Is a .22 Pistol really any good for practice.

[chicharrones]

Is a .22 Pistol really any good for practice?

As if you didn't need another response, my answer is Yes.

Welcome to The High Road, by the way.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

And yet another probable not needed response, I just shot my new el cheapo .22 SA revolver for the first time today, AFTER I shot 100rds through my plastic 9mm's.

First impressions are, not only do I think I will enjoy shooting this little .22 I think it will without a doubt aid in shooting larger caliber pistols.

I would also suggest, after my shooting experience today, that a larger heavier SA or DA revolver in .22 would probably be more beneficial than a light semi in terms of training.

 

[Jim K]

Go for a good .22 reasonably close to what you think you would like as a carry gun, then practice with the less expensive .22 ammo. That approach will let you get acquainted with handguns in general and a general type as well. Please ignore the folks who insist on nothing smaller than a .99 caliber Blastenboomer firing a 4500 grain bullet at 50,000 miles per second. OK, joke, but the loudest, hottest gun around is not the place to begin (or resume) shooting, no matter what the "experts" say. Like filling out your driver's license application and your entry ticket to the Indy 500 at the same time.

Jim

 

[GoInnaWoods]

So, are people actually suggesting that I get a .22 revolver with with a heavy DA pull, rather than a target-type semi (MKIV/Buckmark) in order to master trigger control (I guess it's an "if you can shoot this well, than anything else is easier?). Would that help or hinder skill-building if I dont plan an using revolvers in the long run (I assume that shooting skills are not terrible analogous to doing deadlifts.)

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

So, are people actually suggesting that I get a .22 revolver with with a heavy DA pull, rather than a target-type semi (MKIV/Buckmark) in order to master trigger control (I guess it's an "if you can shoot this well, than anything else is easier?). Would that help or hinder skill-building if I dont plan an using revolvers in the long run (I assume that shooting skills are not terrible analogous to doing deadlifts.)

It's pretty well accepted by most folks that mastering a DA revolver will vastly aid in shooting just about any other type of pistol out there. After my shooting experience today I would say a SA revolver would be a good option as well.

Either way you've got a heavy gun with an action that will take more effort to "get right". Once you have some practice on either of the aforementioned a striker fired polymer gun with a decent trigger will seem effortless.

 

[Ed Ames]

are people actually suggesting that I get a .22 revolver with with a heavy DA pull, rather than a target-type semi

I personally wouldn't buy a DA revolver in your situation (because the good ones tend to be more expensive), but there is a good argument for the DA revolver.

A DA revolver is versatile in that you have a choice of a short crisp SA trigger or a long DA trigger. The "if you can shoot this well..." reasoning is not wrong. It isn't alone in being able to switch; as I understand it the Ruger SR-22 can work as DAO or SAO, but a decent revolver will be better than an SR-22 in either mode, and the SR-22 isn't my ideal .22.

On the flip side, it also teaches habits that are irrelevant if you are going to use pistols as your primary platform.

The recommendation of a .22lr converter is a good one if your goal is to master your trigger. If your goal is to master triggers in general, having experience with a wider range is good.

 

[Varminterror]

So, are people actually suggesting that I get a .22 revolver with with a heavy DA pull, rather than a target-type semi (MKIV/Buckmark) in order to master trigger control (I guess it's an "if you can shoot this well, than anything else is easier?). Would that help or hinder skill-building if I dont plan an using revolvers in the long run (I assume that shooting skills are not terrible analogous to doing deadlifts.)

Absolutely NOT. This advice is an old wives tale that us professional instructors WISH WOULD DIE!!! I've seen far too many folks develop bad habits and get frustrated with their slow development after they were lured by this bad advice.

The principle of "start with the worst so the best feels easy" is akin to putting your 15yr old kid in the driver's seat of an 18 speed, double stick 18 wheeler and taking them out on the autobahn, instead of starting them with an automatic passenger vehicle in an empty parking lot. Another supporting yarn for this principle is to "throw them in the deep end, they'll learn to swim." But in reality, kids get over their FEAR of swimming by being thrown into the deep end, but they do NOT learn how to swim in doing so - they simply learn to not fear the water, and realize they already instinctively know how to swim. People do NOT instinctively know how to shoot. People learning on poor triggers will have a much longer learning curve, since the feedback on target doesn't immediately reveal their fundamental issues - it only magnifies their trigger control issues because the trigger is difficult to manage.

There's something to be said for buying a DA/SA revolver to allow both SA and DA practice - you are able to develop your fundamentals by shooting SA exclusively, AND work on your DA staging and trigger management, all in the same handgun, but a DAO is a TERRIBLE choice for a practice piece.

Shooters need to develop a mindset of both training and practice, and independent skills development. Football players, baseball players, mma fighters, soccer players, bowlers, golfers, racecar drivers, basket ballers, skiers, ice skaters, and any other athlete... whether they're in pee-wee league or professional... ALL of them practice regularly, and ALL of their practice programs include low impact, low speed, focused fundamental development drills. The analogies for shooters are dry fire practice, low recoil practice, and light trigger practice (and slow fire practice, bench rest/supported practice, short range work, etc).

 

[Carl N. Brown]

My practice .22 is a Ruger MkII 6" barrel, which is a full size handgun.
In matches I shoot a C96 Mauser in 7.63mm, a CZ-52 in 7.62mm, 1911A1 in .45 ACP, H&K USP in .40 S&W, all of which recoil more.
Switching to the .22 for practice catches me if I have developed any flinch habits in response to anticipating recoil.

 

[MrBorland]

I've seen far too many folks develop bad habits and get frustrated with their slow development after they were lured by this bad advice.

Maybe so, but I rarely (read: almost never) see someone move from semi-auto to any real proficiency with a DA revolver. Not saying it can't be done, but if you start with a semi-auto, it's more than likely you'll stay there. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if the student really knows they want to stick with semi-autos, but new students may not know what they like and want to stick with.

Besides, the DA trigger isn't that hard to learn & manage for the majority of shooters' accuracy requirements. Yanking, jerking, and flinching are issues with any new shooter and any trigger, and are addressable by good instruction.

work on your DA staging

This is a piece of advice I wish would die .

 

[huntsman]

Yanking, jerking, and flinching are issues with any new shooter and any trigger, and are addressable by good instruction.

You said the magic words, I get the .22lr fandom and nostalgia heck I started on .22lr but I was 9. Someone who is late to the game and has a goal of CC would better served with good instruction on a carry gun than buy a .22 an learn themselves.

 

[Varminterror]

Maybe so, but I rarely (read: almost never) see someone move from semi-auto to any real proficiency with a DA revolver. Not saying it can't be done, but if you start with a semi-auto, it's more than likely you'll stay there. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if the student really knows they want to stick with semi-autos, but new students may not know what they like and want to stick with.

This is a cultural effect, not a mechanical one, and as they say, correlation does not prove causality. New shooters don't exhibit a causality for "staying with which they started," an overwhelming majority of new shooters "stay with" pistols. Period. The BATFE has reported pistol sales over approximately the last decade to be between 3x to 6x that of revolvers, approximately 4.5:1 overall. It doesn't matter what they start on, most shooters are not buying revolvers, they're buying pistols. So yes, most shooters are starting on pistols, and staying with pistols, NOT buying revolvers, nor "staying with" revolvers... The only exception here, I have seen, are HUNTERS looking to buy a big game revolver, then they'll buy a 22LR revolver for practice - however I rarely see these folks shooting DA at all.

Similarly - your bias against semi-autos doesn't give due respect to the fact large portions of the pistol market are DAO and DA/SA, and a large portion of the revolver market are SAO. If a guy gives credit for striker pistols as DAO, then market trend would support DA/SA & DAO's are the highest selling trigger on the market.

A generation or two ago, the average new driver started on a manual transmission, and 30yrs ago, ~80% of new cars sold were manual transmissions. Today, only ~4% of new cars in the US are sold with manual transmissions. It doesn't matter if you started on a manual or not, culturally, our market prefers automatics 24:1. It doesn't matter if shooters started on a revolver or not, the market culture prefers pistols 4.5:1. Most drivers over the last couple generations were started on a manual, but DID NOT stay with it. Today, most drivers are starting on automatics, and staying with it.

This market trend has absolutely nothing to do with training fundamentals or what design a shooter started on, it's subjectively preferential, driven (right or wrong) by application - the market favors semi-automatics. The first trigger with which a shooter learned has nothing to do with their lasting preference.

Besides, the DA trigger isn't that hard to learn & manage for the majority of shooters' accuracy requirements. Yanking, jerking, and flinching are issues with any new shooter and any trigger, and are addressable by good instruction.

Learning how to ride a unicycle wasn't that hard - but it was a lot easier to learn how to ride a bike - and it's a lot easier still for kids to learn on a bike with training wheels than without. Learning how to drive a 2 stick 18 speed transmission wasn't that hard - but it was a lot easier to learn how to drive a C10 first - and it was easier still for my sis to learn in an automatic transmission Chrysler New Yorker. Learning calculus wasn't that hard - but it was a lot easier to learn addition and subtraction first before tackling differential equations and integral calculus. Learning how to manage a DA trigger isn't that hard - but it's a lot easier to start new shooters on SA triggers to establish their fundamentals.

Stealing a section from your NRA Basic Pistol manual - learning on a DA trigger puts too much emphasis on only one of 5 critical fundamentals. It forces the new shooter to focus too greatly on trigger control, while they're still trying to develop the 4 other critical fundamental aspects: aiming/sight picture, hold control, breath control, and follow through. Juggling 5 balls is hard enough, but it's even harder if ONE of them is a bowling ball. Once a shooter is proficient in all 5 fundamentals, they will be successful with any trigger design. Starting with a trigger which causes you to focus too much on ONE aspect slows the shooters progress in the other 4.

Good instruction gives a shooter the best chance to learn without putting unnecessary difficulties in front of them. Jumping into a DA on your first day doesn't do anything from the shooter, except make them appreciate how good an SA trigger feels. There are tricks to the trade to help new shooters progressively develop their skills - starting at short distances and working longer and longer, starting with a red dot, working up to irons, and eventually to scopes, starting on an SA trigger and working up to a DA trigger, starting with supported fire before moving to off-hand shooting... These strategies build the shooters skills AND their confidence progressively, without putting unwarranted difficulties in their path.

There's something to be said for buying a DA/SA revolver [...] to develop your fundamentals by shooting SA exclusively AND work on your DA staging and trigger management, all in the same handgun

This is a piece of advice I wish would die .

I don't favor staging personally, but it's common vernacular and a common practice as an accepted method. Folks don't tend to appreciate the weight of the statement when you generically say "trigger control" when the context is a DA trigger. Which is why the mentality of "staging" sticks around. In my classes, the majority of new DA and DAO owners find staging to be much easier to learn and also find it comes naturally to them to "pull part way, fix their hold, and break the shot," so it remains to be a challenge to coach them away from their natural instinct. The debate for staging vs. continuous will continue, like many others in our market, as the distinction between the two for the average shooter does not share parity with that for elite shooters. Beginners tend to do better staging, experienced shooters do better continuously pulling - so even though I encourage them to learn to pull continuously, it's hard to tell a beginner not to stage. I instruct continuous, but I do acknowledge to students staging is viable, at least until they get better at continuous.

It's also been my experience that target panic is more of the cause for yanking, far moreso than staging. Correlation vs. causality again - if a shooter is staging because they exhibit target panic and feel they're struggling to keep the sights on target, then they're prone to yank the trigger whether they're holding a DA or an SA. Target panic is target panic, and staging doesn't, by its own virtue, cause yanking.

 

[Varminterror]

Would that help or hinder skill-building if I dont plan an using revolvers in the long run

Won't hinder, won't help any better than a 22LR pistol (I'd argue for 90% of shooters, an SP101/GP100/Tracker 22LR won't help as much as a Mark IV/Buckmark/Victory - and they cost more).

 

[bassjam]

This is a cultural effect, not a mechanical one, and as they say, correlation does not prove causality. New shooters don't exhibit a causality for "staying with which they started," an overwhelming majority of new shooters "stay with" pistols. Period. The BATFE has reported pistol sales over approximately the last decade to be between 3x to 6x that of revolvers, approximately 4.5:1 overall. It doesn't matter what they start on, most shooters are not buying revolvers, they're buying pistols. So yes, most shooters are starting on pistols, and staying with pistols, NOT buying revolvers, nor "staying with" revolvers... The only exception here, I have seen, are HUNTERS looking to buy a big game revolver, then they'll buy a 22LR revolver for practice - however I rarely see these folks shooting DA at all.

I'd go as far to say it's both cultural and economical. I can pick up a Ruger Mark or Buckmark for $300-400 and have incredible accuracy. If I want a GP100 in .22 or a S&W 617, I better be prepared to spend upwards of $600-700.

It's the same for centerfire as well, a Glock 19 or CZ 75 can be had for around $500, but a Ruger SP101 or GP100 or S&W 60 or 686 will cost me far more. You have to really like revolvers to want to pay the prices for a good one, and most people under a certain age don't see the appeal when they can get a reliable pistol that holds 14 rounds for less money.

 

[Varminterror]

@bassjam - Agreed, price is one factor in the market preference.

Triggers, and specifically which trigger the shooter started on, is not a factor.

 

[Saleen322]

A 22 is great to learn with, grow with and excel with. A quality, inexpensive 22 pistol or revolver with good adjustable sights is the foundation of a good shooter. They deliver outstanding accuracy and they will show on the target if you are doing something right or wrong. You will pay a lot of money and do much ammo searching to find a centerfire handgun-ammo combination that will equal a much less expensive 22. Having a known accurate handgun and accurate ammunition takes all of the guess work out of accessing your performance; the results on the target are all the shooter--good or bad.

 

[mjsdwash]

Hello,

I am looking to get my first handgun - gonna be a full size, then maybe a subcompact down the line once I feel ready for CCW (FWIW I have some experience with shotguns/bolt guns from when I was a teenager, but it's been a while, and I am be not means "any good"). I have been to the range a few times to test out different rentals, but I still haven't been able to decide what kind of action/model is best for me. I am considering getting .22 pistol to start (Ruger/Buckmark), but I am unsure if this is a good idea. On the one hand, it will be a couple hundred dollars less, and I can get a couple thousand rounds of .22lr on the cheap and practice shooting and handling. On the other, it's a .22, so I'm not really building any tolerance/transition skill and the gun will have a very different grip and controls then anything I end up with for self-defense - it is a cheaper route, but even $600-700 (gun+mags+ammo, etc) for no real gain seems like a waste? Any thoughts?

I don't know about useful practice, but shooting a firearm accurately is far more difficult than people think, and a ruger standard or buckmark will be more accurate than nearly any off the shelf handgun. I would look beyond transitional skill, and shoot a 22 because it just fun. Its still a firearm. I would shoot my MK3 every week if I could, but .22 still costs the same as 9mm reloads around here, when you can get it, so the CZ is the only one going out now. The ruger standard has the same safety, and mag release style as a 1911/CZ, but the safety is smaller, if that helps

 

[JohnBiltz]

For myself I never found the skills translated much when it came to .22s. If I was starting to learn to shoot again I would get the kind of pistol I wanted and take classes. Put the money for a .22 into good instruction. Besides, while you are waiting around trying to get good with a .22 you might just need that bigger gun. Do a lot of dry fire with it which is free. I have one of those laser bullets as well. I can use it in my living room on a daily basis with my carry weapon and safely practice draw and fire. Costs about $100.

 

[Bottom Gun]

A .22 conversion kit for the pistol you decide to buy is a good suggestion. My first pistol was a 1911 Colt in .45 ACP. I soon added a .22 conversion unit to my collection. It was one of the best purchases I have ever made. It paid for itself in no time. What I liked was shooting the same frame for both cartridges. Same trigger pull, same everything.
I don’t recall how many thousands of rounds I put through that .22 conversion but I must have shot 200-300 rounds of .22 for every round of .45 I shot. Those were the days of tight money and I hadn’t learned to reload yet.
That conversion unit was the best practice I could have gotten and it made me into a natural with the 1911.
Over 4 decades have passed since I bought my first pistol and I have a varied collection now but I still shoot a lot of .22 in both rifle and pistol. It’s a good cartridge.

 

[dieselchief]

if you guys think a buckmark or a ruger mk is an accurate pistol you really need to get out more. try a high standard trophy, a smith 41, a colt match woodsman. even a marvel precision conversion will make you wonder what you have been missing. just saying with respect, of course.....

 

[Zaydok Allen]

They are a good starting point and fun to shoot, but I don't feel they are an absolute necessity. One can learn just as well with a 9mm or a 38 Special. It's just going to cost you more in ammo.

My first handgun was a 357 mag and the recoil and cost of ammo forced me to learn the fundamentals very quickly.. Second gun was a 460 S&W mag. At $1.50 per shot, you tend to really focus on learning good shooting techniques so you aren't just wasting money, or clubbing yourself in the head with a heavily recoiling revolver.

Bottom line, if you want a 22 pistol and will enjoy having one in your collection, then go for it. If you don't see wanting it in the long run, maybe skip it, or be prepared to trade it away towards a center fire later on.

 

[CraigC]

if you guys think a buckmark or a ruger mk is an accurate pistol you really need to get out more. try a high standard trophy, a smith 41, a colt match woodsman. even a marvel precision conversion will make you wonder what you have been missing. just saying with respect, of course.....

I don't know, I feel quite comfortable characterizing a quarter inch group at 25yds as "accurate". I wouldn't keep a fixed barrel .22 auto that didn't do a half inch at that distance. While the older guns exhibited far better fit & finish due to the level of hand work involved, new guns tend to be more accurate. It's far easier and cheaper to produce an accurate barrel today than it was 70yrs ago.

 

[bassjam]

if you guys think a buckmark or a ruger mk is an accurate pistol you really need to get out more. try a high standard trophy, a smith 41, a colt match woodsman. even a marvel precision conversion will make you wonder what you have been missing. just saying with respect, of course.....

Compared to your average centerfire handgun they are pretty darned accurate. My CZ75b or S&W 66 both impress me sometimes how well they shoot, but neither compares to my Buckmark or Mark I.

 

[Varminterror]

if you guys think a buckmark or a ruger mk is an accurate pistol you really need to get out more. try a high standard trophy, a smith 41, a colt match woodsman. even a marvel precision conversion will make you wonder what you have been missing. just saying with respect, of course.....

Except I paid $1100 and $1300 for my S&W 41's, and paid under $300 for some of my Mark II and III pistols, just paid $575 for my Mark IV...

If you're thinking an S&W 41 is an accurate pistol, pick up a Pardini or Feinwerbau sometime... Then again, I paid $2200 for my Pardini and $1800 used for my AW93...

Guys can keep playing that "up the ante" game... But there's no sense in arguing the Mark series, Buckmarks, Victories, etc are not accurate pistols, moreso than other pistols in their price class, or even much more expensive...

 

[Warp]

+1 on kBob's post. I have been shooting Mk lls since the 80s and currently have three of them. A good .22 WILL teach you everything you need to learn, trust me. I shot nothing but .22 pistol at cans at 50 yards for a whole year until I could hit them every single time before I ever shot a .45 ACP. or a revolver. And when I finally did shoot a .45 ACP I had no trouble hitting cans at 50 yards. The basic trick to shooting is to concentrate INTENSELY on that front sight and don't press the trigger until the sight picture is perfect. The rear sight and the target can be a little out of focus but the front sight must be crisp and held on the center of the fuzzy target. Stare at that front sight until you can see the molecules in the steel. Don't jerk the trigger - just press it straight back. One of the best things about starting with a .22 is it will not cause you to flinch and THAT is a very tough habit to break.

For target shooting, yes. For defensive shooting you focus on the front sight (REALLY FOCUS) you just can't take the time to wait for a perfect sight picture.

In both cases practice with a .22lr chambered pistol helps

 

[mavracer]

Guys can keep playing that "up the ante" game... But there's no sense in arguing the Mark series, Buckmarks, Victories, etc are not accurate pistols, moreso than other pistols in their price class, or even much more expensive

Besides that more $$$ doesn't always = better accuracy. I've got a old Mk1 target made in 1965 that'll shoot right with my 41 (actually if you feed them both Eley sport ammo the old Ruger will smoke it because the 41 doesn't like it at all lol)