[TheLastBoyScout]

If you're one of those people who advises others to buy a .22 with or before a defensive full caliber pistol then answer this question:

"Would a beginning pistol shooter be better off with a $150-250 .22lr and a defensive handgun, or the defensive handgun and $150-250 of professional instruction?"

My gunclub offers a variety of courses from the NRA introduction to handguns up to a few advanced pistol classes. I'm wondering whether it would be a better idea to take a few of these than to get a .22 which honestly probably won't get shot much.

[hso]

I've been wondering something along the same lines, but just a little different. Wouldn't starting out with a very light loading that would just cycle the action serve the same purpose as starting with the .22? Why don't we see this type of training ammuniton available? Wouldn't the ammunition manufacturers see it as an opportunity to capture the dollars spent on "first time" .22s?

[Kalrog]

The biggest bonus I see for the .22 is cost. Specifically ammo cost. You can spend under $10 and shoot 500+ rounds, and there is just no way that you can do what with any other type of firearm. More shooting = better. The lack of recoil is just a bonus to concentrate on the fundamentals, but you could do that with a more powerful gun and proper instruction. What you can't duplicate with a 9mm (or other mild recoiling defensive gun) is the cost of ammo even if you reload.

[MJRW]

I still say the .22. The cost of .22 rounds is being ignored here. Example:

Two people have $1000 for pistol, ammo, and instruction. Person A buys 9mm Brand X. Person B buys .22 Brand X. Assume both guns cost $200. Assume Person A gets instruction which costs $200, Person B does not.

Person A is left with $600. Person A can afford to shoot around 6000 rounds going to Wally World or whatnot with the remaining money.

Person B can afford to shoot like 5000 rounds for about $100 leaving him/her with $700. Person B can now go and buy 9mm Brand X ($200), get instruction ($200 - either now or before), and afford to get 3000 rounds of 9mm.

Person B now has 2000 more rounds of training with the same level of instruction.

.22s are cost effective saving money over time. The earlier you get it, the more range time you can spend and the more money you can save.

[shermacman]

I have two .22's. The first is my father's Winchester with which he won the 1938 State of Oregon Junior Marksman Championship. It has had hundreds of thousands of rounds run through it and it is amazingly accurate and its bolt action makes it a lot of fun to shoot. The other is the first gun I ever bought, a Ruger .22/45 semi-auto. It also is very accurate, fun to shoot. I now have big caliber hand guns and more rifles than you want to hear about. But when I get a chance to swing by the range, the .22's come out first. I will never get rid of them.
I have strongly urged newbies to start off with .22's. I won't suggest that there is no other first gun, but you can't go wrong with a .22. Practice, familiarity and experience can be had for cheap, and that will take you much further than spending a fortune on a large caliber gun. My tactical bottom line: I would rather hit with a .22 than miss with a .45.

[bogie]

Well, most of us already have .22s...

IMHO, new shooters are a lot less likely to drop the damn thing when it goes off if it doesn't make a really loud noise and kick at 'em.

When playing for the first time with a 1911, I encourage use of a Ciener .22 top end. Then after the folks get used to everything flying around, put on the .45 top, and step back...

But for someone who is gonna buy ONE gun, for home protection, make it a small .357, and start out with wimp load .38 special wadcutters.

[Keith]

I don't think .22's are JUST for newbies, I think any serious shooter should have a .22 and train with it, frequently.
The reasons for that are stated above by several people but it all boils down to repetition - the more you shoot, the better shot you are. If you own a .22 you'll shoot ten times as many shots for each dollar spent on ammo.
And my (admittedly unscientific) observations bear out the premise that people who own .22's are generally better shooters than those who don't - .22 shooters just put more rounds down range...

If it wasn't raining today, I'd be out right now shooting 500 rounds of .22 at targets (and perhaps another fifty .45 acp's to boot). How many people who don't own .22's put 550 shots on targets in a single training session?

Keith

[DMK]

than to get a .22 which honestly probably won't get shot much That's the key to the whole thing. A .22 that's not going to get shot much is a waste of your money if you're looking for a training tool.

If you buy a .22 for a training tool, get out EVERY weekend and shoot it. That's the only benefit to it. If you can't do that, get a class a year and practice with your defensive gun at least once or twice a month.

[TheLastBoyScout]

If you can't do that, get a class a year and practice with your defensive gun at least once or twice a month.

Thats exactly it. My schedule does not allow me to do anything EVERY weekend, however I do make it to the range once or twice a month most months. Since range trips are not extremely often and I don't tend to blow off incredible amounts of ammo, I can usually afford to shoot as much centerfire ammo as I want when I'm there. Thats why I don't see a .22 getting used very much.

[sw442642]

There is no real evidence that starting with a 22 makes some one a better shot. In fact, there was a study starting cops with 38s or 22s in a 38 frame revolver, then moving to 38s. The first group did better.

If you are a serious defensive shooter, get an easy to use 9mm semi and then take some beginner courses in handgun usage and then tactics.

That is the most efficient way to learn, IMHO.

[MacPelto]

In your particular case, a .22 may not be the best option. Let me say, however, that it is an exceptional case. Generally speaking, the best bet would be to get a .22, and professional instruction, then, after having learned some things one would better be able to choose a defensive handgun.

Also, Keith is right, .22s aren't just for new shooters. Low cost ammo, means more range time. Low recoil makes it easier to focus on whatever it is that needs work, right now, I'm working on tracking my sights better, a .22 is perfect for this. Also, not to be overlooked, is that at some point you may have the opportunity to take someone else shooting for their first time...you'll need a .22 for that, too. I have been shooting since I was a child, and right now there are 6 rimfires in my safe, and 7 centerfires, one of which is a family heirloom.

[Majic]

Everything that you can learn with a heavy defensive caliber can be learned with a .22lr much easier. Recoil is the last factor in shooting anything. So learning and practicing every other step in the shooting process can be done with a .22 till you have mastered the skills to move up the recoil scale.
Alot of people who started off with big calibers and think they are good shots are really surprised at how they can't shoot .22's very well. A good .22 will sort out the good shooters from those who think they are good.

For those who think that a .22 will not get much use, hang on to it. In time it will become the most shot handgun you own when the one day comes that you learn the true virtues of the cartridge.

They don't sell billions of .22 ammo every year for nothing!!!

[raz-0]

Actually, I never recommend a .22 instead of a defensive caliber. If they don't know what they want, I recommend a .22. If they know what they want, I recommend that they ALSO get a 22. Even something cheap.

Mainly because it is cheap to shoot and easier to be accurate with. The accuracy adds encouragement, the cheap to shoot lets you do things like get over range anxiety by blowing off 50 or 100 rounds of 22 for a buck or so.

[Keith]

I've got a .22 conversion unit on a 1911 frame and I've got 4 ten round mags for it.
I can burn an entire brick (500 rounds) of .22 in an hour or so and I can do so without walking away with a headache or a flinch. I generally follow that up with a box or two of .45 just to apply the muscle memory to the heavier recoil.

I don't claim to be a "master" of the pistol, but considering how truly bad I was ten years ago (before I started shooting .22), I can only conclude that it works!

I have friends who can equal or surpass me at "bullseye" type shooting - a fixed target at 15 or 25 yards. Those guys just have better eye sight, concentration, steadier hands, etc.

But, where the .22 training pays off is in rapid, random shooting at informal targets. Stand up a number of beer cans or shotgun shells at various ranges in a wide arc to your front from ten to twenty five yards. Then draw and "engage" these scattered targets as quickly as possible.

I've found that I can do this pretty easily and quickly, while friends who don't shoot .22 have a lot of trouble with it. And as I related, many of those guys can shoot tighter groups than me on a fixed target.

I *think* this kind of exercise demonstrates the difference between muscle memory and learned shooting skills - to do it well you can't think about it or concentrate on trigger pull, etc, because you don't have time. I think I do well at this because I've fixed that muscle memory much deeper than they have - since I shoot far more rounds than they do. And I *think* that muscle memory would be the key to survival in a SHTF situation.

When it comes to training; more is better - and a .22 makes that possible and affordable.


Keith

[Andrew Wyatt]

Every person i know who has started with a full caliber autoloader for their first pistol has had flinch problems.

[Dorrin79]

it's all about cost.

The more you shoot, the better you get.

You can shoot a .22 all afternoon for the cost of 100 rounds of any centerfire ammo (except for maybe 9mm, which can be gotten cheap)

That was the main reason why I bought my .22 rifle and .22 pistol.

[Quantrill]

All of the above reasons for starting with a .22 are valid. I would also add that every "how to shoot" book (at least that I have), starting with Keith's "Sixguns", through to Nonte's, "Pistols and Revolvers", reconmmend staring with a .22. One more item that could be mentioned is reloading the lighter loads (or any loads) require picking up and finding brass, just one more thing that keeps the newbie's mind from complete concentration on the basics. Quantrill

[Zundfolge]

I dunno ... the ole .22 seems to be doing just fine in WV.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95227,00.html

[Justin]

"Would a beginning pistol shooter be better off with a $150-250 .22lr and a defensive handgun, or the defensive handgun and $150-250 of professional instruction?"

My gunclub offers a variety of courses from the NRA introduction to handguns up to a few advanced pistol classes. I'm wondering whether it would be a better idea to take a few of these than to get a .22 which honestly probably won't get shot much.

The problem is there's a bit of a flaw in your premise. Of course a shooter with a centerfire and training will be a better shot that one with a .22 who doesn't shoot.

A .22 is a good choice for all of the above mentioned reasons. Also, it makes it much easier for an instructor to diagnose and/or teach a noob.

Speaking from personal experience, my first pistol was a centerfire handgun. I had it for a couple of years before I joined my college's rifle/pistol club and started shooting .22 once a week. I went from being a below-average shooter (that's being kind!) to a competitive shooter. If you intend to practice, the cost-effectiveness of the .22 can't be beat.

[Walosi]

Whatever your training/indoctrination theory, a .22 offers a fun, firm and solid basic. When progression reaches the point at which a learning shooter balks at reaching for the next plateau in his learning steps, a return to a fun basic can clear the cobwebs and let him remember why he got into the game in the first place. Not completely necessary, but almost irreplaceable.

[MeekandMild]

I would posit the Tiger Woods allegory.

Learning from his father and lower level teachers Woods used to whup everybody who got in his way on the golfcourse. Now, having diligently studied the best techniques taught by the best teacher money can buy he barely finishes tournaments.

Give me a .22 and a zillion rounds of ammo and forget lessons.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Not to denigrate training courses, but a day or even two of intense instruction doesn't make a shooter. A lot of those lessons will be lost over time.

Self instruction does work, if you approach it with the right attitude. There is nothing so mysterious about guns or shooting that can't be arrived at through dilegent practice and some decent books.

The best possible combination is the right tools, lot's of ammo, and a course or two. But I would put the course last. And a .22 is always useful to have around.

[DMK]

Q: How does one get to Carnegie Hall? A: Practice

Q: How does one get to be a proficient shooter? A: See above

Q to ask yourself: What the best way for me to get a lot of practice?

BTW, have you ever considered something like Beamhit (http://www.beamhit.com/) or an airgun?

OTOH, practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. Instruction is very important also.

[Standing Wolf]

Instruction is a good thing; nothing, however, takes the place of practice, practice, and more practice.