.22 caliber "Quick-Shok"

K

Kentucky Rifle

New member
I had always carried .22 caliber "Stingers" in my NAA "Mini Revolver". After reading some good things regarding the "Quick-Shok", I decided to switch to that. However, after reading the comparison in the rifle section of the two rounds, I think maybe the thing to do is to go back to "Stingers". For a last ditch defensive round, the Quick Shoks didn't sound like they would be so good. Any opinions?

Thanks,
KR
 
I thought of carrying them for a defensive round, but decided against it. I had several misfires in a rifle of mine with them so I lost faith in their reliability. Another point some make is that the fragmentation does well in small game, but may not be deep enough in humans. It's a tough call without seeing some used inactual defense situations.
 
site to compare .22 ammo

Check this site out.

http://www.22ammo.com/22ammo.html

They sell ammo and list the vital statistics of different .22 LR cartridges.

For example, even though CCI does not list the info on the box, you can click on "CCI" and find that Stingers have a 32 grain bullet traveling 1650 fps, and MiniMags are available in 36 grain, 1280 fps or 40 grain, 1255 fps.

I've got Hydra Shoks, Stingers and MiniMags. I'm going to try a few side by side comparisons out of a Beretta 21A and a Ruger 10/22 this weekend. What would be a good test medium?
 
Dang, 193 ft/lb with those Stingers :) 'Course, that'll be out of a rifle-length bbl. They do seem a tad hotter than anything else I've tried.
 
Ledbetter, one could always buy a bunch of gelatin.. :D

I have used water-soaked newspapers and gotten good results. May be a bit late for that though.

For quick tests on mouseguns, I like books. My thought is that I want reliability first, penetration second, expansion only if I have the first two.

A thick hard-backed book or two works best for me. I "proof" the book with a given load that I like (.38 +P LSWCHP) by seeing how deep it goes and then compare the results on the load I'm testing. I.E., if the .38 stops in 4 inches, where does the test load stop? Can't really judge the effects of the test load with-out a given load to provide a yardstick. I also don't worry about the actual depth of penetration (books are tough!), just the ratio.

I find that some of the discount bookstores (overruns) will sell me nice thick books for about a buck apeice, so I can do some extensive tests.

YMMV!

Giz
 
Okay then!

Almost went today--too much traffic. Ammo site was found at

www.rimfirecentral.com

Tomorrow, wet paperbacks, two at a time, taped together.

Sunday, pages of penetration and expansion characteristics for each round.

Which round:

.32 ACP FMJ (Winchester White Box) out of Kel Tec P32 or

.38 LSWC (Georgia-arms.com) out of J-frame 2.125" bbl

for comparison "proof?"

Regards.
 
Personally, I'd use the .38 as the control round and also check the .32 against it. I would be very interested in the results.

Giz
 
Something else to consider: a tiny barrel will mean deeper penetration with a round like the Quick-Shok. When fired from my little (just over 3" bl) P-11, the 9mm QS did not separate, but did exhibit beautiful expansion- comparable to Hydrashok and similar from longer barrels.

So, from that itty-bitty barrel...?

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy, and go well with ketchup.
 
Test results

Yes, the test took place as scheduled. Here are the results.

The ammo tested:

Quik Shok
CCI Stingers
CCI Mini Mags (40 grain)
Aguila Hyper Velocity

The range:

All shots were made at five yards.

The handguns used:

Beretta 21A--1.5" Barrel Semi auto
Browning Buck Mark--5.5" Barrel Semi-auto
The test medium:

Paper Back books

The control round:

One .38 special LSWC fired from 2" barrel S&W. The control round penetrated around 1500 pages and four shiny paperback "covers." It also penetrated the 1" pine board backstop I was using and went far downrange. Many thanks to Gizmo99 for this idea. ;)

The tested ammo:

Two Mini Mags fired from the Buck Mark penetrated more than 550 pages and five covers. Penetration was roughly equal for the two rounds. The bullets were both found intact, but badly deformed with expansion to 1/2" and 9/16" and many sharp edges.

Two Mini Mags fired from the Beretta penetrated around 350 pages and three covers. Both bullets remained intact and expanded to 1/2".

Note that the tested Mini Mags were the 40 grain solid point, not the 36 grain hollow point.

One of two Quik Shoks fired from the Buck Mark penetrated 500 pages and four covers, being stopped by the fifth. The second round achieved about 350 pages of penetration and only three covers. Both rounds fragmented on impact, with two large fragments (1/4") recovered as well as around ten tiny fragments, the smallest of which were like grains of sand.

Two Quik Shoks fired from the Beretta penetrated about 275 pages and three covers. Three fragments were recovered; one bullet was intact but badly deformed, and one had split into two pieces.

Of two Aguila Hyper Velocity rounds fired from the Buck Mark, one penetrated 500 pages and four covers and one penetrated 350 pages and three covers. One bullet was intact but badly deformed, expanding to .5". The other fragmented, penetrating less.

Of two Aguila Hyper Velocity rounds fired from the Beretta, one penetrated 350 pages and three covers and one penetrated 250 pages and two covers. One bullet was intact but badly deformed, expanding to .5". The other fragmented, penetrating less.

My conclusion is that the Mini Mags are probably the best for stopping a man-sized target, because of deeper penetration and less fragmentation. I was surprised that Stingers weren't better, but I guess the 32 grains bullet weight is best used on smaller game whose height is measured in inches.

Can you get here?

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/mr_ldbtt...m/bc/mr_ldbttr/lst?&.dir=/TFL&.src=ph&.view=t

Regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top