The .22 pocket pistol the BEST for civilian personal defense?

[TritonCartridge]

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 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.

[Jody Hudson]

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.

[johnwill]

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]

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]

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.

[denfoote]

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]

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]

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.

[denfoote]

Jody,
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!!
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

[Schmit]

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.

[JimFox]

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]

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.

[johnwill]

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.

[TritonCartridge]

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]

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

[johnwill]

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?

[TritonCartridge]

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]

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,
Jody

[twoblink]

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.

Albert

[Zorro]

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.

[willp58]

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]

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!

[sks]

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.

later,

sks

[Jody Hudson]

Hi SKS,

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,
Jody

[Walt Sherrill]

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.