuntions when using CCI Mini-Mag or Quik-Shok. (I can't say that about most other ammo). This is the gun that I have in my pocket. Maybe not the best, I have better, but they don't carry as well.

I agree that a well placed series of shots are needed with a .22 but I don't practice headshots. To much bone and to much opportunity for curved bone (skull and cheek) to deflect the shot. I practive for the throat area. Granted it's half the size of the head but if only one Quik-Shok connects the parties over. (the 'misses' will likely be in the jaw or upper chest) ALL my practice with this gun is point and shoot...no Wilson stance stuff or aiming w/sights....there isn't time in SD. I don't expect to get in a 'firefight' (been there done that) I expect to use my little TPH only when there is no way out.

I know bigger is better. I carry a PPK w/PowerBall ammo in a 'fanny pack when it is appropriate. But the TPH is with me ALL the time....that's what you meant I think. Heck of a good gun!
Thanks to all for the great thread...and another Merry Christmas.

December 24, 2007, 10:06 AM
It sounds like this argument is more about the Quickshot than the 22 cal round. I only read the first page, but this is the jest I got. I do agree with the size of a 22 pocket pistol making it easy to carry all the time, but my NAA Guardian is the same size but in 380 and 32 acp cal, so I will always prefer the larger and heavier bullet vs super ammo. As far as it being a better wund maker than a 357 mag is simply opininon and you know what that is worth. I don't see anybody suggesting our LEO start carrying 22's instead of their duty weapons, I think this notion would be laughed at. I suppose if you are going to carry a 22 the Quickshot would be a good choice for ammo, just as the DPX ammo is a good choice for the 380 acp firearms, but there is no way I am going to buy the 22 quickshot is going to have the same stopping power on humans as the 357 mag. Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it, cabbage or no cabbage!!

December 24, 2007, 11:47 AM
Sorry but I should have put a big qualifier on my choice of deep carry guns (I like the TPH). I do not like DAO and all the little pocket guns in bigger Caliber seem to be DAO. I want a gun that's DA/SA and the only pocketable ones I know of are the little TPH and Beretta's. I have both and the Beretta's I have are not reliable feeders with any ammo I've tried. The TPH's I have are. Plus they are thinner and carry better.

If someone came out with a quality little gun in DA/SA in .380 I'd buy one! .25 or .32's, I think, are no better than hyper .22's. I wonder why there aren't any DA/SA .380's avavilable? Am I the only one that prefers this action?

December 24, 2007, 12:16 PM
If someone came out with a quality little gun in DA/SA in .380 I'd buy one!

Doesn't the PPK fit that bill. Small enough for me to carry in pocket all the time. admittedly slightly on the heavy side, but with a good pair of jeans it's fine, and small enough.
I used to carry my Iver johnson TP22 (which is like the TPH), but upgraded to the .380 with the PPK. Just a slightly larger version of the former.

It's DA/SA as you requested.

David Armstrong
December 24, 2007, 12:21 PM
I am not at all certain that I understand WHY the Quick-Shock is so amazingly better than calibers bigger and faster.
Enouugh. It is not. Shooting cabbages has absolutely NO relationship to shooting people. Ballistic gel, even with its faults, is the only even semi-valid way to compare, and the Quick-shock doesn't perform that good. It has low penetration, which is the main criteria for success in shooting people.

December 24, 2007, 12:53 PM
High Valley Ranch

Thanks for the suggestion.
I have a PPK that is probably my favorite all around handgun but it really fills up my pocket! It's just to big and heavy for all the time carry for me. I walk around in shorts and a T-shirt a lot.
I have a little Kel-tec .380 that is sized fine plus with the built-in clip (like a pocket knife) makes it good to carry. But I can't group good enough with it. Between the heavier .380 recoil in the light gun and the DAO trigger pull, I am all over the place...6 inch groups at best at 21 feet, rapid fire. I think the .380 is marginal enough to still need good placement. I can't do it will a light, little, DAO gun like my Kel-tec.
The PPK is another story. It's a shooter!!! I did a couple of CC courses through our state association. During one two day course we fired 1000 rounds. I used my PPK and ball ammo. I purposely didn't clean the weapon until the course was concluded. It NEVER failed! (except when they had us put a dummy round in the clip to practice clearing the weapon under duress....which is a real challenge with the PPK!!!!).
If yours carry's good for you your lucky, and probabaly not as fat as I am (-;
Mine PPK is in a fanny pack...makes me look like a old tourist )-; maybe I should start wearing wingtips and black socks with my shorts.....nah.

December 24, 2007, 02:28 PM
NCHornet & D Armstrong
IMHO the Quik-Shok, or any .22, isn't a great self defense round. Cabbages or not. But what it has done is bring the .22 on par with all the ammo I am aware of under .380 cal. (which is marginal for SD but has great new ammo available too) The .22 LR has out preformed the .25 'forever' and now the hyper HP .22's are usually more potent than the .32. This is a result of ammo development of course. There just isn't much being done with the .32. The advantage these centerfires used to have was reliablity but with the new stuff out there the rimfire is on a par in that arena too.

I think anyone who carrys anything smaller than a .380 would do well to look real close at the 'new' .22s...particularly Stinger and Quik-Shok. Until I find a DA/SA .380 small enough for my needs I'll carry my TPH loaded alternately with Quik-Shok then a Stinger....the recoil of these two rounds is identical, so I've created no feeding problem...and shooting accurately in this combination, with double or triple 'taps' as I've been taught, is as good as it gets (IMHO) under .380.

Try a triple tap from a .380 DAO, any of them, Kel-tec, Seacamp, Rohrbaugh, NAA, and if you keep 2 out of three on the target at 7 yards, much less shoot accurately after your first shot, your better than I, and most shooters.
I wish someone would come out with a good DA/SA SMALL .380...did you hear that Bersa???

Bill DeShivs
December 24, 2007, 02:55 PM
You obviously are confusing .22 lr RIFLE ballistics with handgun ballistics, and are seriously wrong.
Merry Christmas.

December 24, 2007, 03:15 PM
I assume you mean I am confused when I say I believe the hyper .22's out preform the .25's and are on par with the .32's, not so? Fill me in please.

Bill DeShivs
December 24, 2007, 03:43 PM
What I mean is that most published velocity figures for the .22lr are from rifle-length barrels. Some figures are for 4"+ lengths. When you start comparing 25 auto (2" bbl.) with a .22 from a 2" bbl., the velocity drops a whole lot. Even from a 4" bbl., I doubt the .22 lr will match the energy figures for .32 and .380.

December 24, 2007, 04:04 PM
Your point is well taken. I never meant to even imply that a .22 is on par with a .380, of course it's not! I do think the 'hot' .22's are stronger than a .25 and may give most .32's a run, even in shorter barrels. I went to www.handloads.com where they have a neat little "one stop" comparison chart composed of 'actual police data'. The .32 DOES have a much better record than the .22. (The .25 is not so hot!)
My point, poorly made I admit, is the whole package, gun and ammo together. I do not like DAO (that eliminates most small autos) and the gun must be pocket friendly and accurate....those requirements really narrow the field. Not much out there that fits...thus the .22.
p.s. I sent you a post through your fantastic web site...thanks for including it!!

December 24, 2007, 07:47 PM
It just so happens that I ran a few different .22LR cartridges over my Pact chrono today. They were all fired from a Beretta 87, which is somewhat similar to a TPH although has 1" more barrel at 3.8" length.

CCI MiniMags round nose - 40gr, purportedly 1235fps
1. 965.9
2. 960.2
3. 942.5
4. 977.2
5. 1002.6
AV: 969.7fps
ES: 60.0fps
ME: 83fpe

CCI Stinger hollow point - 32gr, purportedly 1640fps (well they make a big "bang" anyway)
1. 1154.9
2. 1158.4
3. 1135.1
4. 1132.9
5. 1141.2
AV: 1144.5fps
ES: 25.5fps
ME: 93fpe

So anyway, my point is that these numbers really reinforce Bill's comment that these cartridges don't develop anywhere near the advertised FPS when fired from a short barrel. I guess if I had to use something in .22LR, I'd prefer to have Stingers or better, but even so, its not looking particularly encouraging.

December 24, 2007, 09:34 PM
Did you do any .25's, 32's ? When I checked Winchester's site www.winchester.com they list the .25 EP @ 815fps, 66fpe. The .32 HP @970fps 125fpe. The .25 was shot from a 2" barrel, none given on the .32.
You show #'s after ES & ME, what does that stuff mean?
Is it reasonable to think that since the Stinger, for instance, retained 69.7% of it's perported velocity in the shorter barrel it will also retain that percentage of it's perported energy?

December 25, 2007, 12:50 AM
I will stick with a bigger round than a .22. its better than no gun but why carry a pea shooter? shoot a .40 or something that will get the job done

Bill DeShivs
December 25, 2007, 02:24 AM
Generally, the high velocity .22 lr develops maximum velocity in a 16" barrel. I suspect the hyper velocity loads need more length than that. Velocity drops drastically at about 4". Boatbod's figures show this. Now think about cutting that 4" length almost in half....
I personally have no qualms about carrying a .22. At one time I even carried a .22 short.
But I do feel it necessary to point out that the .22 lr is usually judged by people looking at velocity tables from an 18-20 inch barrel. In a tiny pistol, it is NOT more powerful than the .380, .32, or most .25 loads.
Merry Christmas.

David Armstrong
December 25, 2007, 02:25 AM
But what it has done is bring the .22 on par with all the ammo I am aware of under .380 cal.
Sorry, but you are wrong. In fact, due to limited penetration the Quick-shock is probably LESS effective as a defensive round than many other .22 rounds.

Jody Hudson
December 25, 2007, 09:43 AM
This thread is getting as white haired as I am... :) Much time has passed and ammo and guns are available that were not when this thread started. Oh... and all the cabages are dead! :)

Currently my all the time everywhere choice would be the Keltec P-11 in 9mm, or .40 or .357 sig and Corbon DPX ammo... The P-11 is the same size with any of the three calibers. It is a decided handful and has so much recoil in such a small package that several of the ones I have purchased were bought cheaply because they failed to cycle... a typical problem with too relaxed a grip or too relaxed a wrist...

Duroc, the P-11 would not be a good choice for you, for reasons you have already written.

I try to walk and take pictures well before sunrise and after sunset every day if I can and in uncivilized areas. When out and about and seeking critters to photo, I always carry the P-11 in 9mm with 13 rounds of Corbon DPX and have become accustomed to it always being there... When and if I get my CCW, it will likely be my choice then for more "civilized" areas.

December 25, 2007, 11:07 AM
Bill, David, etal,
Okay. Assuming I am all wrong about the .22, .25, .32. ammo ( I never said .380!!!!!) comparisons, and I probably am, what gun do you suggest I carry that meets my criterea of a) pants pocket small b) DA/SA c) accurate & reliable?

I am in a dilema here...is there no better answer then the TPH .22 without compromising either a,b,or,c?
Thank you all for all your info!!!
And have a very Merry Christmas today.

p.s. when our weather clears I think I'll buy some cabbages (-: and take my Beretta .25 Bobcat and .32 Tomcat out for a comparison to the TPH .22 w/Quik-Shoks. The big problem will be HITTING the cabbages with the Berettas!!! ;-) !!!

December 25, 2007, 01:34 PM
IMHO two points;a samll gun carried is better than a larger one left behind and I would be slow to trust the advice of someone who did goverment "wet work" and then shared that fact with anyone. Please don't take that as an attack on the creditbility of the post but it makes me wonder.:confused:

December 25, 2007, 02:40 PM
I carried a Beretta .22 tip up for a few years. I felt safe. 11 rounds in the piece, a spare 10 round mag in my pocket, I was ready for a safe evening out.

Waldo Pepper
December 25, 2007, 03:02 PM
DUROC: Okay. Assuming I am all wrong about the .22, .25, .32. ammo ( I never said .380!!!!!) comparisons, and I probably am, what gun do you suggest I carry that meets my criterea of a) pants pocket small b) DA/SA c) accurate & reliable?

Ok IMHO this is the Best. The 15 oz S&W 642 38spl +P 5 shot that works every time. I carry it in my pocket every day, it's never been noticed even in my jeans.

On rare occasions I carry the CS45 6+1 of 45 ACP thunder. However it is not a pocket gun like the 642, but it is light and easy carried all day in a holster.

December 25, 2007, 03:17 PM
Thanks for the suggestion. Nice looking gun.
And you take your brass with ya...............

December 25, 2007, 03:28 PM
THe .22 pocket pistol may be the king of carry it all the time and cheap to practice with guns. I actually took a Ruger mkII to quals one year so I could carry the Beretta 21 for a BUG (in that state registered SOs' qualified with action and caliber)

December 25, 2007, 03:44 PM
I do not trust 'trick' bullets. With a .380 and Gold Dot JHPs at 1000fps, I worry about adequate penetration. With the muzzle velocity, lack of weight, and extremely poor sectional density of the 3-in-one .22 bullet, I am not at all confident in more than superficial penetration.

I'll stick with my P3AT, and if I ever carry a .22 mini-revolver, it will be loaded with CCI Velocitor or similar.

Waldo Pepper
December 25, 2007, 05:35 PM
Thanks for the suggestion. Nice looking gun.
And you take your brass with ya...............
DurocYou bet. Never leave money on the ground. ;)

In my old age I find myself switching to wheel guns, back & knee's don't like bending and stooping these days to pick up brass. :)

Here is my favorite to shoot. S&W 1006 (10mm)

December 25, 2007, 05:49 PM
I like your attitude as expressed in "...there is only one gun law in this country......." Good for you!!!!!!
I don't have the cahones you do, so when I can legally carry my "ALL the time gun" is the little TPH .22.
But when I can't legally carry I chose a wheel gun similar to the one Waldo suggested (mines a mod. 37 airweight). There are some negatives for ME, it's to thick being the main one...BUT...I take my brass with me!! THAT is it's very best feature if you carry with out a permit! Or even with a permit.
If there is a 'problem' make sure you finish the job, literally, then leave if at all possible!! That's advise I recieved from a retired Federal agent (actually that is his suggestion even with a permit!) Otherwise, at best "you've just taken a lawyer to raise" he said.
I may switch to the wheel gun for all carrying!

December 25, 2007, 05:51 PM
I am thinking we read from the same book.

December 25, 2007, 07:59 PM
Did you do any .25's, 32's ? When I checked Winchester's site www.winchester.com they list the .25 EP @ 815fps, 66fpe. The .32 HP @970fps 125fpe. The .25 was shot from a 2" barrel, none given on the .32.
You show #'s after ES & ME, what does that stuff mean?
Is it reasonable to think that since the Stinger, for instance, retained 69.7% of it's perported velocity in the shorter barrel it will also retain that percentage of it's perported energy?

Sorry, I didn't measure anything other than a bunch of .22LR ammo.

Once the projectile leaves the barrel, it has to obey the laws of physics. That is to say, for a given weight bullet at a known muzzle velocity you can calculate the energy. Similarly, if you know, or can approximate, the ballistic coefficient, you can figure out velocity and hence energy retention downrange.

By the way, those Stingers would be packing 191fpe if they really did achieve 1640fps at the muzzle.

"ES" - extreme spread
"ME" - muzzle energy

December 25, 2007, 11:59 PM
That's what I thought. Based upon the numbers from your tests the Stinger was 69.7% of CCIs perported 1640fps out of a 4" barrel thus the fpe would be 69.7% of their perported 191fpe. That's 133 fpe. Not bad in my book.

I don't know how different an even shorter barrel would be, like a 2" barrel, we could project some here.....if after loosing 80% of barrel length (18" to 4" ) we lost a bit over 30% of the fps & fpe; if we lost 90% of the barrel (18" to 2" ) what would we loose say a bit over 40% of the fps & fpe???
Could that mean a Stinger out of a 2" barrel at 191fpe times say 59% would be 112.6 fpe?? IF that is the case, which I have no idea if it really is as I doubt the powder burn is perfectly proportional to barrel length, the .25 @ 66fpe, the Stinger @ 112fpe, and the .32 @125fpe...hmmmmmm
I am still gonna buy some cabbages.....(-:
Thanks, I hope you had a Merry Christmas

David Armstrong
December 26, 2007, 12:35 AM
what gun do you suggest I carry that meets my criterea of a) pants pocket small b) DA/SA c) accurate & reliable?
I don't object to the .22, my bone of contention is the questionable hyping of it as some sort of uber-round. If you want to shoot a .22, shoot a .22. I frequently carry a Beretta Model 21 in .22LR. I have always found the TPH to be unreliable, but if it works for you, great. In the overall scheme of dfensive handgun use, caliber is probably the least important factor, but that is the one so many people get tied up in knots about. So I suggest you carry whatever you are comfortable with that will go bang when you want it to and that will hit the target when you want it to. Whatever gun and caliber that is, great. Just don't try to decieve yourself or others about the effects of some "magic bullet".

The big problem will be HITTING the cabbages with the Berettas!!! ;-) !!!
Your bigger problem is assuming that the effect on the cabbages is indicative of anything other than the effect on a cabbage.

THAT is it's very best feature if you carry with out a permit! Or even with a permit.
If there is a 'problem' make sure you finish the job, literally, then leave if at all possible!! That's advise I recieved from a retired Federal agent
That "advice" is a real fast way to spend a lot of time in a cell with a guy named Bubba that thinks you're real cute. You have just changed what might have been a perfectly legal shoot into a criminal act. Nothing personal, but it sounds like you have a very strange circle of advisers who haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about when it comes to ammunition, guns, or the law.

Jody Hudson
December 26, 2007, 07:58 AM
Ladies (I suspect some are reading) and Gentlemen; please note a few things from my first post, which started this thread, almost 7 years ago!

1. The Title: "The .22 pocket pistol the BEST for civilian personal defense?" Please note the all important Question Mark at the end.

2. PLEASE: "Try it yourself before you take me on with this argument please."

3. "OK... I agree... Bigger is better..."

In the seven years since I started this thread, I have switched from the Walther TPH and the 7 rounds of .22 Quick-Shock to the Keltec P-11 with 13 rounds of 9mm Corbon DPX. This is my first choice now for always (for me this means in the woods and marshes as I work on rural real estate and scenic rural photography where I am out and about in uninhabited areas - that are rife with feral dogs, cats, and sometimes feral pigs.

My "magic bullet" is now the Corbon DPX, based upon my considerable testing.

This old post has certainly taken on a life of it's own; fueled to a great extent by speculation, supposition, and personal opinions that are not always well tested. My original purpose for this thread was to encourage looking and testing on your own, in order to possibly have another choice for an Everywhere and ALL THE TIME carry pistol.
Enjoy; Merry Christmas!

December 26, 2007, 10:39 AM
That's what I thought. Based upon the numbers from your tests the Stinger was 69.7% of CCIs perported 1640fps out of a 4" barrel thus the fpe would be 69.7% of their perported 191fpe. That's 133 fpe. Not bad in my book.

At a measured MV of 1144fps, the 32gr Stinger only carries 93fpe muzzle energy. Energy is related to velocity squared, so things don't decrease linearly.


December 26, 2007, 11:49 PM
I've spent all this time reading this undying thread only to learn you have switched to a 9mm carry gun! Gggeeeeessssssshhhl...!

I just purchased a NAA .22LR mini-revolver today. So where does that leave ME? :confused:

With all due respect, original poster was just too gung-ho on this Quik-Shok thing in .22 ...now-Cor-bon DPX in 9mm. Why not Quik-Shok in the 9mm? Well, I just don't know... :eek:

I have a model 49 J-frame Smith for concealed but it is simply too heavy and I can't spring for a 642 at this time. So that leaves the .22, and it only has a 1 1/8" bbl. I can't imagine a smaller SD gun than that NAA mini-revolver. But I just don't know what ammo to use in it for SD.

I even started another thread on the subject.


(BTW, Kel-Tecs aren't sold here in my State. I don't know the reason and I'm not going to speculate).

December 27, 2007, 12:35 AM
I just don't know what ammo to use in it for SD.
I would go with something like a CCI mini mag. solid point, and make sure you can shoot it very well ;)

David Armstrong
December 27, 2007, 12:10 PM
But I just don't know what ammo to use in it for SD.
Whatever ammo is reliable. I use match-grade in mine because it is the most likely to go bang when I pull the trigger. It's a .22, folks. There isn't going to be much difference between the rounds as it relates to SD.

December 27, 2007, 07:25 PM
David, Boatbod, Bill, et al,
This whole thing started, long ago, and was fueled by the .22 Quik-Shok discussion. In your opinions are the Quik-shok, Dpx, Hydo-shock, PowerBall, Silver Tip, and all the other super ammo's in various cal. anything more than a little extra proformance and a lot of extra hype? For self defense I mean.
Several of you seem to really know what you are talking about....not just shooting watermelons and reading tables like I do.
Opinions please?????

David Armstrong
December 28, 2007, 12:47 AM
In your opinions are the Quik-shok, Dpx, Hydo-shock, PowerBall, Silver Tip, and all the other super ammo's in various cal. anything more than a little extra proformance and a lot of extra hype?
You've got a lot of variation there. IMO some are good choices, some are nothing but hype. Here is a pretty good rule of thumb---shoot normal defense rounds that lots of other folks carry. There is a reason the police carry Gold Dot, Golden Saber, Hydra-shok, etc. They are good, general purpose rounds. Exotics might work real good for a particular situation, but are pretty worthless outside of that situation.

December 28, 2007, 03:49 AM
Was Glaser originally an 'exotic'?

Is Glaser an 'exotic' now, in light of the fact it's now owned by Cor-Bon?

Is 'Cor-Bon' an exotic?

I don't know the accuracy of the following, but I read online in a forum somewhere that the Sky Marshal program may use them (Glasers). Is it rumor or fact?


I've never seen a thread that has lasted this long-ever. In fact, it never occurred to me that a thread might even last this long! :D

December 28, 2007, 06:27 PM
Thanks David....
your reply makes good common sense. I guess some of us, enough to fuel an industry, are interested in finding the super bullit. The concept of a super bullit is easy to believe.
What do you think of .380 PowerBalls? I like how they feed as ball ammo.

December 28, 2007, 07:32 PM
I'm reminded about Jeff Cooper (Mr. 45 himself!) when asked if he only had a .22 to rely on in case of a personal attack...
He smiled and said, " Empty the entire mag aimed at the perp's face"...:eek:
No one will dispute that because of weight, recoil, practice and other factors; that one can be extremely accurate with a .22 despite having little or no sights....However, one can be just as proficient with larger calibers using the same regimen....
Beside plinking, my .22 revolver stays in the truck's console as a b.u.g...:)

Jody Hudson
December 29, 2007, 06:49 AM
There has been considerable evolution of guns and ammo during the life of this thread... This whole thing started, long ago, and was fueled by the .22 Quik-Shok discussion. In your opinions are the Quik-shok, Dpx, Hydo-shock, PowerBall, Silver Tip, and all the other super ammo's in various cal. anything more than a little extra proformance and a lot of extra hype? For self defense I mean.
Several of you seem to really know what you are talking about....not just shooting watermelons and reading tables like I do.
Opinions please?????

I pay a LOT of attention to what has been tested and adopted by specialized military, law enforcement and by regular police. I used Silver Tip when it first came out and then Hydroshok for s very short period because I found it hyped beyond my experience with it; then the police h.v. Nyclad in 9mm for years, a short stint with PowerBall but found them to come apart too often, then Quick-Shok based upon my usual research but far more upon my personal findings of accuracy, animal shootings, geletin and lots of fruits and vegetables :). Speer Gold Dot Hollow Point is what I measure others by as it is usually the best and I was able to get quite a bit when New Jersey dumped much of it on the market a few years ago; the Speer GDHP+P 9mm is still the best I have found other than the Corbon DPX in 9mm. My change to DPX is based upon extensive balistic tests with denim, glass, steel and my personal pistols, especially the P-11.

I was fortunate enough to spend an afternoon with a Corbon Rep and his ammo and calibrated geletin while a bunch of us tested the best of what we had in several calibers against the Corbon DPX. The big difference was the the DPX penetrated a bit farther in each caliber, beyond anything else and much more than most. The DPX also was immune to speed in all the guns we chose from carbines to short pistols like my P-11; the only difference being slight increases in diameter (always far larger than any other bullet) and more penetration being in the 14" to 18" range.

The DPX is a very deep, solid copper, pointed tube with sharpened and very wide opening and a closed bottom. There is no separation and there was no loss of mass in any of the tests we did, just an extreeme flowering of the bullet. We tested the DPX in every caliber against every top quality round that several dozen of us shooters had and the DPX always opened wider and penetrated deeper. What is MOST important is that no matter what we put in front of the geletin; several layers of denim, leather, wood, metal or glass -- the Corbon DPX still did it's work and performed almost identically. AND it has proven to be the most accurate for me and most others; bullet placement still reining over all. There is a MAJOR exception and that is that the .380 DPX does not always open properly!!! Usually but not always!

Here are some references:



Do some image searches on the search engines for performance and penetration of Corbon DPX as there are hundreds more good references; some that I posted with pictures of my day with the Corbon Rep but I don't find them now and I must go... gotta work sometimes ya know! :)

In summation; my choices do evolve as testing, research and evidence from my own experience shows how I may improve my choices.

February 3, 2008, 01:29 AM
I did some testing of the 22 LR and the 25 ACP, firing into telephone books. I had always heard that the 22 LR may have a slight edge on the little 25 ACP. What I found out from testing is that when fired from similar firearms, like a 2" barrel, the .25 ACP is very superior to the .22 LR. The .25 ACP penetrated 2000 pages of the phone book, blew a large hole out the backside, and struck the backstop leaving a significant dent. The .22 LR fired from a similar pistol only penetrated about 750 pages of the phone book with both high velocity and yellow jacket ammo. What was interesting to me was that when I fired the .22LR ammo from a rifle, it performed almost identical to the .25ACP from the mini-gun (a Beretta 950).

My conclusion is that all of the comparisons I have read that indicated a slight edge for the .22LR were comparing rifle ballistics for the .22LR to mini-gun ballistics for the .25ACP. I completed the tests with a firm(I mean NO DOUBT AT ALL) conclusion that the .25ACP is much superior to a .22LR when fired from similar firearms.

Jody Hudson
February 3, 2008, 09:24 AM

Be careful not to ASSUME too much!

But, you are correct in doing your own investigations!

The weight of the .25 is so much more than the fast .22s that it will penetrate better in almost every case.

In addition, the .25 caliber, being centerfire, is far less likely to misfire by way of not going off. There are some super-fine, older and very small pocket pistols in .25 that are FAR smaller than the Walther .22 TPH, such as the famous and wonderful Baby-Browning, the Colt Vest-Pocket and the CZ Duo! These fine pistols will fit inside a pack of cigarettes and leave room for some cigs and a lighter inside the pack as well... and in fact this was an oft used method of carry among some folks from police forces without uniforms. These fine little .25 caliber pistols came out about 1905 and there are still many of them in fine condition available.

Corbon, maker of some of the finest self defense ammo in most every caliber; has a great choice of fast, light and well designed hollow point that is everything that is great about the .22 ammo AND has the above advantages of being the center-fire .25 and thus can be used in the even smaller vintage .25 caliber micro-pistols and have the explosive velocity of the hottest .22 ammo in a smaller pistol!

There is only one drawback; the cost of the .25 center-fire ammo is far, far, far higher than is the ammo for the .22. For the good .25 ammo, one can expect to pay about a dollar a round or close to it. Therefore the extensive practice that one should do with a little pistol such as the TPH that we spoke of before is far more costly. The tiny .25s CAN be fairly accurate but many of them are not anywhere near the accuracy of the amazing TPH.

Have fun, be safe, and choose what is best for you.

Also, folks... follow the good example set here by Hawkseye and do some extensive testing of your own!!!

Good data and thanks for sharing Hawkseye!

February 3, 2008, 08:46 PM
Well, I asked around about the TPH, since I'm always on the lookout for a CCW type 22lr that is legal in the PRK. TPH is not on approved list. What I could find is Interarms is out of business, many people have problems with shooting them, because they break, and parts are not being made, and aren't avaliable.

How is Delaware, firearms laws wise?


Dr S esq.

February 3, 2008, 10:44 PM
Great thread.

I have, for some years, carried a Beretta Mdl 21 .22LR loaded with Stingers, when my PPK/S in .380 is too prominent. My theory is that nobody wants to fight with a face full of Stingers and my intent is not to shoot until the bad guy(s) are about 3 yards away. I use a pocket holster.

I particularly like the Beretta due to its tip-up bbl, which I consider to make a small handgun extremely safe to load/unload - no pulling back small slides with big fingers.

I will have to get some of the Quik-Shoks

September 2, 2012, 02:21 PM
This is my first post here & I just read this old debate thread. Honestly this thread alone is what prompted me to sign up. I recently inherited a Beretta Tomcat .32 & wondered if a .22 would be a better pocket gun. I know several years habe gone by since this thread was born & then left to the archives but well worthy of rebirth.

September 2, 2012, 04:03 PM
I love these threads where everybody gives their opinion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Some say 22, others 32, some 38, very few say 41 or 44 and I think most would say 45 and 50 would be just too many.

If such an event could be organized, perhaps at the next SHOT SHOW, it would be the event of the year, however, the judges wouldn't be able to decide because there are too many things to iron out. Will the angels be skinny or fat? How big will the pinhead be? What dance will they be doing?

I would agree with the OP if the angels were really pretty.

September 2, 2012, 05:21 PM
This thread is long and I am not patient enough to read every post, so I will say my piece. I have a NA 22 lr pocket revolver that weighs only 7 oz. I have the mini magnum NA that is I think 9 oz. They are easy to carry when I am doing a lot of walking. I have practiced with them often! If you want to be affective with them practice is very necessary. They are for experienced shooters, not the other way around.

Frank Ettin
September 2, 2012, 06:02 PM
A .22 is hardly the best choice for a self defense gun when sometimes a .357 Magnum isn't enough. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim (http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/27327#Stacy%20Lim) was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty.

She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article (http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/27327#Stacy%20Lim) I linked to:... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....

September 2, 2012, 06:28 PM
A 22 in the pocket is better than a 44 back in the car.