I own a 2" SP101 and like it as a defensive handgun. I've recently developed an interest in potentially picking up a Ruger MkIV for range use. Just looking at it as a fun gun, I'm sure it would do well, and ammo cost would be a small fraction of what I'm paying for factory .38 Spl. But given the vast differences in trigger weight and feel, potentially grip angle (I'm having trouble eyeballing the similarities or differences), etc, I'm not sure whether spending a bunch of time shooting something like the MkIV would improve or diminish performance with the SP101. Does shooting a very different sort of handgun improve handgun skill overall, or am I better off just concentrating on revolvers if that's what I'd be using in an emergency?
Carryover from a 22LR target pistol to a defensive revolver?
- Thread starter Mitlov
- Start date
- Status
Alec
Member
Agreed. I think there’s a certain amount of similarity that translates well (e.g. between a PPK and a 92FS), but devoting equal practice to an entirely different manual of arms will dilute your proficiency with both.
What drew you the MkIV in the first place? If you’re really looking for a semiauto, you might consider a DAO pistol without an active safety. That might be as close as it gets, at least in the trigger. The way it points/grip angle is another story.
What drew you the MkIV in the first place? If you’re really looking for a semiauto, you might consider a DAO pistol without an active safety. That might be as close as it gets, at least in the trigger. The way it points/grip angle is another story.
What caught my eye about the MkIV:
* Low price compared to the revolver scene (both purchase price and ammo cost)
* Ease of cleaning compared to some other target pistols (especially prior Rugers)
* Dramatically longer sight radius and vastly improved sights compared to my SP101 for range fun
* ...its looks (sorry, true, and especially true of the Hunter model with the fluted barrel and wood side-panels)
But I wouldn't say I'm "really looking for a semi-auto." I had a 1911 and sold it, and I'm personally even less into the Glock/etc scene. I like the simplicity of a double-action revolver (in terms of manual of arms and cleaning, obviously not its internal mechanics), I personally prefer a very heavy trigger, and I dunno, I just kinda think revolvers are cool.
MedWheeler
Member
If you're not thinking of the .22 as a training stand-in for a defensive-use gun, I don't see an issue. There is nothing wrong with having multiple firearms for multiple uses. As noted, though, you will be learning on two entirely different platforms, but mindset and practice can keep skill with one from impairing ability with the other. Owning and shooting both autoloaders and wheelguns is not a novel concept, and nowhere in your post are you saying the auto would be a training double for your SP (you said you're "looking at it as a 'fun gun'".)
As an aside, my first handgun was a .357 revolver. About three weeks into it, I was back at the store picking up a Mk-II (this was back in 1987, and I still have both.) However, the reason was more about cost of ammo than manual-of-arms. Of course they didn't handle similarly, but I was able to more than hold my own with either for a long time..
As an aside, my first handgun was a .357 revolver. About three weeks into it, I was back at the store picking up a Mk-II (this was back in 1987, and I still have both.) However, the reason was more about cost of ammo than manual-of-arms. Of course they didn't handle similarly, but I was able to more than hold my own with either for a long time..
sparkyv
Member
I agree with MedWheeler. The MkIV won't negatively affect your performance with the SP101, nor will it improve it save for possibly one thing. Trigger discipline. If you devote a portion of your .22LR range time by diligently practicing your trigger discipline, it can help with the SP101. Of course, dry firing the SP101 will also help in this matter. The MkIV is a fine pistol (you listed four excellent reasons why) and very fun indeed!
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,876
After 20yrs of instructing new handgunners, without question, the 22lr Ruger Mark IV will aid in your overall development of handgunning fundamentals. It will pay itself off in ammo savings to reach the same level of proficiency.
Jim Watson
Member
Some old guy, I think his name was Cooper, said "You can learn about 80% of what you need to know with a .22."
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Due to the way .22LR small frame double action revolvers are sprung to consistently light off rimfire ammo, you can consider these guns hand exercisers in DA mode. It would strengthen your trigger finger(s) which should make shooting the centerfire SP101 in DA mode easier.
However, not all guns need to be bought for defensive purposes only. If the Ruger MKIV is what is calling you, get it. Target type .22 auto loaders are fantastic for fun and for making you a better shooter with all types of guns, IMO.
I figure most of us here at THR have both revolvers and pistols, and we like 'em all (well most of 'em anyway). Whether for fun or for potential defensive use.
However, not all guns need to be bought for defensive purposes only. If the Ruger MKIV is what is calling you, get it. Target type .22 auto loaders are fantastic for fun and for making you a better shooter with all types of guns, IMO.
I figure most of us here at THR have both revolvers and pistols, and we like 'em all (well most of 'em anyway). Whether for fun or for potential defensive use.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
By the way, if you don't have any semi auto pistols of any kind, getting a MKIV will make you familiar with semi-auto pistol controls. Especially if you get a MKIV 22/45 due to grip angle (replicates defense type pistols). Which means it will be easier to transition to other defensive pistols than if all you ever shoot are revolvers.
Last edited:
Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,803
I regularly shoot a variety of revolvers and semiautomatics. If that hurts your shooting skills, I wouldn't be able to hit the ground on purpose anymore. 
To me, paying attention to how you use the sights and trigger is the same for either one.
Those Rugers are nice. My shooting buddy has a Mark II or III (I forget which). It is every bit as good as my Buck Mark. Even though I'm a revolver guy, I don't shoot anything else as well as I shoot a quality 22lr semiautomatic.
With just a little bit of practice on a Mark IV, you will be quite impressed by how well you can shoot it.
To me, paying attention to how you use the sights and trigger is the same for either one.
Those Rugers are nice. My shooting buddy has a Mark II or III (I forget which). It is every bit as good as my Buck Mark. Even though I'm a revolver guy, I don't shoot anything else as well as I shoot a quality 22lr semiautomatic.
With just a little bit of practice on a Mark IV, you will be quite impressed by how well you can shoot it.
My view is that it will absolutely help. A 2" sp-101 is not an easy gun to shoot. You are facing a bunch of challenges trying to shoot it well - holding the gun on target, aligning the sights and target, pulling the trigger straight to the rear, managing a long, heavy, crunchy pull, dealing with fairly vigorous recoil.... you've got a lot on your plate. A Ruger Mk X will take several of those off your plate, and let you focus better on the remaining ones. Here are some ways that a .22lr semi-auto (such as a MK --) will help someone trying to get better with an SP-101:
Don't worry about "grip angle." That is a big deal when it comes to indexing (i.e., rapidly drawing or otherwise presenting the gun, and having the sights immediately aligned on the target with no conscious process at all). It has little or nothing to do with basic marksmanship or shooting on a square range.
Also: We have all heard the old adage about "beware the man who has only one gun... he probably knows how to shoot it." I have yet to find a single instance of that being true. Getting good at shooting takes a lot of time and effort (particularly when it comes to handguns). People who like to shoot generally like guns enough to have at least a couple of them.
- The longer sight radius and easier trigger and reduced recoil will let you see your current level of accuracy skill very clearly. Shooting an easy, accurate gun will help you recallibrate what is achievable in terms of accuracy.
- The reduced recoil will make it easier to practice without developing a flinch/blink. If you've already got one of those, it will help you cure it.
- A small revolver's sights move a LOT in recoil. It will be much easier to learn to track the sights in recoil on a target-oriented .22 - and then you can bring that back over. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then that just illustrates my point.
Don't worry about "grip angle." That is a big deal when it comes to indexing (i.e., rapidly drawing or otherwise presenting the gun, and having the sights immediately aligned on the target with no conscious process at all). It has little or nothing to do with basic marksmanship or shooting on a square range.
Also: We have all heard the old adage about "beware the man who has only one gun... he probably knows how to shoot it." I have yet to find a single instance of that being true. Getting good at shooting takes a lot of time and effort (particularly when it comes to handguns). People who like to shoot generally like guns enough to have at least a couple of them.
I don't think a .22LR pistol is good for training someone who is already reasonably proficient with a .38 or .45. I recently started shooting handguns and started with a DAO Airweight J Frame in .38 Spc. The learning curve was steep, but I quickly became proficient in basic marksmanship. Then I bought a .22LR revolver with a larger sight radius. I didn't buy it with the intention to train with it. I bought it purely to have fun plinking with my kids. But I did consider the idea of using a .22 J frame for training. After shooting the larger .22, I decided I would be much better off spending the money on ammo. The experience is just too different. I think for someone who does not need to shoot a .38 or .45 anytime soon, like my kids, or anyone who is in it just for fun or sport, the .22 has a lot to offer. I don't care for the .22/45 because I don't think it's as good as a Mark IV. If you're totally devoted to the 1911, just shoot a 1911.
Ammo is inexpensive at the moment. You can get big-name factory .38 in brass case cartridges for 25 to 30 cents if you find sales or buy in bulk and ship it. I reload (and I recommend reloading), but it will take me 7000 rounds or more to break-even on the cost of my reloading equipment at current prices. Buy in bulk and save your brass.
I considered whether a .22 is good for avoiding flinch/blink or whether it can help resolve/cure such a problem. There are threads discussing flinch solutions. The conclusion I came to for myself is that low-recoil guns can help develop other fundamentals without interference from flinch/blink, but a shooter will still have to overcome recoil/flinch/blink and not just avoid it. You can develop the fundamentals of stance, grip, sight-alignment, and trigger control with dry-fire. The .22 will not help overcome effects of recoil because it doesn't present a significant amount to be overcome. It's not a cure, it's just avoidance. It is certainly a more fun way to develop fundamentals compared to dry fire.
With that said, the .22LR revolver I bought is the most fun gun I have, and a Mark IV is the next one I'll acquire.
Ammo is inexpensive at the moment. You can get big-name factory .38 in brass case cartridges for 25 to 30 cents if you find sales or buy in bulk and ship it. I reload (and I recommend reloading), but it will take me 7000 rounds or more to break-even on the cost of my reloading equipment at current prices. Buy in bulk and save your brass.
I considered whether a .22 is good for avoiding flinch/blink or whether it can help resolve/cure such a problem. There are threads discussing flinch solutions. The conclusion I came to for myself is that low-recoil guns can help develop other fundamentals without interference from flinch/blink, but a shooter will still have to overcome recoil/flinch/blink and not just avoid it. You can develop the fundamentals of stance, grip, sight-alignment, and trigger control with dry-fire. The .22 will not help overcome effects of recoil because it doesn't present a significant amount to be overcome. It's not a cure, it's just avoidance. It is certainly a more fun way to develop fundamentals compared to dry fire.
With that said, the .22LR revolver I bought is the most fun gun I have, and a Mark IV is the next one I'll acquire.
That's like saying running 5 miles isn't useful in training to run a 10 mile race, and is just "avoiding" distance. You're giving a smaller dose of the same inputs, adapting, and then you can increase the inputs.
Also, people who have never fought a flinch don't have any clue what a flinch is about. Flinching is about the eyes. Overcoming a flinch is about training the eyes to be quiet and to continue seeing. Physical fear of impending pain is not a prerequisite to a flinch. Lack of pain will not make a flinch go away... nobody who flinches shooting 9mm or 38 special is getting hurt in any way. Flinching is not primarily about "overcoming recoil." In fact, trying to "overcome recoil" is precisely what flinchers are doing - they're just doing it fractionally too soon, and with their eyes closed, so they don't get any immediate feedback that they are shoving the gun around.
Dry fire doesn't have anything to do with a true flinch. Dry fire is awesome for trigger control. It doesn't fix a true flinch because, unlike a 22, it does not provide any of the input that must be adapted to.
Last edited:
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,876
Yup - 22LR DOES provide a recoil stimulus, so the shooter is able to train their trigger discipline, sight alignment, target picture hold, breathing, and follow through with a reduced negative stimulus. It’s much like practicing football at “bump off” speeds, or practicing boxing with light sparring. All of the cues are the same, but the consequence is reduced, so the shooter is able to develop a solid foundation, which is more resistant to flinch once the consequence is increased.
The science is all available, empirical evidence is all available. Light recoiling training firearms, even in different formats, have been successfully employed for practice for generations, and continue to be so.
The economics work out really quickly as well. Quick math at 25c/shot on 38spcl and 10c/shoot on 22LR shows a $350 Mark IV pays itself off in 2,350 rounds. That’s only a couple months at my house. Even the more expensive $600 models pay themselves back within 4,000rnds.
The science is all available, empirical evidence is all available. Light recoiling training firearms, even in different formats, have been successfully employed for practice for generations, and continue to be so.
The economics work out really quickly as well. Quick math at 25c/shot on 38spcl and 10c/shoot on 22LR shows a $350 Mark IV pays itself off in 2,350 rounds. That’s only a couple months at my house. Even the more expensive $600 models pay themselves back within 4,000rnds.
Including blast/flash/noise. Not a lot, but something. All of which is critical. (Well, the blast and noise are critical to generating the flinch impulse, while the flash is very useful in measuring/detecting progress.)
Zendude
Member
Practicing with the Mark IV might end up more expensive. The accuracy you will shoot from the Mark IV might shake your confidence in the SP 101 and cause you to buy a new carry gun ( plus holster, extra mags, and such) that you can shoot more accurately than a revolver.
Ask me and my bank account how I know this.
Ask me and my bank account how I know this.
rpenmanparker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,456
OP, the single action target gun will teach you that there is little upside to a DA revolver. Let us know which one you can shoot better.
Thanks everyone for all the thoughts.
You know, the price difference between a MkIV and an SP 101 4.2" 22LR is not nearly as much as I thought. Maybe that would be a better plan overall because it'd keep the same manual of arms and grip shape as my defensive handgun, while giving me the low ammo price, low recoil, and better sights to help work on my fundamentals?
Still on the fence, no decisions made yet.
At least for me, I don't anticipate that a MkIV would be a gateway drug to autoloaders as a whole. The SP101 is actually the second handgun I've owned. I started with a 1911 and personally, the snubbie just suited me more in the end.
You know, the price difference between a MkIV and an SP 101 4.2" 22LR is not nearly as much as I thought. Maybe that would be a better plan overall because it'd keep the same manual of arms and grip shape as my defensive handgun, while giving me the low ammo price, low recoil, and better sights to help work on my fundamentals?
Still on the fence, no decisions made yet.
At least for me, I don't anticipate that a MkIV would be a gateway drug to autoloaders as a whole. The SP101 is actually the second handgun I've owned. I started with a 1911 and personally, the snubbie just suited me more in the end.
Zendude
Member
If you have the time, another option is to reload your own 38 special ammo. 38 is one of the easiest cartridges to reload, and the cost of components is about 13 cents per round or less.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
If it makes the justification easier, you know that revolvers don't need magazines. For some reason, I like to have at least four magazines for each autoloader I have. Which adds cost to the gun.
Now, if you do buy speed loaders for the revolvers, they are usually cheaper than magazines by quite a bit.
If it makes the justification easier, you know that revolvers don't need magazines. For some reason, I like to have at least four magazines for each autoloader I have. Which adds cost to the gun.
Now, if you do buy speed loaders for the revolvers, they are usually cheaper than magazines by quite a bit.
I often make justifications like this. My wife is never actually convinced, but hey, it's the effort that counts, right?
Buck13
Member
Get a MkWhatever or the .22 revolver for range fun and do dry-fire practice with the .38 almost every day. Done right (see video below), that should drastically improve your accuracy with the few live rounds you put through the .38 at the range, then you can stay there and shoot as long as you like shooting sweet, cheap AutoMatch, or the .22 of your choice.
aarondhgraham
Member
One thing you might consider,,,
Getting a .22 that is more similar (or identical) to your centerfire handgun.
Just a thought.
Aarond
.
Getting a .22 that is more similar (or identical) to your centerfire handgun.
Just a thought.
Aarond
.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
