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.

tatters · 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.

fridge21 · 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.

Ledbetter · 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.

Ledbetter

______________________

Not as contrary as some. Still pretty contrary.

45King · 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.

longeyes · December 1, 2000, 06:13 PM

What about a J-frame snubbie firing .38 Special Glasers or Magsafes? No advantage there?

45King · December 1, 2000, 08:07 PM

Jody H. wrote:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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!

November 30, 2000, 10:46 PM	#15
tatters Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 1999 Location: Indiana Posts: 786	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. __________________ " When you've been granted the privilege of being heard..take great care with this power and watch every word"

December 1, 2000, 01:43 AM	#18
Oleg Volk Staff Alumnus Join Date: December 6, 1999 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 7,022	Unless you can find a TPH or Iver Johnson 22 that works... ...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	#19
Ledbetter Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2000 Location: California USA Posts: 4,533	Why don't I buy somne Quick-Shocks 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. Ledbetter ______________________ Not as contrary as some. Still pretty contrary.

December 1, 2000, 06:32 AM	#20
45King Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 1999 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 1,033	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.) __________________ Shoot straight, stay safe, and have a blessed day. Regards, Richard Freedom is a consequence of the exercising of rights.

December 1, 2000, 09:36 PM	#25
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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! __________________ We help people relocate to Rehoboth Beach Delaware. Our Site: www.Kate-Jody.com

November 30, 2000, 07:14 PM	#1
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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? __________________ We help people relocate to Rehoboth Beach Delaware. Our Site: www.Kate-Jody.com

November 30, 2000, 07:56 PM	#2
Quantum Singularity Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Posts: 925	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???

November 30, 2000, 08:19 PM	#3
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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.

November 30, 2000, 08:58 PM	#4
Quantum Singularity Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Posts: 925	Is there anyway of knowing how well Quikshok would penetrate human body?

November 30, 2000, 09:11 PM	#5
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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.

November 30, 2000, 09:18 PM	#6
Quantum Singularity Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Posts: 925	"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.

November 30, 2000, 09:25 PM	#7
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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.

November 30, 2000, 09:31 PM	#8
Quantum Singularity Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Posts: 925	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...

November 30, 2000, 09:32 PM	#9
Quantum Singularity Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Posts: 925	Why is no one else responding to this topic? It would make an interesting debate...

November 30, 2000, 09:46 PM	#10
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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.

November 30, 2000, 09:53 PM	#11
Quantum Singularity Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Posts: 925	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.

November 30, 2000, 09:59 PM	#12
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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!!

November 30, 2000, 10:04 PM	#13
Quantum Singularity Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Posts: 925	"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)?

November 30, 2000, 10:31 PM	#14
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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, 10:57 PM	#16
Stephen A. Camp Staff In Memoriam Join Date: April 16, 1999 Posts: 2,570	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	#17
fridge21 Member Join Date: March 7, 2000 Posts: 32	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!

December 1, 2000, 07:26 AM	#21
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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.

December 1, 2000, 09:34 AM	#22
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	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	#23
longeyes Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2000 Location: True West Posts: 1,350	What about a J-frame snubbie firing .38 Special Glasers or Magsafes? No advantage there?