Which do you find more all around useful, a 22 pistol or a 22 rifle?


PDA






breakingcontact
December 8, 2012, 11:51 PM
Like them both, but which one is more useful in practical ways.

I'm leaning towards rifle, but the compact nature of the pistol is nice too and it still retains some of the function of the rifle.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which do you find more all around useful, a 22 pistol or a 22 rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Guvnor
December 9, 2012, 12:12 AM
I think the most practical gun ever is a tubular fed bolt-action or lever action .22lr. Can shoot and feed any .22 round, from CB shorts to Hypervelocity Stingers and everything in between. Throw on a 3-9x scope and its ready for target shooting, pest control, small game hunting etc. And in my opinion, a Hypervelocity .22lr from a rifle barrel is nothing to sneeze at, so I think a .22 rifle could be effectively pressed into service as a defense gun if there was ever the dire need.

I love my Marlin 981t (now known as the xt22tr)

Quentin
December 9, 2012, 01:44 AM
I think it's more useful to have both... a good pistol and rifle in .22lr. If forced to travel on foot ultralight then I'd feel pretty good with my Ruger Mark II pistol.

bigfatdave
December 9, 2012, 01:44 AM
I don't know how you define "useful" ... but a good target pistol can do most things a rifle can out to 50 yards, if you're skilled.

A strong argument could be made for a lever-gun, also.

In the end, you'll need both (a lot more than one of each, probably) anyway, don't get too worked up about the first one.

col_temp
December 9, 2012, 04:29 AM
I would agree with both.
The advantage of a 22 pistol/semi is it is a great handgun to warm up on or practice stances or handling before trying the same with your 9, 40, 380, or....
The 22 bullet well placed is just about as deadly as many other for most things. Granted it won't do the shock damage a large caliber will but little holes in the right place are still just as deadly.

Onmilo
December 9, 2012, 04:40 AM
I find both pistol and rifle extremely useful'
As for uses, the pistols are shot more at target, formal target, and plinking.
I have but one .22 pistol that is used for serious hunting and that is a S&W Model 41.
My .22 rifles are used the same but ALL of them can be and are used for hunting and pest control.
If i am carrying only a pistol out back it is usually a .32 auto because I like a bit more power when dealing with a rabid skunk, a distempered raccoon, or an angry possum and need to get fairly close to dispatch these critters..

Pete D.
December 9, 2012, 07:41 AM
Of the two, I'd have to go with the pistol. With care, I can do anything with a .22 pistol that I can do with a .22 rifle...out to 50 yards in any case.
In any of those fantasy polls about "what would you pick if you could only take X number of guns....", one of my choices is always a .22 pistol.
Pete
PS ....I like most things to be all around accurate. That includes answers to questions. While I do agree that having both a rifle and a pistol is the best situation, the OP asked about which of the two each of us found more all around useful. ("Which one is more useful....") The answer requires a making a choice between the two.

JERRY
December 9, 2012, 08:01 AM
for survival the rifle is best, for all round fun the pistol is best....

meanmrmustard
December 9, 2012, 08:42 AM
Pistol. Much more packable, most can still take an optic, and it allows me to carry a larger bore rifle for serious work, and use the pistol for varmint/small game hunting. I'm talking purely for backwoods survival, which is the real reason I own .22s to begin with.

bpl
December 9, 2012, 08:49 AM
IMO a .22 rifle is more useful than a pistol.

With that said, I own and shoot both.

Sav .250
December 9, 2012, 09:22 AM
That`s like asking do you like Ford trucks or Chevy trucks better. It`s a personal choice. Plus, what is the intended use?

Pilot
December 9, 2012, 09:26 AM
If by "useful" you mean the one that gets shot the most, I would pick a .22LR PISTOL.

breakingcontact
December 9, 2012, 09:37 AM
Oh...if its like Ford vs Chevy trucks...just tell me if the pistol or rifle is the Ford because that's clearly better!

Clipper
December 9, 2012, 10:56 AM
For 20-odd years I didn't even own a rifle, as I used handguns for all hunting and SD duties, but as I got older, less steady and my eyesight deteriorated, I found my way back to rifles, and my beloved BL-22...

Kahr33556
December 9, 2012, 10:57 AM
my 10/22 over my single six any day.

CraigC
December 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
A pistol, for the simple fact that it can always be with you, no matter what you're doing. A rifle isn't always practical. If you're headed out the door with deadly intent, then a rifle is usually the better tool.

urbaneruralite
December 9, 2012, 03:19 PM
A pistol is more useful for carrying. A rifle is more useful for putting a bullet where you want it.

ExAgoradzo
December 9, 2012, 05:45 PM
Exactly what bpl said.
Greg

Taurus 617 CCW
December 9, 2012, 06:06 PM
I have a rifle and pistol but if I had to choose, I would have to say rifle. I started with a single shot .22 and moved up to a Ruger 10/22. I now have both and they both have their places.

Warp
December 9, 2012, 07:05 PM
Like them both, but which one is more useful in practical ways.

I'm leaning towards rifle, but the compact nature of the pistol is nice too and it still retains some of the function of the rifle.

Whichever platform I am more concerned with getting inexpensive practice on.

d2wing
December 10, 2012, 11:13 PM
I lean toward rifle, 10/22 or CZ452 for general use. But I like .22 pistols too and
Sometimes prefer them.

Hokkmike
December 10, 2012, 11:18 PM
A rifle. It can do everything the pistol can at greater distances.

Warp
December 10, 2012, 11:22 PM
A rifle. It can do everything the pistol can

Not really.

A pistol can very easily be carried on your person while you go about your everyday activities.

And a .22lr pistol can be used to practice/train on a pistol.

A rifle can do neither of those things.

jim243
December 10, 2012, 11:23 PM
22 Rifle, will never fail to feed you.


Jim

Warp
December 10, 2012, 11:23 PM
22 Rifle, will never fail to feed you.


Jim

Is that why people never went without food during the Great Depression?

Teachu2
December 10, 2012, 11:33 PM
Like them both, but which one is more useful in practical ways.

I'm leaning towards rifle, but the compact nature of the pistol is nice too and it still retains some of the function of the rifle.
If I could only own one .22LR, it would be a rifle - it's more practical. I have more effective pistol calibers for carrying.

If I could only own one gun, it wouldn't be a .22LR, but I wouldn't fault the person who chose one.

jim243
December 10, 2012, 11:34 PM
Is that why people never went without food during the Great Depression?


If they could afford ammo, then I guess they didn't. Sorry if you went without food during the Great Depression, I wasn't born till 14 years later. Happy 83rd birthday by the way, Warp.

Jim

TexAg
December 10, 2012, 11:34 PM
Maybe he should have added "Where there is game...", but I guarantee an awful lot of game was harvested "out of season" during those lean years and during WWII when there was rationing. I've even heard a story of a family member long deceased that provided some meat for his family off the King Ranch (which was a known high-risk endeavor, as some poachers disappeared around there). A .22 was still cheap back then, quiet and plentiful.

To repel coyote or dogs in my back yard going after my chickens I'll grab the rifle, but when I'm doing chores the pistol is more likely with me. Hard to choose one!

Warp
December 10, 2012, 11:50 PM
Maybe he should have added "Where there is game...",

Maybe so. Makes a big difference.

Especially when everybody else is also wanting to hunt to eat.


Never be afraid to learn from what has actually happened.

breakingcontact
December 11, 2012, 12:20 AM
I think people would be shocked at how quickly game animals would be depleted if they were hunted year round en masse for survival.

That being said a 22 would be so much more suited for this as the big animals would be wiped out in a hurry.

lefteyedom
December 11, 2012, 12:29 AM
With all the required tax stamps,

A target barreled Browning or Ruger pistol with a detachable shoulder stock and a suppressor.

WVMountainBoy
December 11, 2012, 12:35 AM
.22LR rifle :) My first gun was/is a Glenfield Model 60 and it is fun, accurate, and reliable. I've used it for bushy tails, rabbits, rats, and plinkin. I have a very cheap .22LR revolver (its a RG) that I only keep because my grandfather gave it to me. I've yet to invest in a quality .22 handgun.

Fast Frank
December 11, 2012, 12:54 AM
The reason why pistols are different than rifles is because they are intended to do different jobs.

Asking about usefulness between the two is like asking "Which is better, a car or a truck?"

Obviously, the answer is going to be slanted toward the user's situation. Some folks don't need a truck and others can't get by without one.

And that's the answer to your question, too.

Ask yourself if portability is more important than accuracy at longer ranges.

Or if concealability is more important than velocity.

Or if quick deployment is more important than steadiness.

Are you hunting squirrels, or shooting at beer cans 10 yards away?

What are the laws in your area? Can you carry a pistol?

After you have decided what it is you want to do, choosing between a rifle and a pistol should be easy.

For what it's worth, my .22 rifle gets shot about twice as often as my .22 pistol, but your situation might be totally different.

I say buy both and be happy.

gspn
December 11, 2012, 01:05 AM
If I'm at the farm...rifle.

If I'm stuck in town...the 22 pistol can help me shoot cheaply at the indoor range.

GCBurner
December 11, 2012, 01:37 AM
A .22 pistol or revolver is an awful lot of fun for plinking at targets, but if you absolutely have to HIT something with a bullet from a .22, a rifle is much easier to do it with, and can do it out to a much longer range.

CaliCoastie
December 11, 2012, 05:20 PM
marlin 39 mountie(rifle) with a ruger security six on the hip would be about perfect...
but to each their own.

Rexster
December 11, 2012, 05:37 PM
I find my S&W Model 17 revolving pistol to be much more useful than a .22 rifle. I have fired it more often than any of my other handguns, and as ailments are afflicting my formerly stronger hand, I am looking at a largely rimfire future when handgunning. We have a "household" .22 autoloading rifle in the safe, but I have fired it on only one visit to my father-in-law's rural land, about 1997 or 1998.

Yes, revolvers are pistols. Look up Sam Colt's patents. ;)

My wife has a Ruger Mark I autopistol that has been useful multiple times, too, for both of us.

Portability is the primary factor favoring the handgun, plus I tend to shoot K-frame revolvers accurately. Another factor is that I am a peace officer, and could legally tote handguns long before Texas legalized licensed carry for private citizens. And, really, I was not much of a rifleman until rather late in life, being primarily a handgunner and shotgunner until my mid-thirties. (I am 51 now.) Handguns had a long head start.

That being said, I am looking into various rimfire rifles for future purchase, as well as rimfire conversions for centerfire rifles.

mac66
December 11, 2012, 06:10 PM
Rifle

76shuvlinoff
December 11, 2012, 07:00 PM
I am so much better with a rifle, therefore rifle.

doc2rn
December 11, 2012, 09:11 PM
If gonna be just one it's gonna be my rifle the Ruger 77/22 MK II v-bolt in .22 WMR. Even over my well worn Ruger Standard, MK I, II, III and 22/45 Target which are all shooters.

adc
December 11, 2012, 10:26 PM
rifle....due to accuracy at longer distances.

MCgunner
December 11, 2012, 10:42 PM
I lived off my marksmanship for about a year in college. It fed me, at least provided the meat. I had corn and melons and such from various sources. :D I wouldn't have starved without the .22. My food budget was about 3 bucks a week and would have been less if I hadn't started a coffee habit. :D I also had a 20 ft seine and access to a tank overrun with crayfish. Good eatin' right there. :D Used a .22 rifle on rabbits and such, very handy little Mossberg 152 I've since given to my daughter. I've kept my old Remington bolt gun and bought a 10/22 for plinking and iron sighted duties.

Today, I like hunting squirrel with an accurate .22 pistol. I carry a pocket .22 with me, lately a Ruger SR22, when fishing just to use for targets of opportunity. It's handier than keeping a rifle along while fishing. For outdoor uses, my rifles and handguns have purposes. I no longer must live off the land and,, even so, I hunt deer and trap hogs and hunt ducks and doves and such. I do this for sport, not necessity. I have many weapons and types of weapons. Can't use a .22 to shoot doves on the wing. :D

edit, thought I'd add, if it's either/or and you're worried about eating or starving, choose the rifle, first. I can hit a running rabbit with a rifle. I've done that ONCE with a pistol and it was a .410 Contender, not a .22.

DM~
December 12, 2012, 10:52 AM
"IF" i could only have one 22, it would have to be a good 22 rifle!

DM

henschman
December 12, 2012, 11:06 AM
I have had a lot of .22 rifles, and have done a lot of things with them. I have never had a .22 pistol, and don't quite know what I'd do with one, other than punch paper at the range. That pretty much gives you my answer.

Cee Zee
December 12, 2012, 05:09 PM
A rifle by a gigantic margin. I have seen very few .22 pistols that could hold their own shooting 75 yards or more. Just about every .22 rifle will shoot around 200 yards with consistent accuracy. They will be accurate enough to bring down certain game. A .22 handgun can't do that or at least I've never seen one that could. 75 yards is about the max for consistent shooting with a .22 pistol and the vast majority of them won't do that. A Ruger Mk II, a Browning Buckmark and certain S&W revolvers along with High Standard and a couple of other brands of revolvers make up the vast majority of .22 handguns that will get out to 75 yards. I can put a bullet in a squirrel's ear with a Marlin 60 at that distance and I can do it most of the time. I can't hit exactly in the ear every time but I can hit the head solidly enough to kill the squirrel.

Everything about a rifle is better than a pistol when it comes to .22's. I've seen centerfire handguns that would shoot reliably at long distances but very few rimfire handguns will IMO. Even at shorter distances most people can't make a .22 handgun shoot accurately enough to kill game. And between killing game and varmints there are few things a .22 is actually good for. Yes they can kill a person but for SD they are a big step down from what a rifle will do too.

Sure a person can buy a spray and pray .22 handgun and hope for the best but give me something where I don't have to rely on luck. Every LEO I've discussed this issue with agreed that a handgun is mostly good for keeping the bad guy's head down while you get to your rifle. I'm sure not all of them think that but most do IMO.

So other than not carrying the extra weight I can't see too many advantages of a .22 handgun unless you like target shooting. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. ;)

Let's put it this way. I've owned a .22 rifle for almost 40 years and I had access to a bunch of them that my dad owned before I had my own. I've shot lots of .22 handguns. I've never owned one and I don't plan on owning one.

I have never had a .22 pistol, and don't quite know what I'd do with one, other than punch paper at the range.

Exactly.

sixgunner455
December 12, 2012, 06:00 PM
Punching paper at the range is what most people do with most of their firearms, from what I have observed. A .22 pistol is a great tool for that. My first firearm was a Ruger MKII standard auto.

Here's why:

I wanted to learn to shoot pistols more than I knew how to that point. My father introduced me to them with a .22 revolver, and that was fine, but I wanted my own pistol to shoot. I liked did not want to pay the money it would have taken to really get good with a centerfire pistol, so I looked at .22 pistols. I picked this one because I liked it. It is my wife's favorite firearm, my daughter's second favorite - it was displaced in her affections by a Ruger Single Six. I have introduced dozens of people to shooting with it, and burned through I don't know how many bricks of ammo.

It has been carried on car trips, hiking trips, camping, hunting, etc, etc, and one dark night, was pressed into a serious defensive role.

Yes, I can hit stuff better and further away with a rifle. I really enjoy shooting rifles, and have every intention of putting the better part of a brick through one this weekend.

But a rifle would not have been as easy to carry, as effective in some roles, nor anything like as discreet as that .22 has always been. It is versatile, the very definition of it, and when it was my only firearm (and I shot it every week, and sometimes every day), I could outshoot any member of my family and a whole bunch of other folks, let them shoot whatever they wanted. I'm not quite that good with it anymore.

It will only leave my possession when one of my kids takes it. I may have to buy another one to prevent fights over it.

Clark
December 13, 2012, 11:27 AM
I killed a ground squirrel with my S&W K38 scoped 22 revolver in 2004.

I killed tree squirrels in 1965 with my Winchester 22 semi auto rifle.
I have killed alot of species with a 10/22 rifle.
I killed a raccoon in 2011 with a Squire Bingham 22 semi auto rifle.

So I guess I kill more and shoot more targets with the rifle.
The handgun is worth a lot more money. it is more like family jewels.

chicharrones
December 13, 2012, 11:32 AM
If I'm at the farm...rifle.

If I'm stuck in town...the 22 pistol can help me shoot cheaply at the indoor range.

Yep. When I had lots of easy access to open land or forests, I never saw the need for a pistol. Rifles were the first and only thought concerning .22s.

Now that I've been urbanized for the last decade, my .22 rifles don't get out in the fresh air so much. Pistols (regardless or caliber) have invaded my gun safe. :(

CraigC
December 13, 2012, 11:51 AM
I've never owned one and I don't plan on owning one.
That's obvious. Because if you had spent enough time with a good .22 handgun, you wouldn't have written most of that post. Those of us who have spent most of our lifetime small game hunting and working on our handgun skills know better. Any good fixed barrel auto is good for at least an inch at 50yds. Many will do better. Some will even halve that. If you can't reliably take small game out to 75yds, it's your own fault.


Every LEO I've discussed this issue with agreed...
Most LEO's are not shooters and only do enough shooting to keep their job.


Yes they can kill a person but for SD they are a big step down from what a rifle will do too.
Not really. Maybe 100-150fps.


So other than not carrying the extra weight I can't see too many advantages of a .22 handgun unless you like target shooting.
Ever try carrying a .22 rifle while doing something else?

rondog
December 13, 2012, 11:57 AM
I vote for rifle.

Roadking Rider
December 13, 2012, 12:25 PM
I like 22's in pistol and rifle,but if I just had to have one it would be a rifle.
Preferably in the form of a 10/22.

Vern Humphrey
December 13, 2012, 12:43 PM
As Elmer Keith said, a handgun is a weapon of opportunity. It's the gun you always have with you, and many a time when not hunting you get an opportunity to take game with it -- or defend yourself from a feral dog, and so on.

I normally hunt with a .22 rifle (Kimber M82 usually) but always carry a handgun -- even when walking out to the county road to get the mail.

Robert101
December 13, 2012, 02:27 PM
In using the question "what do I find most useful" I have to say the 22 Rifle. The useful and not necessarily enjoyable comes to mind. I have both and shoot both but these days I find myself shooting and enjoying rifles a bit more.

Vern Humphrey
December 13, 2012, 04:07 PM
I think people would be shocked at how quickly game animals would be depleted if they were hunted year round en masse for survival.
I think a large percentage of people would be shocked at how quickly they'd stave in the richest game country.

Hunting pressure in a true survival TEOTWAWKI situation wouldn't be much more than now -- because most people are lousy hunters.

breakingcontact
December 13, 2012, 06:49 PM
That's interesting. Imagine if the animals were being shot at they'd become very skittish if not move out of the area eventually.

Really thinking the 10/22 is more useful all things considered.

Vern Humphrey
December 13, 2012, 06:57 PM
That's interesting. Imagine if the animals were being shot at they'd become very skittish if not move out of the area eventually.
Given the skills of the average city dweller, how would he ever even see an animal to shoot at it?

If all the roads were lined with city boys looking for a deer, the deer would simply move a couple of hundred yards deeper into the woods and be perfectly safe.

Skribs
December 13, 2012, 06:59 PM
The question implies I find a .22 LR useful at all. Which, for my applications, I don't.

Boattale
December 13, 2012, 10:50 PM
Useful for what?

CraigC
December 13, 2012, 11:39 PM
IMHO, in a survival situation, we would run out of wild critters real fast.

Cee Zee
December 14, 2012, 03:30 AM
Punching paper at the range is what most people do with most of their firearms, from what I have observed

Uh, yeah. You need to get out more guy. The vast majority of gun owners use their guns for self defense, hunting and target shooting. Check out the Gallup Poll on the subject on this web page (http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx). Self defense is slightly the highest listed use for guns but the difference is very small. What the poll mostly shows is that gun owners use their guns for many reasons. Just for the record of all the guns I own only about 4 or 5 would be used for actual target shooting. I will sometimes shoot a few others at the range but only to practice for self defense purposes. Most of my guns never see a range. That would probably mean at least 80% of my guns never go to the range.

Cee Zee
December 14, 2012, 03:48 AM
Any good fixed barrel auto is good for at least an inch at 50yds. Many will do better. Some will even halve that. If you can't reliably take small game out to 75yds, it's your own fault.

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/images/smilies/sthumb.gif

Fiv3r
December 14, 2012, 07:26 AM
I always bring both a .22 pistol and rifle when i hit the range. For general hiking, a Ruger mk III on my hip with a spare mag in my vest pocket and a pill bottle filled with about 50the more rounds.
If I were heading out on foot for an indefinite period of time, I think I would opt to take the rifle. However, i would be able to feed myself pretty well for a good while with my only my pistol.

In short....i dunno:evil:

mcdonl
December 14, 2012, 11:11 AM
.22 revolver - It fits my trapping bucket.

Cee Zee... in fairness... those of us that hunt, and use our guns for self defense spend more time punching holes in paper WITH those same guns for that same purpose than we do actually harvesting game or shooting bad guys.

sixgunner455
December 14, 2012, 05:03 PM
Quote:
Punching paper at the range is what most people do with most of their firearms, from what I have observed

Uh, yeah. You need to get out more guy. The vast majority of gun owners use their guns for self defense, hunting and target shooting. Check out the Gallup Poll on the subject on this web page. Self defense is slightly the highest listed use for guns but the difference is very small. What the poll mostly shows is that gun owners use their guns for many reasons. Just for the record of all the guns I own only about 4 or 5 would be used for actual target shooting. I will sometimes shoot a few others at the range but only to practice for self defense purposes. Most of my guns never see a range. That would probably mean at least 80% of my guns never go to the range.

Condescending much?

I've carried a handgun for self defense purposes for a darn long time. I've never shot a bad guy with one, though. Cleared my coat a couple of times, cleared leather once.

In that same time period, I've fired untold thousands of rounds at the range - target shooting.

Most of my friends are gun owners, and will tell you similar stories, even the ones who have had to use those handguns all the way to dropping a hammer on someone.

Hunters of my acquaintance spend many more rounds at the range punching paper in preparation for hunting than they do on game animals, as do I. Perhaps that means that I am a terrible hunter. That is quite possible. It is even possible that everyone I know is a terrible hunter. But the fact remains that, with all the time I do spend at the range I am a member of, I see people spending lots of time and money shooting ammo at paper with guns of all descriptions.

A gun is a tool for shooting holes in stuff. What are you going to shoot it at most of the time, if not targets? Money can buy lots of guns. It can buy bullets. But it can't buy those perforated targets. That is why I can comfortably say that most gun owners of my acquaintance spend a lot more time shooting paper than they do actually using their guns in any other way, with the notable exception of carrying around a defensive pistol. In that case, you can quite convincingly argue that they are using it on a daily basis, even if they never fire it at anything at all.

Cee Zee
December 14, 2012, 08:38 PM
Cee Zee... in fairness... those of us that hunt, and use our guns for self defense spend more time punching holes in paper WITH those same guns for that same purpose than we do actually harvesting game or shooting bad guys.

You guys don't know the same hunters I do. I have always been around people that never picked up a gun unless they were going hunting. And most of my guns have never punched a hole in any paper of any kind. I gave a link to a survey for pity's sake. I wasn't being condescending. I was being truthful.

Lets' talk about my brothers. Both have been excellent shots as long as I can remember. They are both older than me. I have never once saw either one shoot a hole in a target. Never. They were avid hunters for 50 years until their bodies couldn't take them out to do the kind of hunting they love, coon hunting. But they both did a lot of squirrel hunting. For one summer in my life they got together once a week to shoot at pignuts or actually they shot at the stems that held them on to the tree in the front yard of the house we grew up in. Other than that I've never seen them do any kind of practice more than shooting one box of ammo with a pistol once every 4 or 5 years. My oldest brother has never owned a pistol though. He told me recently that he had rarely ever shot a pistol.

Yet those guys hunted hard for many, many years. When coon hides were bringing big money they were making big money by bringing in those hides. They must have shot 1000 of them over the course of 10 years or so when the prices were high. But they went even when the prices were down.

So yeah those guys shot at game probably 30-1 over shooting at any sort of a target and they never shoot holes in paper at all.

Now let's talk about the guys we knew in the outdoorsman club. Those guys were all like us. I never shot at more than 4 or 5 targets in my life until about 5 years ago BTW. Now I shoot targets and my brothers make fun of me for doing it. But all those guys in the club were like us. They didn't shoot for the sport of shooting. They shot to hunt.

You guys are from an entirely different culture than I am. I've been around people like this my entire life. The only practice shooting I ever saw was shooting clays to practice for quail hunting. We didn't need to practice on targets. We had varmints to shoot and we shot them when we felt like shooting. Bats were about our favorite targets. We shot them because they can be a deadly nuisance. They carry rabies, they nest in houses and they defend their nests by attacking anyone who gets near the nest. So we kept them away from our house by shooting them.

Just because the people you know are like you and shoot at gun ranges that doesn't mean the vast majority of people do that. A lot of them do but it certainly isn't some huge majority. I linked to a survey by a reputable company on the subject.

One other thing. You talk about people who carry guns for SD shooting more targets than shooting at people. That might be true but I certainly know people who carried a gun for SD for years and never shot it for anything much less for target practice. He would keep a gun for 15 years and never shoot it more than enough to see that it worked. That guy was my dad. I knew others like him too. Like my uncles and just about everyone else in my community at the time.

Not everyone shoots at ranges. I never went to a range until about 4 years ago. Never. But I can shoot very well thank you. We learned by shooting at things we needed to eat.

All I said was that guns were used for other reasons than shooting targets and it's true. I know that for a fact. I'll give one more example here. My mother's brother was a primary provider of food for my mother's family after my grandfather left my grandmother for some rich woman who liked the fact he was a pitcher for the Reds. My grandmother would give my uncle TWO shells and tell him to bring home something to eat. And he did just that. Yes they were poor but they certainly overcame it. Within 10 years my uncle owned a chain of gas stations in Los Angeles. My mother married my father who made $45,000 at his regular job plus what he made building houses and farming. My mother became a nurse. So back in the late 60's early 70's they were bringing in $100,000 a year between the two of them. That was big money then. But my uncle still keeps his guns around because he knows things can go wrong again and he'll need to feed himself.

I know not everyone is like we were. We were genuine hillbillies and proud of it. My mother went to school with Loretta Lynn if that tells you anything. There are millions of us though and the vast majority of them never dreamed of using a gun for entertainment. It was too expensive. Guns were tools and we used them as tools. From my mother stopping a would be rapist to my grandfather standing down a gang of bank robbers with a shotgun we certainly knew what a gun was good for. And at times we did use them as entertainment but by far the biggest use we had for them was to put food on the table or money in our pockets. That's the hillbilly way guys. And there are millions of us.

sixgunner455
December 15, 2012, 02:50 AM
So ... most of the people you know are like you, and most of the people I know are like me ... Isn't that interesting?

bannockburn
December 15, 2012, 07:30 AM
To me "all around useful" means I would have that particular gun with me at any time that I might need it. That would make a .22LR pistol much more versatile and useful to have than trying to carry a rifle along with me wherever I go.

amd6547
December 15, 2012, 10:17 AM
The obvious answer is...both.
A decent rimfire rifle along with a good rimfire handgun is one of the best combinations in firearms.

I really don't enjoy the snarky arguments here.

amd6547
December 15, 2012, 10:20 AM
Duplicate post, due to screwy wifi.

j1
December 15, 2012, 10:20 AM
To answer the question as asked I would have to say rifle as it is more accurate, but I immediately wish to add why not both/

CraigC
December 15, 2012, 10:51 AM
If the challenge is between a guy that uses a box of ammo a year shooting rabbits and squirrels and a guy that burns 20,000rds a year punching paper, my money is on the paper puncher. If it's between those two and a guy who supplements his family's meat supply with wild game throughout the year AND burns 20,000rds at targets, then he has the clear advantage. There are advantages to both but there simply is no substitute for trigger time.

chicharrones
December 15, 2012, 11:41 AM
I never shot at more than 4 or 5 targets in my life until about 5 years ago BTW. Now I shoot targets and my brothers make fun of me for doing it. But all those guys in the club were like us. I never went to a range until about 4 years ago. Never.

I'm curious what has made you take up range shooting?

I grew up in the far far suburbs of a large city and hardly went to a range either since I could just go out on the land or I could drive out to someone else's land. Sure, I did some paper target shooting, but that was almost entirely while in the Boy Scouts.

This all changed for me about 10 or so years ago. Urban sprawl passed me by reducing my access to nearby land so I just moved further into the urban environment to shorten my time in traffic. That's because my job will forever be tied to cities. The result for me is I spend at least 50% of my shooting time punching paper now. I still get to shoot some non-paper plinking targets in the woods about twice a month, but it sure isn't like it was before.

Also, I've never been to an indoor gun range until about 5 years ago either. That is another transition to urban shooting and the increase in my handgun ownership due to that urban transition.

Anyway, I was wondering if what happened to me also happened to others here at THR.

TimboKhan
December 15, 2012, 12:27 PM
This one is off the rails like a crazy train. Good night now.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which do you find more all around useful, a 22 pistol or a 22 rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!