Gunslinger Forums.com

I bought my HRR for a few, different reasons:

1. I didn't have a single action revolver
2. I didn't have a .22 revolver
3. I wanted something that could utilize .22 Magnums and liked the idea of still being able to shoot .22LR.
4. Not the major consideration, but the 'cowboy' guns do look cool.

I have used my S&W .22A - loaded up with Stingers - to dispatch o'possums and raccoons that got into my chicken coop on various occasions. Even using near point-blank shots directly to the brain box I haven't been impressed with the performance of that combination as in every, single such instance a second shot has been required to kill the creature and prevent it from suffering a slow, painful death. For this reason, I wanted to 'step up' to something more powerful but wanted to stick with a handgun as such is better suited for this particular use in my situation than a rifle. Now, I have larger caliber handguns, some of which are used for 'social' carry and so have comfortable holsters. However, I really wanted to stick to something in the .22 flavor for this purpose. This lead me to want to be able to use .22 Magnums and solidified my desire for a Rough Rider. But, once I had the RR, what Magnums should I use? I knew that I would want to carry with an empty chamber under the hammer, so that left only five shots. I knew that, for this purpose, I wanted at least the first shot to be a shotshell so that left four chambers. I knew I might have to use this firearm against a range of critters ranging from medium-small to medium, like o'possums and raccoons, up to larger and possibly more aggressive nuisances such as coyotes. Although such use is less likely, as it will often be the only firearm I have on me while in the garden/yard/etc., I wanted ammo that would at least make a two-legged assailant reconsider their actions if that need should arise. To that end, I decided to try a few, very informal tests of a few types of .22 Magnum ammo.

For these tests, I didn't have enough empty gallon milk jugs so I used round gallon jugs that had contained the type of antifreeze that goes into camper and RV plumbing lines when 'winterizing'. Eventually, I want to do more testing with milk jugs and wet-pack newspaper. I tested:

Winchester Supreme 34 Grain JHPs
Winchester Super X 40 Grain JHPs
CCI 40 Grain Maxi Mag JHPs
CCI 40 Grain Maxi Mag solids

Due to a limited amount of jugs, I wasn't able to place very many in line at one time. Also, I fired the Win Supreme from about seven yards but, due to an off-center hit with the initial Super X shot that wasted a few jugs from my limited supply, I moved much closer for the Super X and Maxi Mags (jugs were sitting on the ground which meant I was squatted down and firing 'from the hip'.) Both flavors of Maxi Mag - the JHPs and the solids - went through four jugs and kept on trucking so no example of either was recovered. I don't think the Maxi Mag JHP expanded any more than did the solid. This might be great for some applications but for my purposes this represents likely overpenetration which I want to avoid.

That leaves us with the two Winchester loads. First, the Super X which, fired from a few feet from the first jug gave a little expansion and fully penetrated the first two jugs. I found it lying between the second and third jug and there was no indication of any real damage having been done to the third jug. This is what it looked like:



Now, the Winchester Supreme. Fired from approx. seven yards, it gave what I consider to be very impressive (and almost textbook perfect) expansion. There was no indication of any fragmentation or loss of mass and it completely penetrated the first jug (splitting it from top to bottom upon exit) and was found inside the second jug. This is what it looked like:



I consider both of these to have indicated adequate penetration for my purposes with the Supreme showing better expansion and the Super X indicating better penetration. The outcome of this is that, for now - when used as a yard gun - my RR is loaded as follows:

Hammer sits on empty chamber
CCI .22 Mag shotshell
Winchester Supreme .22 Mag 34 Grain JHP
Winchester Supreme .22 Mag 34 Grain JHP
Winchester Super X .22 Mag 40 Grain JHP
Winchester Super X .22 Mag 40 Grain JHP

I consider these tests to be preliminary and want to do more testing. I'll not be using ballistics gel but I would like to try a few different 'home brew' type tests. Also, these tests were pretty impromptu - it would be easier to use water jugs from 7 yards or so if I come up with something to sit them on other than directly on the ground so that I can take better aim from a standing position.

awesome review .I normally use maxi mag jhps , and coyote protection in the woods .i like how the supreme x mushrooms if i can get my hands on some i will . i wondering how the CCI TNT will perform in this test .ive been toying with doing a test like this . thanks for posting this

You should test 'em and post up your results! I'd like to see them and I can find very little information about performance tests for various .22 Magnum loads from handguns - what little I can find seems to be mostly rifles. I have found a few tests (much more advanced than I have the capability of doing) which suggest that some .22 Magnums fired from longer handgun barrels can give comparable or even superior performance to .22LR fired from a rifle.

Realizing that a coyote or an angry (or rabid) boar raccoon isn't a jug of water, I still think comparison of various rounds in the same medium gives us good info.

Great post and test JAB!
I've used and have so many different types of Mags and LR it's not even funny!
But I don't think I've ever use the Supreme that mushroomed the best for you?

I'll have to keep my eyes out for some of those, thanks.

The one test I've been wanting to perform is with the shotshells. I have them for 9,45 and 22 now. And I want to see what kind of penetration you get from those on water jugs. So if you beat me to the range give it a try for me. ;)

Over at the Box O' Truth, he did some shotshell tests because some folks were wondering about them as an option for SD against a human attacker. The basic upshot of his tests was that shotshells give pretty lousy penetration - enough for snakes and very small vermin and that is about it. I'll see if I can find the link later today and post it for you.

Honestly, his tests are part of the reason I only have one shotshell in the HRR. I figure, as accurate as this thing seems to be, I can handle snakes, etc. with an HP or solid but probably can't handle a larger critter with a shotshell. Of course, in TN it is illegal to kill snakes so I am not exactly going out to exterminate them. However, if a copperhead is coiled and preparing to bite me, I am going to use the 'reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury' approach that I would use with any assailant.

Of course, the ability to use shotshells was one more in the list of reasons I wanted a .22 revolver (the LR version won't cycle my 22A.) I also liked that, according to what I have read, .22 Magnums have more shot in them. Of course, according to some things I have read, the rifling can mess with shot the same way a rifled slug barrel can cause shotgun shot to form a 'ring' pattern - and this effect seems to become more pronounced the longer the barrel (meaning the 3.5 incher might be a better choice if shotshells are to be a major usage.) Therefore, the test I want to perform with the shotshells is more for pattern. Either way, I am lucky enough that I could test shotshells in the back yard - but I probably won't do extensive testing because the darned things are so expensive and I can't find any .22 Mag shotshells around the Knoxville area - I picked up the box I have at the Bass Pro Shop/Outdoor World at Opry Mills Mall while on a recent trip to Nashville. I think the Bass Pro Shop in my area might stock them in .22Mag but I'm not sure because the only shotshells they had the last time I was there were .38 Special/.357s - the rest of the shelf was empty.

ETA: Here is the link to the Box O' Truth snakeloads test (he tested his home-brewed loads from a .38 snub and a .44 Mag but it gives you the idea):
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot30.htm

Great read. Thanks JAB.

I didn't figure the penetration was much good? But it still looks like it'd give ya a valid defense in court for saying you tried to give the BG a chance to leave before you cycled the HP rounds!

Maybe. I kind of subscribe to the theory that shooting someone with any firearm using any load would be viewed as 'use of potentially deadly force' and wouldn't count on a jury knowing the danged difference between a shotshell and buckshot. My fear would be that, in an SD situation against a human assailant, a shotshell would just give the BG a chance to kill me before I could get a follow-up shot with a HP.

That said, (as you know) I also subscribe to the theory that most people don't want to be shot by anything, ever, period. By that line of thought, the BG really MIGHT go away after being shot with a shotshell. This outcome would be good for the BG in that he would get to live and good for you in that you didn't have to kill him. The problem there is that should the living but (however slightly) injured BG decide to sue you, the following line of questioning might come up from the attorney representing said BG in the resulting civil suit, "Mr. Ape, you say you used a shotshell in an effort to give my client a chance to leave and discontinue the confrontation, correct? By that, can we conclude that you intended to use less than lethal force? Hmmm...interesting. So you were not convinced, at the time, that lethal force was absolutely necessary in order to protect yourself from death or serious bodily injury? Also interesting. Would you deny that being shot with any firearm and any ammunition could be, potentially, fatal? [At this point, maybe your lawyer objects pointing out that you are not a ballistics expert.] I will rephrase the question. Is it not one of the basic rules of firearms safety that you never point, much less discharge, a firearm at something that you do not intend to kill or destroy? Then, Mr. Ape, you used potentially deadly force when, as your own actions indicate, you were not convinced that deadly force was needed or even, necessarily, appropriate. In such a situation, would pepper spray not have been a more reasonable alternative? Instead, you chose to run the risk of potentially killing my client, scarring him for life and causing unwarranted physical and emotional pain and suffering when you, yourself, were obviously not convinced that a potentially deadly level of force was needed. Surely my client deserves the $5,000,000 for which he is suing."

Of course, as you also know, I am no lawyer nor do I have firsthand experience with such things.

LOL.... As funny as that is it's also sadly somewhat true. However I still keep my 1911 loaded with one in the pipe being a shot shell and the rest 230 grain HP's. I'll worry about savin my butt first and then the trial later.
My honest theory is that the first shot is gonna hurt him like hell and take him off his game. And possibly even blind his butt! Which will give me time for a follow up shot...or two...or three...or...
But at the same time it also allows me to not be very accurate with my first shot and still gather myself up for follow up shots. I don't know if you've ever tested the .45 shot shells? But if you have you've seen how the pattern past 5 or 10 feet becomes quite large! And I've never been truly tested to fire my gun under extreme duress, but I can imagine my aim and technique wont be the best. ;) So I simply see it as trying to stack the odds in my favor.

Okay, now that does make a bit of sense. As much as we might like to think we would be like Danny Glover at the end of the first Lethal Weapon movie (move our head around to pop the vertebrae in our neck, make some smart-alec comment and then drop the BG with one, well-placed shot) the sad fact is that, until tested, we have no way to know that we wouldn't just as likely be more like the kid with the 'hand cannon' in Pulp Fiction (unload the danged thing and not even wing the BG.) If an initial shotshell served to put the BG off his game and give the defender confidence that comes from gaining the upper hand then that probably would be a good thing. The most important thing, at that point, is to actually survive long enough to possibly have to explain your actions in court.

And that sir is my plan.
If I was Masaad Ayoub (sp?) I wouldn't worry about how I might react to a BG threatning me or my family. But since I'm not him and I don't know, I'll take whatever advantage I can try and figure out. It may not work if it ever comes down to it? But at least I'll have it in the back of my mind that I have the upper hand. Which will hopefully translate into steadier nerves for me.

Oops - I forgot to address that part of your post earlier.

IIRC, I picked up that box of Supremes at the local Gander Mountain of High Prices. I have to say that (although I know you can't judge ammo by its unfired appearance) these things look impressive, right out of the box. The most unusual thing about them is that they have a full jacket that is pre-stressed with vertical lines coming down from the hollow point cavity just like many premium self-defense rounds (they kind of look, to me, like, "Honey I shrunk the SD ammo.") In fact, the expanded bullet in the scans above looks like a mini version of a well-expanded SD round. Not only did the lead core mushroom almost perfectly but underneath it you can see that the jacket peeled back in strips along the pre-stressed lines.

From what I can find online, Winchester has an entire line of Supreme ammo intended for hunting usage. Supposedly, this line came about as the result of a 'total quality management' type study and project that Winchester did. The claim I saw was that each and every aspect of the Supreme ammo was designed to work best with every other component so that the whole thing functions as a cohesive unit for best results. Maybe that is a bunch of marketing hype but that little .22 Magnum sure did perform impressively in water jugs. Of course, I have read that water jugs will tend to give the 'maximum' results and expansion in flesh and bone or other materials might not be quite so impressive. Also, that is only one round - I didn't have enough jugs to test several rounds of the same ammo for consistency.

Maybe that's why I never seen it for sale? I tend to avoid the ammo section at High Priced Gander. lol

I understand that. Thing is, they have some types of ammo that none of the smaller, more reasonably priced stores in my area have - and the other stores that do have that ammo are as expensive as Gander - or even more expensive! D ick's Sporting Goods are just as bad on their prices and worse for some ammo.

Recently I was in the closest Outdoor World/Bass Pro Shop (about an hour or so from the house) and realized that their prices are actually quite reasonable. They even beat my favorite LGS on some things and have a huge selection - well, that is if their shelves weren't mostly empty. Once the ammo craziness settles down, I imagine I will be making periodic runs to OW/BPS whenever I need to stock up on a particular caliber or variety of calibers.

Bass Pro Shops prices are reasonable, and I've bought ammo from them quite a few times in the past. But like you mentioned, the shelves are almost always empty.
I've spoken with a few employees there and they say they receive about 2 to 3 shipments a week still. But they get cleaned out the same day as it arrives.

Next time I go to HPG I'll have to check and see if they have that ammo just to test it out though.

That was a great test! I gotta try them out.

I wonder how they are out of a rifle.