entropy
Member
Winner, Winner, chicken dinner! Best of both worlds. Be sure to put a lot of lead downrange with the .22 kit first,,,,about 5000 rounds should do it, assuming you have a good teacher with you for the first 100 or so.
Is a .22 Pistol really any good for practice.
- Thread starter GoInnaWoods
- Start date
- Status
Dog Soldier
member
The best .22 trainer was the old Colt 1911 Ace. It had a floating chamber that gave recoil similar to a 230 grs .45 ACP. They had to be cleaned often and were not match grade accurate. But I miss my old Ace.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,309
I always have started out new shooters with a .22, be it revolver or semi-auto. Great way to lay the foundation for trigger control, obtaining a good sight picture, and having the right grip/stance when shooting. From there it's a very easy and natural transition to a centerfire cartridge like a .38 Special or 9mm. in a full size gun.
Another way to go would be buying a 1911 in whatever caliber you like and then adding a .22 conversion assembly for it, like this one from TacSol.
Another way to go would be buying a 1911 in whatever caliber you like and then adding a .22 conversion assembly for it, like this one from TacSol.
kBob
Member
Dog Soldier,
Ya had to go and remind me of my worst trade ever! Traded away my Colt Conversion "Ace" unit for something I just had to have at the time that wasn't worth my time anyway. I had shot it so much in the three years I had it that my beloved RST-4 seldom saw the light of day. I found that when shooting copper clad style ammo rather than plain lead that I had no difficulty with the floating chamber through a session of 50 to 100 rounds. I used to show up at the range and shoot my Mark IV Series 70 .45ACP with what was in the gun, drop the slide group and mag, put on the conversion unit and load up the .22 mags and shoot "until" then reassemble my carry gun and shoot my spare mags and mayhaps a bit more and all was right with the world.
Sure the conversion units are neat.......on the other hand if you buy the .22 stand alone now it will cost a lot less than both a service pistol and conversion unit right now AND once you have learned decent shooting habits and saved some money shooting .22s (our local "Dick's" sporting goods has had several brands in stock the half year they have been open at less than scalper prices) you can go buy the service pistol of your dreams and have two pistols. Maybe even once you have both, trade your used .22 for a conversion unit if there is one for your service pistol.
Again getting a .22 pistol, especially one that sort of mimics the service pistol you have an eye on, is a good idea.
And don't make bad trades.......
-kBob
Ya had to go and remind me of my worst trade ever! Traded away my Colt Conversion "Ace" unit for something I just had to have at the time that wasn't worth my time anyway. I had shot it so much in the three years I had it that my beloved RST-4 seldom saw the light of day. I found that when shooting copper clad style ammo rather than plain lead that I had no difficulty with the floating chamber through a session of 50 to 100 rounds. I used to show up at the range and shoot my Mark IV Series 70 .45ACP with what was in the gun, drop the slide group and mag, put on the conversion unit and load up the .22 mags and shoot "until" then reassemble my carry gun and shoot my spare mags and mayhaps a bit more and all was right with the world.
Sure the conversion units are neat.......on the other hand if you buy the .22 stand alone now it will cost a lot less than both a service pistol and conversion unit right now AND once you have learned decent shooting habits and saved some money shooting .22s (our local "Dick's" sporting goods has had several brands in stock the half year they have been open at less than scalper prices) you can go buy the service pistol of your dreams and have two pistols. Maybe even once you have both, trade your used .22 for a conversion unit if there is one for your service pistol.
Again getting a .22 pistol, especially one that sort of mimics the service pistol you have an eye on, is a good idea.
And don't make bad trades.......
-kBob
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Recoil control is important but it is a single factor among many. Proficiency is totally dependent on sound fundamentals. For that, nothing is a better teacher than a .22LR. I guarantee that if you polled all shooters, the vast majority of those with the greatest skill learned on a .22LR. I typically dismiss the rhetoric from those who didn't. If yo don't think that rimfire practice prepares you for the 9mm, take this for what it's worth. I am primarily a revolver shooter and those I shoot the most are big bore hunting sixguns, including .44Mag, .45Colt, .480Ruger and .500JRH. I still dedicate the majority of my trigger time to .22's.
The idea of getting either a conversion kit or a .22 on a similar platform to your carry gun is also a good one. I'm fairly proficient with a 1911 and learned most of that with a Ciener conversion kit. However, you really need to learn to shoot before you will know what you like so my suggestion would be to start with a more accurate fixed barrel auto like the Browning Buckmark, Ruger MK-series or S&W Victory. Realize that this is not something you accomplish in a few trips to the range but an involved process and the degree of success you achieve is completely dependent on your degree of commitment.
The idea of getting either a conversion kit or a .22 on a similar platform to your carry gun is also a good one. I'm fairly proficient with a 1911 and learned most of that with a Ciener conversion kit. However, you really need to learn to shoot before you will know what you like so my suggestion would be to start with a more accurate fixed barrel auto like the Browning Buckmark, Ruger MK-series or S&W Victory. Realize that this is not something you accomplish in a few trips to the range but an involved process and the degree of success you achieve is completely dependent on your degree of commitment.
Glock Doctor
Member
I've been shooting pistols for more than 40 years (teaching them too). I still have two of the first four 22 LR pistols I ever purchased back in the 1970's. In spite of ALL the other pistols I own these two 22's have never been for sale, and will NOT be for sale during the remainder of my lifetime. Be it a revolver or a semi-auto, a decent 22 LR pistol is always useful to have around. It's NOT a gun that you should ever need to part with.
If I were just starting out again today, I'd get one of THESE (and, then, keep it for the rest of my life)!
If I were just starting out again today, I'd get one of THESE (and, then, keep it for the rest of my life)!
VThillman
Member
There are several good reasons for starting with a .22LR besides cheaper ammo. If you 'have a plan' for the SD/carry gun in your future, you can start with a 22 that has the same or at least similar controls. For the plan that culminates with a 1911, there are multiple 1911-like 22s out there - including conversions. The Ruger SR-22 transitions pretty well to several semiauto models that derive from the CZ-75. The Charter Arms 22 snubby revolver takes you to several centerfire revolvers with nearly identical controls.
There's a pretty big plus involved too: You can get down with the basics, including getting used to the Noise of Ignition, with much less chance of contracting the very annoying Flinch Syndrome. There is still recoil to be encountered, but if you avoid magnums and 10mm for awhile, that's really not a deal breaker.
There's a pretty big plus involved too: You can get down with the basics, including getting used to the Noise of Ignition, with much less chance of contracting the very annoying Flinch Syndrome. There is still recoil to be encountered, but if you avoid magnums and 10mm for awhile, that's really not a deal breaker.
welcome to the high road, gollna woods!
an accurate, full size 22lr semi-auto pistol should always be the "first" handgun for a new shooter. basic handgun skills must be learned first and must be practiced often to build and keep a solid foundation for learning further skills. this type of pistol is best for that purpose.
imo,
murf
an accurate, full size 22lr semi-auto pistol should always be the "first" handgun for a new shooter. basic handgun skills must be learned first and must be practiced often to build and keep a solid foundation for learning further skills. this type of pistol is best for that purpose.
imo,
murf
dieselchief
Member
i spent the same amount of money a nice cabin or corvette would cost on handguns during the last 45 years. nowadays back to a good 22, lol. dc
Dog Soldier
member
Yes, I traded my Ace to another Lion Hunter in Colorado. He sold his Wolf Hounds horse and traded me his S&W .44 29-2 8 3/8" Nickle. Cabala's had an Ace conversion for $500 bucks I was tempted but passed it up.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,985
I've been instructing new handgunners for over 15yrs, and without question, there is merit to using a full size, target style pistol or full length revolver 22LR for practice. Think Ruger Mark I/II/III/IV, Buckmark, S&W Victory, Colt Woodsman, Beretta U22 NEOS, etc or Single Six, SP101, GP100, Rough Rider, Tracker, etc. This is not a knock on any of these models, but I have NOT seen the same advantage in using a carry or combat type 22LR for this purpose, so I don't recommend pistols like the SR22, Mosquito, P22, M&P22, LCR-22, etc. They're great pistols, without question, but they don't offer the same degree of performance and foundation development as target style pistols. (Readily expecting a flame-off from a hundred people who love their combat style 22LR. Again, they're great handguns, and a ton of fun, but for training purposes, I have not seen them match target style pistols for technical development.
The cost is one advantage, but the prime benefit is found in the enhanced technical and fundamental establishment. Few handguns - especially in their price class, will be as accurate as a target style 22LR, and having that access to accuracy, coupled with minimal recoil is incredibly telling for the shooter, and the less "alibis and lies" your pistol allows you to tell, the faster you'll develop your true skills as a shooter, and the greater the level of skill overall.
For my "new handgunner" classes, I have always recommended this advice, "If your first handgun is a defensive or hunting pistol, then it should be your SECOND pistol, and your first should be a 22LR." The advantage pays itself back in spades. Saving on ammo is only a side benefit.
The cost is one advantage, but the prime benefit is found in the enhanced technical and fundamental establishment. Few handguns - especially in their price class, will be as accurate as a target style 22LR, and having that access to accuracy, coupled with minimal recoil is incredibly telling for the shooter, and the less "alibis and lies" your pistol allows you to tell, the faster you'll develop your true skills as a shooter, and the greater the level of skill overall.
For my "new handgunner" classes, I have always recommended this advice, "If your first handgun is a defensive or hunting pistol, then it should be your SECOND pistol, and your first should be a 22LR." The advantage pays itself back in spades. Saving on ammo is only a side benefit.
Catpop
Member
Learn to master shooting first!
22 is cheaper, say 6 cent/ round.
Then step up to master recoil!
10 cent plus/round.
I personally shoot 50 22 at range to satisfy my need to burn powder by killing cans, then I pull out centerfire 38 or greater reloads
for another 50.
Jmho
22 is cheaper, say 6 cent/ round.
Then step up to master recoil!
10 cent plus/round.
I personally shoot 50 22 at range to satisfy my need to burn powder by killing cans, then I pull out centerfire 38 or greater reloads
for another 50.
Jmho
GoInnaWoods
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2017
- Messages
- 5
Thanks for the good advice, I will be going with a .22. I figured I would end up using it for years down the line, so the cost of a good one doesn't necessarily turn me off. That said, I might as well ask MKIII or 10/22? I will probably take up long guns again too, so if I'm going to learn it all again, I should probably start with the most basic principles. Is a pistol or rifle recommended for this?
22's are considered by many to be an ideal handgun to start with as ammo is cheap compared to centerfire and low recoil.
FWIW, a few years ago a state police agency tries training new recruits with 22's first and then going to their issue 357. They found that the shooting skills learned on the 22 really didn't transfer over to the 357. Instead of lowering training costs, using 22's first just added to it. They abandoned using 22s.
You can get decent 9mm ammo for around $10 for 50. Thats about twice the cost of good 22 where I live. I think the Glock 19 is the best all around 9mm out there but there are others.
Don't get me wrong. Even if you start with a 9mm you'll probably wind up getting a 22 eventually. 22's make for cheap shooting fun. I would also take a 22 over a rock or a stick for SD any day.
FWIW, a few years ago a state police agency tries training new recruits with 22's first and then going to their issue 357. They found that the shooting skills learned on the 22 really didn't transfer over to the 357. Instead of lowering training costs, using 22's first just added to it. They abandoned using 22s.
You can get decent 9mm ammo for around $10 for 50. Thats about twice the cost of good 22 where I live. I think the Glock 19 is the best all around 9mm out there but there are others.
Don't get me wrong. Even if you start with a 9mm you'll probably wind up getting a 22 eventually. 22's make for cheap shooting fun. I would also take a 22 over a rock or a stick for SD any day.
peterk1234
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2017
- Messages
- 272
I have only had a license to carry for six months. The one thing I learned when I took my LTC course is that I am in no way qualified to conceal carry, at least not yet. I realized that I need to take a number of classes that teach me how to properly react to various situations that could happen in a public environment. I am not getting on a soapbox here, just sharing a personal experience and making a case for getting a nice big double action 22 revolver. I own a gp 100 22 (and a mark III). I love 22s. You can fire off 300 rounds and it only costs you twenty bucks. Trigger time is so important. Someone told me that shooting is a diminishing skill, meaning if you do not practice, you lose your accuracy and good form. I really enjoy shooting, and my wife and I unload at least 1500 rounds per month. About 75% of that is with the 22. The heavy DA of the 22 revolver will help you with trigger control, and I believe that is the key to good shooting. The revolver is also the safest firearm. Not much to think about. It was not our first purchase. We purchased a Sig p938, a conceal carry gun. I found it very difficult to shoot. Now I am pretty good with it, but only because, my larger, more user friendly guns helped me with proper form. Pete
entropy
Member
The standard THR answer to this is: Get both!
But if you are considering carrying, a Ruger Mk (IV, as murf suggests; SO much easier to clean!) would be a better investment. The basic skills transfer over from pistol to rifle more so than rifle to pistol, and as peterk1234 points out, pistol skills are much more perishable than rifle skills; they need frequent refreshing.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The two are 'almost' mutually exclusive. Practice with a .22 rifle will do very, very little to help your pistol shooting skill and vice versa.
Then I would say the fault was in the training, not the equipment.
JMO, and all, but shootin's shootin'. The fundamentals are the same, so as long as you put your efforts into sight picture/trigger control, there's quite a lot of overlap. That's not to say there's not a learning curve when transitioning to the other platform, but if your fundamentals are strong, that learning curve will be steep and quick. Master the fundamentals, and the (shooting) world is your oyster
. As far as a .22 for practice, I'll echo the others that it's an excellent training tool; but to emphasize my above point again, it's an excellent training tool so long as you train excellently with it. Just sending .22 bullets downrange will not only not help your CF shooting, it'll actually hurt it.
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
There are a few fundamentals that carry over between long guns & pistols, but for the most part - in my opinion - they're two pretty different skillsets. I'd start with what you plan on using most. If you're looking to carry for defensive purposes, either now or down the road, that means a handgun would be the ticket.
That's assuming you have to choose. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts you'll end up with both in short order
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Shooting is shooting but only to a point. The only real overlap is trigger control. The interface between the shooter's body is completely different. Which is to say that rifles are exponentially easier. Consistency in the way you hold and manipulate a rifle is far easier than a handgun. In my experience, flinching is completely different and almost entirely unrelated between the two. For example, I developed a flinch about 3yrs ago shooting a Ruger .480 Super Redhawk with crappy rosewood Hogue grips. It affected ALL my centerfire handgun shooting and had to be worked out with rimfires. It had no effect on my rifle shooting whatsoever.JMO, and all, but shootin's shootin'. The fundamentals are the same, so as long as you put your efforts into sight picture/trigger control, there's quite a lot of overlap. That's not to say there's not a learning curve when transitioning to the other platform, but if your fundamentals are strong, that learning curve will be steep and quick. Master the fundamentals, and the (shooting) world is your oyster
As far as a .22 for practice, I'll echo the others that it's an excellent training tool; but to emphasize my above point again, it's an excellent training tool so long as you train excellently with it. Just sending .22 bullets downrange will not only not help your CF shooting, it'll actually hurt it.
Shooting rifles is not going to help your handgun proficiency. If you don't believe that, watch Craig Boddington shoot a handgun. Reminds me of a certain saying involving a monkey and a football. It's that way with a great many rifle shooters. Handgun shooting is almost completely foreign to them and as such, they suck at it. Most will even admit it.
I think most of us have been doing it so long (I shot my first handgun at 4 and bought my first at 12), we tend to forget just how much effort it took to get here. IMHO, if you want to get good with a handgun, you have to practice with handguns.
I did say there was a learning curve, but chances are, rifle shooters who discover they suck at handgun shooting don't put themselves through that curve. Most wouldn't. I suck at busting clays, and I still suck because I rarely do it
.We also don't know just how much mastery of the fundamentals Boddington et al. have. The former's a prolific hunter and writer, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd really stack up well against good rifle shooters. If you don't have mastery of the fundamentals before moving on, you won't have them after, either.
I agree that if one wants to gain handgun proficiency, a .22 handgun would be a better choice than a .22 rifle, but I was responding to your earlier point that there's almost no overlap between the two platforms. My experience tells me there is. YMMV.
I don't think it was the fault of training. Most LE recruits have very little or no experience with fireams. The instructors have trained hundreds, if not thousands.
The military seems to be able to train thousands a year without starting with 22s. They do use simulators but they also simulate recoil.
Ed Ames
Member
I won't speculate on the quality of the instruction, but I don't know if your anecdote is directly relevant.
Training requires practice. Many thousands of rounds fired. There are costs associated with the volume of practice required. Those costs are small for a well funded government in peacetime. They are moderate for a normal police department. They are significant for most individuals.
A peacetime military may be able to provide ample training ammunition from their normal rotation of aging stockpiles, making training ammo effectively free. They may in fact have more ammo aging out than they can use in practice. There is little reason for procuring reduced cost training ammo at the same time you are discarding ammo due to age. But in wartime...well, there was .22 training in WWII.
Likewise, a state police training agency is likely training a very small number of recruits and could easily absorb the equivalent of a year's salary per recruit in training ammo...which is likely more than it would actually cost. Since it is not their money being spent they have little or no incentive to economize, though they may have reason to justify the expense publicly.
Both of those cases also have time constraints. It takes time to practice, and each extra day of training costs money.
But does that apply to the OP?
I would be happy to learn that spending $1,500 instead of $500 for an equivalent number of practice rounds was not a financial consideration...or $10,000 vs $500 for that matter, but realistically the odds are that it is. It is generally going to be more likely that limiting an individual to practicing only with center fire ammo means cutting the amount of practice. $1,500 will pay for 10,000rds of cheap 9mm, or 20,000rds of .22 plus 3,333rds of cheap 9mm. Same dollars, more than twice the rounds fired. Also more time required but if it is a hobby instead of a job that's not a bad thing.
If you put someone who has shot 10,000rds of 9mm against someone who has shot 9,900rds of .22 and 100rds of 9mm I'd bet on the person who shot 10,000rds of 9mm. On the other hand if you put someone who has shot 10,000rds of 9mm against someone who has shot 20,000rds of .22 and 3,333rds of 9mm? I'm going to bet on the one with 23,333rds of practice.
Your story likely came from a time and round count limited training course. They likely fired similar round counts for the .22+.357 class as for the .357 only class. If that's the case, your story is completely plausible, but I don't know that it is relevant.
- Status
