Is a .22 worth it if it's all I can get?
- Thread starter Clead
- Start date
You are right Clead. Something is better than nothing.If you have access to quality 22 hollowpoints, then you may be in good shape. The thing is, practice. at least .22 ammo is inexpensive (at least here it is) and that affords you a lot of range time. Also it would be good to practice multiple shots to the head and face area. In alot of cases, just the presense of a gub can stop alot of criminals from advancing so I would say get that .22 and start practicing. 
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
Greetings Clead
Welcome to TFL. I have to agree with swatman. If you like Marshall/Sanow stats, the CCI Stinger is tops on their list with a 34% OSS. The bullet doesn't seem to expand from a handgun however and M/S don't recommend it, or any .22LR, for self defense. I'd get the .22 in your case though as well as a large knife and/or walking stick or other form of possible weapon.
[This message has been edited by JackNKoch (edited January 10, 2000).]
Welcome to TFL. I have to agree with swatman. If you like Marshall/Sanow stats, the CCI Stinger is tops on their list with a 34% OSS. The bullet doesn't seem to expand from a handgun however and M/S don't recommend it, or any .22LR, for self defense. I'd get the .22 in your case though as well as a large knife and/or walking stick or other form of possible weapon.
[This message has been edited by JackNKoch (edited January 10, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clead:
but I have a chance to own a .22 handgun without all the usual hassle.[/quote]
Hi Clead,
Welcome to TFL... just curious, do you mean illegaly. I don't know if you could practice in the range using your hassle free gun. Here in my place they ask for your lisence first prior to shooting.
Swatman is right, try obtaining hassle free .22 hollow points.
How in the world did I become a senior member when I couldn"t finish a six-pack in one sitting?
[This message has been edited by vega (edited January 10, 2000).]
but I have a chance to own a .22 handgun without all the usual hassle.[/quote]
Hi Clead,
Welcome to TFL... just curious, do you mean illegaly. I don't know if you could practice in the range using your hassle free gun. Here in my place they ask for your lisence first prior to shooting.
Swatman is right, try obtaining hassle free .22 hollow points.
How in the world did I become a senior member when I couldn"t finish a six-pack in one sitting?
[This message has been edited by vega (edited January 10, 2000).]
plateshooter
New member
Hi Clead
This is just my "opinion" but I feel a 22 handgun would work quite well for me. I'm not a LEO or anything, so I'm not going after anyone. I'm talking defense only here. I shoot my 22 handguns alot, and I feel I would have no problem hitting the bottom of a coffee cup at the distances in my home, probably 2 or 3 times in the time it would take me to recover and fire again with a loud, heavy recoiling, big muzzle flash handgun. I prefer my 45, but I wouldn't feel at a disadvantage with a 22 for home defense if that's all I could get.
I would much rather have a 22 than nothing.
------------------
Good shootin to ya
Plateshooter
This is just my "opinion" but I feel a 22 handgun would work quite well for me. I'm not a LEO or anything, so I'm not going after anyone. I'm talking defense only here. I shoot my 22 handguns alot, and I feel I would have no problem hitting the bottom of a coffee cup at the distances in my home, probably 2 or 3 times in the time it would take me to recover and fire again with a loud, heavy recoiling, big muzzle flash handgun. I prefer my 45, but I wouldn't feel at a disadvantage with a 22 for home defense if that's all I could get.
I would much rather have a 22 than nothing.
------------------
Good shootin to ya
Plateshooter
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
While I can't speak about other countries, most DGUs in the USA end with NO shots fired. The presence of the firearm itself is a deterrent is about 90% of the cases.
There aren't data that I know of that suggestes differential deterrence based on caliber. A 22 is a big hole when it is pointed at you.
There aren't data that I know of that suggestes differential deterrence based on caliber. A 22 is a big hole when it is pointed at you.
David Schmidbauer
Retired Screen Name
If you plan on using a .22 LR for self-defense I would take a look at .22 Quik-Shoks.
I've performed the standard NASA/MIT MJ-WET (MilkJug-Water Explosion Test) out of my AR w/.22 LR Kit installed the following rounds and resluts...
.22 Sub-Sonic HP - Hole through front and back of the Jug, cap popped off.
.22 Stand Vel HP - Hole in the front, a little larger hole in the rear, cap popped off a little higher.
.22 Hyper Vel HP - Hole in the front, Jug split at rear w/one exit hole, water exploded out back and top where cap was... cap went sailing.
.22 Quik-Shok - Hole in the front, Jug split on back and was laid open, water exploded out split(s)... cap went sailing.
When looking over the jug from the QSs it was found that there were 3 exit holes, admittedly small then a single .22 hole, but still three holes never the less. And the hydrostatic shock the QS caused was nothing short of facinating compared to all the other .22s.
Check it out with the NASA/MIT MJ-WET and see for yourself.
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
[This message has been edited by David Schmidbauer (edited January 11, 2000).]
I've performed the standard NASA/MIT MJ-WET (MilkJug-Water Explosion Test) out of my AR w/.22 LR Kit installed the following rounds and resluts...
.22 Sub-Sonic HP - Hole through front and back of the Jug, cap popped off.
.22 Stand Vel HP - Hole in the front, a little larger hole in the rear, cap popped off a little higher.
.22 Hyper Vel HP - Hole in the front, Jug split at rear w/one exit hole, water exploded out back and top where cap was... cap went sailing.
.22 Quik-Shok - Hole in the front, Jug split on back and was laid open, water exploded out split(s)... cap went sailing.
When looking over the jug from the QSs it was found that there were 3 exit holes, admittedly small then a single .22 hole, but still three holes never the less. And the hydrostatic shock the QS caused was nothing short of facinating compared to all the other .22s.
Check it out with the NASA/MIT MJ-WET and see for yourself.
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
[This message has been edited by David Schmidbauer (edited January 11, 2000).]
The hydrostatic shock with those quckshoks may be fascinating. Unfortunately, those rounds are not good for much more. You take that tiny bullet, and divide it by three immidiately after impact and you have 3 very tiny projectiles doing very little damage, Quikshok is known for under penetration and in a round like.22 you would definately want more. As far as hydrostatic shock. That does nothing and means nothing in the real world of terminal ballistics.
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
David Schmidbauer
Retired Screen Name
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Quikshok is known for under penetration[/quote]
Hummm. Really? That is interesting. I say that because I've talked to both the designer and manufacturer concerning the concepts/physics behind QS.
Also interesting is that QS can be made to penetrate to any given depth prior to fragmentation depending on how deep the prefrag cuts are made. I've seen QS shot side by side with other HPs (including another older design by the same designer that is basically the standard which all other HPs are measured against) and QS was right in "industry standard" for penetration in ballistic Gel.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That does nothing and means nothing in the real world of terminal ballistics.[/quote]
Again... Hmmmm. Really? So what you are saying is that for any given bullet, lets just say a solid that won't expand, it doesn't matter if it is traveling @ 950fps or 2500fps cause it will still make the same size hole, and the velosity (higher velosity will cause greater hydrostatic shock) does nothing and means nothing in terminal ballistics?
Interesting! Wonder what Einstin would say?
Also note that in the Strasbourg Test a QS bullet was in the top 3 bullets for the lowest Average Incapasitation Time in the following catagories - .357 Mag (4" bbl)(Rib Hits)(No Rib Hits), 9mm (4.25" bbl)(Rib Hits)(No Rib Hits. While I realize that this does not "prove" anything it still should cause you gray matter's electrons to fire. QS is not listed in that test in any other caliber... weather they were not tested in other calibers or weather they were is not known to me at this time... but I'll try and find out.
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
[This message has been edited by David Schmidbauer (edited January 11, 2000).]
Hummm. Really? That is interesting. I say that because I've talked to both the designer and manufacturer concerning the concepts/physics behind QS.
Also interesting is that QS can be made to penetrate to any given depth prior to fragmentation depending on how deep the prefrag cuts are made. I've seen QS shot side by side with other HPs (including another older design by the same designer that is basically the standard which all other HPs are measured against) and QS was right in "industry standard" for penetration in ballistic Gel.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That does nothing and means nothing in the real world of terminal ballistics.[/quote]
Again... Hmmmm. Really? So what you are saying is that for any given bullet, lets just say a solid that won't expand, it doesn't matter if it is traveling @ 950fps or 2500fps cause it will still make the same size hole, and the velosity (higher velosity will cause greater hydrostatic shock) does nothing and means nothing in terminal ballistics?
Interesting! Wonder what Einstin would say?
Also note that in the Strasbourg Test a QS bullet was in the top 3 bullets for the lowest Average Incapasitation Time in the following catagories - .357 Mag (4" bbl)(Rib Hits)(No Rib Hits), 9mm (4.25" bbl)(Rib Hits)(No Rib Hits. While I realize that this does not "prove" anything it still should cause you gray matter's electrons to fire. QS is not listed in that test in any other caliber... weather they were not tested in other calibers or weather they were is not known to me at this time... but I'll try and find out.
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
[This message has been edited by David Schmidbauer (edited January 11, 2000).]
In nearly every edition of The American Rifleman's "Armed Citizen" section, there is at least one story of someone defending themselves succesfully with a .22 caliber weapon. I was looking at an old issue the other day and there were four such examples (two resulted in the nearly instant deaths of the bad guys). I't aint the size of the dog in the fight that matters, it's the size of the fight in the dog, or at least the ability of the shooter in the fight.
Adamantium
New member
Clead: Go for it, any gun is better than no gun, and a 22LR is the ultimate fun gun .
Dave: I tend to agree with Swatman about quik-shot. Check out http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs27.htm . They tested 3 22LR cartriges a while back, and even though they were from mouse guns, the quik shots still only penetrated half of what the other 2 bullets did.
As for energy transfer, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but I'd never bet my life on something that is for the most part, totally unproven. In fact most of the info I've read about it revolves around the words "Hey, just trust me about this". And as the whole concept really never made much sense in the first place, this never went over too well with me.
I remember back when I got my .357 mag, and was looking into different defensive loads for it. My friend, who has been around guns all his life laughed up a storm when I asked him what he thought of the fancy hollow points(I.E. Gold Dot, Hydra-Shok, Gold Saber etc.). His final word on the subject was "It doesn't matter what you shoot 'em with, because a .357 mag has enough energy to kill any human!" He didn't know exactly how energy stoped people though. According to him, "It just does". Like I said, never made much sense to me.
Sincerely,
Adam
------------------
Self improvement is a hobby of mine
.Dave: I tend to agree with Swatman about quik-shot. Check out http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs27.htm . They tested 3 22LR cartriges a while back, and even though they were from mouse guns, the quik shots still only penetrated half of what the other 2 bullets did.
As for energy transfer, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but I'd never bet my life on something that is for the most part, totally unproven. In fact most of the info I've read about it revolves around the words "Hey, just trust me about this". And as the whole concept really never made much sense in the first place, this never went over too well with me.
I remember back when I got my .357 mag, and was looking into different defensive loads for it. My friend, who has been around guns all his life laughed up a storm when I asked him what he thought of the fancy hollow points(I.E. Gold Dot, Hydra-Shok, Gold Saber etc.). His final word on the subject was "It doesn't matter what you shoot 'em with, because a .357 mag has enough energy to kill any human!" He didn't know exactly how energy stoped people though. According to him, "It just does". Like I said, never made much sense to me.
Sincerely,
Adam
------------------
Self improvement is a hobby of mine
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Schmidbauer:
Again... Hmmmm. Really? So what you are saying is that for any given bullet, lets just say a solid that won't expand, it doesn't matter if it is traveling @ 950fps or 2500fps cause it will still make the same size hole, and the velosity (higher velosity will cause greater hydrostatic shock) does nothing and means nothing in terminal ballistics?
Interesting! Wonder what Einstin would say?
Also note that in the Strasbourg Test a QS bullet was in the top 3 bullets for the lowest Average Incapasitation Time in the following catagories - .357 Mag (4" bbl)(Rib Hits)(No Rib Hits), 9mm (4.25" bbl)(Rib Hits)(No Rib Hits. While I realize that this does not "prove" anything it still should cause you gray matter's electrons to fire. QS is not listed in that test in any other caliber... weather they were not tested in other calibers or weather they were is not known to me at this time... but I'll try and find out.
[/quote]
The Strasbourg tests you are refering to are a joke! They have nothing to do with reality in actual streetfights because they only counted a one shot, perfectly placed shot through both lungs of goats, When in the real world will you have that type of perfect scenerio?
As far as your question about energy and velocity. There is absolutely no way you are going to get that much energy out of ANY handgun bullet (2500 fps) with that kind of velocity, then transfer energy may well be an issue but from a 22???
Naturally the people who produce this round are going to tell you all the possible ability of this "magic" bullet. Simple fact is, we don't usually get perfect lung shots in streetfights, get yourself a realistic target with the enemy pointing a gun at you and you will see that a round may well have to penetrate a forearm or wrist in order to reach the SOM. A bullet like that that is going to seperate into 3 small pieces would have to have a miracle on it's side to enter an arm, exit the arm, and then enter the chest cavity, and still have enough momentum to penetrate to vitals.
Like I said before, it is neat to watch what these round will do to a full jug of water but unless you plan on being attacked by a jug of water, I would recommend either a solid bullet or a standard hollowpoint any day.
By the way, you said something about different depths in the grooves for different penetration. You mind telling me how you can look at a round out of the box and tell how deep it will penetrate by looking at it?
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
[This message has been edited by swatman (edited January 11, 2000).]
Again... Hmmmm. Really? So what you are saying is that for any given bullet, lets just say a solid that won't expand, it doesn't matter if it is traveling @ 950fps or 2500fps cause it will still make the same size hole, and the velosity (higher velosity will cause greater hydrostatic shock) does nothing and means nothing in terminal ballistics?
Interesting! Wonder what Einstin would say?
Also note that in the Strasbourg Test a QS bullet was in the top 3 bullets for the lowest Average Incapasitation Time in the following catagories - .357 Mag (4" bbl)(Rib Hits)(No Rib Hits), 9mm (4.25" bbl)(Rib Hits)(No Rib Hits. While I realize that this does not "prove" anything it still should cause you gray matter's electrons to fire. QS is not listed in that test in any other caliber... weather they were not tested in other calibers or weather they were is not known to me at this time... but I'll try and find out.
[/quote]
The Strasbourg tests you are refering to are a joke! They have nothing to do with reality in actual streetfights because they only counted a one shot, perfectly placed shot through both lungs of goats, When in the real world will you have that type of perfect scenerio?
As far as your question about energy and velocity. There is absolutely no way you are going to get that much energy out of ANY handgun bullet (2500 fps) with that kind of velocity, then transfer energy may well be an issue but from a 22???
Naturally the people who produce this round are going to tell you all the possible ability of this "magic" bullet. Simple fact is, we don't usually get perfect lung shots in streetfights, get yourself a realistic target with the enemy pointing a gun at you and you will see that a round may well have to penetrate a forearm or wrist in order to reach the SOM. A bullet like that that is going to seperate into 3 small pieces would have to have a miracle on it's side to enter an arm, exit the arm, and then enter the chest cavity, and still have enough momentum to penetrate to vitals.
Like I said before, it is neat to watch what these round will do to a full jug of water but unless you plan on being attacked by a jug of water, I would recommend either a solid bullet or a standard hollowpoint any day.
By the way, you said something about different depths in the grooves for different penetration. You mind telling me how you can look at a round out of the box and tell how deep it will penetrate by looking at it?
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
[This message has been edited by swatman (edited January 11, 2000).]
deepforest27
Inactive
Get the gun if at all possible and some quality ammunition. Don't worry about what kind of stopping power a certain round has, or who likes what round. Purchase some quality hollowpoints, if you can get them and train with them. All that this round is better is BS for the most part. It just gives the writers a job. Above all, practice, practice, practice. Like Swatman told you, simply producing the pistol in the face of danger usually stops the trouble then and there. If the adversary in question doesn't take a .22 seriously then he's a fool. People who have been killed with .22s wouldn't argue with their ability to kill, lucky shot or not.
David Schmidbauer
Retired Screen Name
Adamantium & swatman
Whoa. I was not saying that QS is a "magic" bullet. All I was trying to do was address the two very broad generalizations that were made.
1 - QS are know to under penitrate
2 - Hydro Shock means nothing in real world terminal ballistics.
In # 1 were you refering to .22 QS or all QS? If .22 I'd like to know which QS design they were made from (there are 2 that I know of (internal frag and external frag). Under penitrate in what, compared to what, what is the definition of under?
In # 2, I don't believe anyone can prove if Hydro Shock does or does not have any effect in terminal ballistics. I was trying to make a point with the two different velosities. Lets ask the question a different way... Which 9mm Projectial will be more likely to have a greater detrimental effect on a living being (given same velosity and placement)... 9mm FMJRN, 9mm FMJFN, 9mm HP, Fragmenting 9mm (Mag-Safe). Then the question of Why has to be asked. While the first two will creat the same size wound tract the FMJFN will cause greater hydro shock. The HP will cause a little bigger wound tract and much more hydro shock. The fraging 9mm will create multipul small would tracts and massive hydro shock.
If you believe the Strasbourg tests were a joke because of the "controled" conditions under which they were held what is your opinion of ballistic Gel tests? Granted, they both have very little relation to "real world" gun fights. But goats give you more info on how a bullet will do compared to gel. (see ? above concerning 9mm) Until we can start cleaning out our prisons using those that are sentenced to die for their crimes by using them in ammo testings gel is the best we can do and still be politically correct. When living things are used the testing/testers start to "come under fire".
Does Hydro Shock help cause incapasitation? I don't know. I'll leave that to those with PhD's debate/decide. But seeing how the majority of the living tissue is mostly water.......????????
Myself, I think it does increase the likelyhood of incapasitation... but I still like a big hole. That is why I carry a .45 loaded with HP (either Quik-Shok or Hydra-Shok).
And all I said was QS could be designed to penetrate to a given depth prior to fraging. Never said you can tell by looking at the round. I believe the scenerio would go like this... The amount of overall penetration is determined in the design phase of working up the ammo. The velosity of the projectial has to be taken into account and then a suitable depth of penitration (i.e. >8" <12")is determined. I'm sure the depth is determined by "standards/requirements" in a given medium (probably gel with and/or without other medium before/mixed in with it (i.e. clothing, bones, steaks (yes... they use steaks)). Once testing the different frag depths has determined which one achieves the required penetration, and it does it consistantly, it is put into production.
I think the above holds true for any handgun bullet prior to going into production. Does this guarentee it will penetrate to that depth in the real world. NO. But it is the best the ammo companies can do (until... see above about sentenced prisoners
)
Again, I was trying to address generalization (IMO) that were made.
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
Whoa. I was not saying that QS is a "magic" bullet. All I was trying to do was address the two very broad generalizations that were made.
1 - QS are know to under penitrate
2 - Hydro Shock means nothing in real world terminal ballistics.
In # 1 were you refering to .22 QS or all QS? If .22 I'd like to know which QS design they were made from (there are 2 that I know of (internal frag and external frag). Under penitrate in what, compared to what, what is the definition of under?
In # 2, I don't believe anyone can prove if Hydro Shock does or does not have any effect in terminal ballistics. I was trying to make a point with the two different velosities. Lets ask the question a different way... Which 9mm Projectial will be more likely to have a greater detrimental effect on a living being (given same velosity and placement)... 9mm FMJRN, 9mm FMJFN, 9mm HP, Fragmenting 9mm (Mag-Safe). Then the question of Why has to be asked. While the first two will creat the same size wound tract the FMJFN will cause greater hydro shock. The HP will cause a little bigger wound tract and much more hydro shock. The fraging 9mm will create multipul small would tracts and massive hydro shock.
If you believe the Strasbourg tests were a joke because of the "controled" conditions under which they were held what is your opinion of ballistic Gel tests? Granted, they both have very little relation to "real world" gun fights. But goats give you more info on how a bullet will do compared to gel. (see ? above concerning 9mm) Until we can start cleaning out our prisons using those that are sentenced to die for their crimes by using them in ammo testings gel is the best we can do and still be politically correct. When living things are used the testing/testers start to "come under fire".
Does Hydro Shock help cause incapasitation? I don't know. I'll leave that to those with PhD's debate/decide. But seeing how the majority of the living tissue is mostly water.......????????
Myself, I think it does increase the likelyhood of incapasitation... but I still like a big hole. That is why I carry a .45 loaded with HP (either Quik-Shok or Hydra-Shok).
And all I said was QS could be designed to penetrate to a given depth prior to fraging. Never said you can tell by looking at the round. I believe the scenerio would go like this... The amount of overall penetration is determined in the design phase of working up the ammo. The velosity of the projectial has to be taken into account and then a suitable depth of penitration (i.e. >8" <12")is determined. I'm sure the depth is determined by "standards/requirements" in a given medium (probably gel with and/or without other medium before/mixed in with it (i.e. clothing, bones, steaks (yes... they use steaks)). Once testing the different frag depths has determined which one achieves the required penetration, and it does it consistantly, it is put into production.
I think the above holds true for any handgun bullet prior to going into production. Does this guarentee it will penetrate to that depth in the real world. NO. But it is the best the ammo companies can do (until... see above about sentenced prisoners
)Again, I was trying to address generalization (IMO) that were made.
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
David,
I am not generalizing I am just pointing out a few facts. The fact is. Hydrostatic shok DOES not wound Show me one documented case that it does. You claim you don't know for sure whether or not it does, but you keep coming back to it in every one of your posts. Let me put it to you this way and see if this makes sense: A few of us went deer hunting a few weeks ago, 3 of us got deer.one of my friends got a 8 point buck. He shot it 4 TIMES with a 30-30 rifle. A cartridge that will produce more kinetic energy thank ANY handun bullet. Yet it took 4 shots to get a 160 lb deer to go down and stay down. The second person was a lady who worked with us she shot a deer 3 times with a .308 riflr which produces even more energy than a 30-30 yet the only round that would actually drop the deer was a shot the 3rd and final through the upper spinal cord.
The 3rd deer taken was from my other friend who shot his Spike buck which was only 110 lbs. with a .270 WIN. quite a hot load! Yet, he shot the deer in the gut and it took him 4 hours to track it down. Now all three of these deer wiegh less than the average human, yet with all these high power rifle rounds they did not get any "one shot stops" despite all this Kinetic energy theary that Sanow And Marshall are always trying to sell off to us. I even have an issue of "handguns Magazine" where Ed Sanow even went as far as to make the ridiculous claim: "Shot Placement has very little to do with bullet effectiveness, energy transfer is" Sorry but anyone knows that that is alot of Garbage. You must get a round that will penetrate and hit the target in the right place or it is NOT going down unless it decides to stop. As far as Magsafe ammo, there is nowhere near enough data collected on these gimmick rounds to come to any reliable conclusion. I have never seen any proper testing of these rounds (except by the people who promote them) I would rather carry .45 hardball before I would carry these rounds. And whether you like it or not, the simple fact remains: quik-shok is known for under penetration.
I suggest you stop by the firarms tactical institute website and check out there sata on these bullets. They are a totallt neutral site who are not promoting anything and there testing data is all from the FBI.
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
[This message has been edited by swatman (edited January 11, 2000).]
I am not generalizing I am just pointing out a few facts. The fact is. Hydrostatic shok DOES not wound Show me one documented case that it does. You claim you don't know for sure whether or not it does, but you keep coming back to it in every one of your posts. Let me put it to you this way and see if this makes sense: A few of us went deer hunting a few weeks ago, 3 of us got deer.one of my friends got a 8 point buck. He shot it 4 TIMES with a 30-30 rifle. A cartridge that will produce more kinetic energy thank ANY handun bullet. Yet it took 4 shots to get a 160 lb deer to go down and stay down. The second person was a lady who worked with us she shot a deer 3 times with a .308 riflr which produces even more energy than a 30-30 yet the only round that would actually drop the deer was a shot the 3rd and final through the upper spinal cord.
The 3rd deer taken was from my other friend who shot his Spike buck which was only 110 lbs. with a .270 WIN. quite a hot load! Yet, he shot the deer in the gut and it took him 4 hours to track it down. Now all three of these deer wiegh less than the average human, yet with all these high power rifle rounds they did not get any "one shot stops" despite all this Kinetic energy theary that Sanow And Marshall are always trying to sell off to us. I even have an issue of "handguns Magazine" where Ed Sanow even went as far as to make the ridiculous claim: "Shot Placement has very little to do with bullet effectiveness, energy transfer is" Sorry but anyone knows that that is alot of Garbage. You must get a round that will penetrate and hit the target in the right place or it is NOT going down unless it decides to stop. As far as Magsafe ammo, there is nowhere near enough data collected on these gimmick rounds to come to any reliable conclusion. I have never seen any proper testing of these rounds (except by the people who promote them) I would rather carry .45 hardball before I would carry these rounds. And whether you like it or not, the simple fact remains: quik-shok is known for under penetration.
I suggest you stop by the firarms tactical institute website and check out there sata on these bullets. They are a totallt neutral site who are not promoting anything and there testing data is all from the FBI.
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
[This message has been edited by swatman (edited January 11, 2000).]
Adamantium
New member
Sorry if I came off a bit harsh Dave, not what I was trying to do.
Anyway, back to penetration and the QS. I think the main area of debate isn't over what it could be designed to do, but what it is designed to do.
Deep forest: Yeah, for the most part your right. But wouldn't life be boring without at least something to debate about?.
Sincerely,
Adam
------------------
Self improvement is a hobby of mine
Anyway, back to penetration and the QS. I think the main area of debate isn't over what it could be designed to do, but what it is designed to do.
Deep forest: Yeah, for the most part your right. But wouldn't life be boring without at least something to debate about?
.Sincerely,
Adam
------------------
Self improvement is a hobby of mine
David Schmidbauer
Retired Screen Name
ALL RIGHT... A DEBATE!
On Hydro-Shock/Kinetic Energy;
I agree that shot placement is everything and anything outside of a CNS hit isn’t likely to “drop” something. Any living creature will continue to function for some period of time when hit with a “hydraulic” shot (defined as a shot that doesn’t make contact with the CNS (brain/spine)) until the hydraulic fluid (blood) pressure drops to the point where oxygen isn’t being transmitted to the required level). However, using some of my deer hunting scenarios… (rifle shooting .308 SP). Deer one 1/4ing , deer two broad side. Entry wound on each .308”, exit wound on both large. Both deer run approx. 25 yards (give or take). Upon field dressing on deer one it was found that the bullet had hit the following organs liver and lung… on deer two bullet had hit both lungs and clipped an artery to the heart. Now the liver on deer one was totally destroyed. When I say it was totally destroyed it was gone as any semblance of an organ and in it’s place was detached “mush” that was floating around the cavity. What caused the liver to “evaporate”? Surely it wasn't the wound tract of the .308 bullet (even if it expanded to whatever) cause that would have only put a “hole" of that size through the organ. If it wasn’t the wound tract the only thing that could have done it was the hydro shockwave cause by the hi-vel bullet. On cleaning deer two while there was a lot of blood there wasn’t any mush as the organs the bullet hit were very elastic. Also, what causes “blood shot” meat surrounding entrance/exit holes. Again, it has to be the hydro shockwave as the bullet will just make a hole.
As I said previously, what effect hydro shock/kinetic energy has on terminal ballistic can not be disproved nor proved. There are examples on both sides of the theory that do each. I don’t hold a Ph.D. in any type of physics nor do I have the time/money for in-depth testing on the subject. I just have to go with my own research (admittedly limited) and experiences to make a determination. I am not going to discount hydro-shock as having no effect on terminal performance of a bullet.
On Fragmentation/penetration;
While I didn’t have the time to look at all the info on the site you provided I did look over the paper on the .22 QS (I also but the site in my favorites). First I’d like to ask you why on one hand you discount Strasbourg (terminal ballistic test on living creatures) then on the other hand site terminal ballistic results obtained from testing in a non-living element. Not trying to be a wiseass here… just a question. Now we can both agree that any .22 bullet isn’t going to make much of a permanent wound cavity. Taking that lets say that we fire 4 .22 bullets into center mass in a defensive situation. Given the choice of 4 permanent tracts that penetrate XX inches or 4 that penetrate 1” – 2” then fragment into 12 smaller permanent tracts that continue to penetrate an additional 4” or so on different axis’ I would choose the latter. Why? For the simple reason that with the first you have 4 chances to hit a vital organ (heart preferably with a .22), with the latter you have 12 chance to cause damage to that vital organ). I agree while the fragments will be small, 6” is more then enough penetration to reach the heart and any damage to that organ is better then none.
Let me further explaining/clarify my reasoning with an extreme example. The following I think we can agree on for this discussion/debate/example… 1 - Again, a .22 will make a small permanent wound cavity, 2 – Either .22 Hyper-Vel (HP or QS) will penetrate (enter) the skull cavity, 3 – The organ Brain is not as elastic as a muscle, nor as “fluffy” (for lack of a better word but hopefully you know what I mean) as a liver, 4 – that after initial wound tract nothing can be guaranteed (i.e. the bullet could exit the skull cavity, it could come to rest upon impact with the rear portion of the skull cavity or it could bounce off the rear (and continue causing damage), 5 - a .22 shot to the skull cavity more then likely will cause incapacitation (defined as the cessation of activity of the subject... not death), 6 – we are not discussion hydro-shock effect (I believe it has an affect, you do not, we agree on that). .
OK the HP will enter the skull, send off secondary projectiles (pieces of the skull itself)(we’ll disregard these), and continue on its path through the brain causing a permanent wound tract of .22 or so (probably a little larger due to expansion) and then impact the back of the skull (see #4 above)
The QS will enter the skull, send off secondary projectiles (pieces of the skull itself) (we’ll disregard these), penetrate .5” – 1”, fragment into 3 smaller projectiles. These three small projectiles will radiate out from the original wound tract creating three separate tracts, the three will either stop within the brain or impact the back of the skull (see #4 above).
Now, given the above two scenarios, which bullet is more likely to cause permanent incapacitation (i.e. death) due to damage? I have to believe the QS as more areas of the brain are being damaged due to the multiple projectiles traveling through it. You can damage areas of the brain and life can still be maintained (granted this can range to fully functional life to life in a vegetated state, but life never the less). The more areas of the brain that are damaged the less likelihood of life being sustained.
I think the QS design give you more chances of injuring/hitting a vital organ due to it's fragmentation (ie "hit the target in the right place). I also know that the more damage the more likely hood of incapacitation. That is why I carry .45 (Larger Fragments).
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
[This message has been edited by David Schmidbauer (edited January 12, 2000).]
On Hydro-Shock/Kinetic Energy;
I agree that shot placement is everything and anything outside of a CNS hit isn’t likely to “drop” something. Any living creature will continue to function for some period of time when hit with a “hydraulic” shot (defined as a shot that doesn’t make contact with the CNS (brain/spine)) until the hydraulic fluid (blood) pressure drops to the point where oxygen isn’t being transmitted to the required level). However, using some of my deer hunting scenarios… (rifle shooting .308 SP). Deer one 1/4ing , deer two broad side. Entry wound on each .308”, exit wound on both large. Both deer run approx. 25 yards (give or take). Upon field dressing on deer one it was found that the bullet had hit the following organs liver and lung… on deer two bullet had hit both lungs and clipped an artery to the heart. Now the liver on deer one was totally destroyed. When I say it was totally destroyed it was gone as any semblance of an organ and in it’s place was detached “mush” that was floating around the cavity. What caused the liver to “evaporate”? Surely it wasn't the wound tract of the .308 bullet (even if it expanded to whatever) cause that would have only put a “hole" of that size through the organ. If it wasn’t the wound tract the only thing that could have done it was the hydro shockwave cause by the hi-vel bullet. On cleaning deer two while there was a lot of blood there wasn’t any mush as the organs the bullet hit were very elastic. Also, what causes “blood shot” meat surrounding entrance/exit holes. Again, it has to be the hydro shockwave as the bullet will just make a hole.
As I said previously, what effect hydro shock/kinetic energy has on terminal ballistic can not be disproved nor proved. There are examples on both sides of the theory that do each. I don’t hold a Ph.D. in any type of physics nor do I have the time/money for in-depth testing on the subject. I just have to go with my own research (admittedly limited) and experiences to make a determination. I am not going to discount hydro-shock as having no effect on terminal performance of a bullet.
On Fragmentation/penetration;
While I didn’t have the time to look at all the info on the site you provided I did look over the paper on the .22 QS (I also but the site in my favorites). First I’d like to ask you why on one hand you discount Strasbourg (terminal ballistic test on living creatures) then on the other hand site terminal ballistic results obtained from testing in a non-living element. Not trying to be a wiseass here… just a question. Now we can both agree that any .22 bullet isn’t going to make much of a permanent wound cavity. Taking that lets say that we fire 4 .22 bullets into center mass in a defensive situation. Given the choice of 4 permanent tracts that penetrate XX inches or 4 that penetrate 1” – 2” then fragment into 12 smaller permanent tracts that continue to penetrate an additional 4” or so on different axis’ I would choose the latter. Why? For the simple reason that with the first you have 4 chances to hit a vital organ (heart preferably with a .22), with the latter you have 12 chance to cause damage to that vital organ). I agree while the fragments will be small, 6” is more then enough penetration to reach the heart and any damage to that organ is better then none.
Let me further explaining/clarify my reasoning with an extreme example. The following I think we can agree on for this discussion/debate/example… 1 - Again, a .22 will make a small permanent wound cavity, 2 – Either .22 Hyper-Vel (HP or QS) will penetrate (enter) the skull cavity, 3 – The organ Brain is not as elastic as a muscle, nor as “fluffy” (for lack of a better word but hopefully you know what I mean) as a liver, 4 – that after initial wound tract nothing can be guaranteed (i.e. the bullet could exit the skull cavity, it could come to rest upon impact with the rear portion of the skull cavity or it could bounce off the rear (and continue causing damage), 5 - a .22 shot to the skull cavity more then likely will cause incapacitation (defined as the cessation of activity of the subject... not death), 6 – we are not discussion hydro-shock effect (I believe it has an affect, you do not, we agree on that). .
OK the HP will enter the skull, send off secondary projectiles (pieces of the skull itself)(we’ll disregard these), and continue on its path through the brain causing a permanent wound tract of .22 or so (probably a little larger due to expansion) and then impact the back of the skull (see #4 above)
The QS will enter the skull, send off secondary projectiles (pieces of the skull itself) (we’ll disregard these), penetrate .5” – 1”, fragment into 3 smaller projectiles. These three small projectiles will radiate out from the original wound tract creating three separate tracts, the three will either stop within the brain or impact the back of the skull (see #4 above).
Now, given the above two scenarios, which bullet is more likely to cause permanent incapacitation (i.e. death) due to damage? I have to believe the QS as more areas of the brain are being damaged due to the multiple projectiles traveling through it. You can damage areas of the brain and life can still be maintained (granted this can range to fully functional life to life in a vegetated state, but life never the less). The more areas of the brain that are damaged the less likelihood of life being sustained.
I think the QS design give you more chances of injuring/hitting a vital organ due to it's fragmentation (ie "hit the target in the right place). I also know that the more damage the more likely hood of incapacitation. That is why I carry .45 (Larger Fragments).
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
[This message has been edited by David Schmidbauer (edited January 12, 2000).]
Ok Dave, I will agree that If a .22 fragmenting bullet were to enter the skull it would cause more damage, However I feel it is rather a difficult task depending on what part of the skull is hit. If the temple or sinus area it could be quite easy. on a forehead shot it could be iffy.
As far as the experience you had while hunting, I will refer to one of my earlier posts where I said that kinetic energy MAY and sometimes IS a factor with high powered rifle bullets. Although what I was trying to show in the last post was simply that it does not exclude proper shot placement. Not that you said that it did, but I referred to a comment by Ed Sanow that placement didn't matter. Keep in mind that this discussion began with a depate about the .22lr cartridge. Now we are on high powered rifles to prove a point but in reality, This simply started because I made a statement that Quik0shok was an under penetrating round. Although with proper shot placement it still could well work, I was simply stating the Firearms tactical Institute's test's have showed them at the least ammount of penetration of the s/d rounds in .22 tested.
For me, it is simply put that since hydrostatic shok is at this point only a theory, I would much rather stick with what has been proven, which is that a bullet MUST penetrate to vital organs such as the heart to bleed out the victem or damage the central nervous system. This is the only PHYSICAL way to stop a criminal gauranteed. Other factors are not gauranteed such as the criminal gives up, faints, or flees.
I respect your views and I kinda got the idea that my stating that I disagreed when it came to that particular round that you felt I was flaming you. I assure you I was not. We all just have different views and I respect all views
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
As far as the experience you had while hunting, I will refer to one of my earlier posts where I said that kinetic energy MAY and sometimes IS a factor with high powered rifle bullets. Although what I was trying to show in the last post was simply that it does not exclude proper shot placement. Not that you said that it did, but I referred to a comment by Ed Sanow that placement didn't matter. Keep in mind that this discussion began with a depate about the .22lr cartridge. Now we are on high powered rifles to prove a point but in reality, This simply started because I made a statement that Quik0shok was an under penetrating round. Although with proper shot placement it still could well work, I was simply stating the Firearms tactical Institute's test's have showed them at the least ammount of penetration of the s/d rounds in .22 tested.
For me, it is simply put that since hydrostatic shok is at this point only a theory, I would much rather stick with what has been proven, which is that a bullet MUST penetrate to vital organs such as the heart to bleed out the victem or damage the central nervous system. This is the only PHYSICAL way to stop a criminal gauranteed. Other factors are not gauranteed such as the criminal gives up, faints, or flees.
I respect your views and I kinda got the idea that my stating that I disagreed when it came to that particular round that you felt I was flaming you. I assure you I was not. We all just have different views and I respect all views
------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"