New handgunner: should I really get a .22?

[OSS]

Hi all,

I am about to purchase my first handgun, a friend's Ruger GP-100 .357 4". I decided on the GP-100 because it is one of the best "fitting" guns I've held. The other reason I chose this particular gun was due to the ability to practice with cheap .38 and use .357 for protection.

As most of you know; however, this gun isn't very compact - not too practical for carrying concealed. At first I thought this would be the only gun I could afford for a while - however, I've come to realize I can afford to buy another moderately priced weapon.

Although I'd like to (some day) carry concealed on a regular basis, I am not in too much of a hurry, and am willing to wait until I become more proficient in shooting. My question to you is, would buying a .22 pistol, like a Ruger MKII/MKIII, be significantly beneficial to improving my shooting skills?

I'm torn between buying a .22 for range practice and spending slightly more for a 9mm sub-compact that I could use for carrying purposes (looking at the Springfield XD-SC). I know .22lr ammo is dirt cheap, but 9mm is not much more... any input is appreciated!

 

[ajax]

OSS my question to you is how much range time do you already have. If not alot then i would recomend going with a .22 for some time until you feel comfortable shooting a .357. Thats my opinion for what its worth. By the way welcome to THR

 

[MCgunner]

I agree, and I'd get a revolver to practice with, though the Mark 2-3 Rugers are excellent guns. I'd also consider getting a J frame size gun from Smith and Wesson, Taurus, Rossi, or Ruger (SP101) for concealed carry when you decide you need it.

If you weren't buying your buddy's gun already, I'd suggest getting a 3" SP101 in .357 for a first gun cause you can carry that comfortably IWB for concealed carry. Look to Rossi for a .22 revolver if you want to stay on a budget. Lots of people will recommend a K22 or something and they're great guns, but you said "modest price" I believe. Taurus and Rossi make some excellent affordable .22 DA revolvers for range practice. I have a little Rossi M511 that's a friggin' tack driver, awesome little gun, J frame size with 4" barrel and fully adjustable sight with red ramp front sight. Something like that would be great for range practice and the manual of arms will match your other revolvers. You COULD, I guess, carry such a gun concealed cause that little Rossi is pretty compact and is only about 26 ounces. But, I wouldn't really wanna rely on a .22 for defense. Better than nothing until you could get a .38 or something, though.

Just some thoughts on the subject. If you did get that Ruger autoloader, you'd definitely LOVE it and it'd teach you basic marksmanship as good as anything.

One thing, carrying a heavier load and practicing with a lighter load is not a big buggaboo for me like it seems to be with some folks around here. However, as a new shooter, you will likely be fighting a lot of flinch with full power .357 loads for a while until you learn how to control it. I'd carry .38s in the gun, a good combat load, until you have enough experience with .357s that you know you can shoot 'em effectively without any flinch. I know, when I got my first .357, I went though that. I taught myself proper technique by reading and reading about how to shoot a handgun. Schools will get you there faster, but that takes money. A friend that shoots well can help about as much with just basic marksmanship.

 

[OSS]

Thanks for your input. I haven't had much range time thus far... and during the range time I have had, I've shot an array of different things: a full sized glock .40s&w, a glock 9mm, springfield XD .40, and a snubby S&W .38 of some sort.

I also plan on going with the self-taught reading method... any one book that stands out from the rest?

Also - any reason why you suggest a .22lr revolver instead of a semiauto?

 

[Rob1035]

If you're definitely getting the GP100, I'd suggest getting a 22lr revolver for even cheaper trigger practice than 38. Any good collection should have a 22 of some sort. They are so cheap and fun to shoot, and they are perfect for new shooters to learn on, and experienced folks to keep their skills sharp.

 

[chaim]

That Ruger GP100 is a great first gun choice. Not easily concealable, but a revolver makes a great 1st gun and a medium frame revolver in .357 is quite versatile. You can practice with cheaper .38s, use decent .38+P for home defense, and for fun or serious needs have the use of full-power magnums. For home defense many well experienced people choose revolvers for many reasons I'm not going to go into here (that is another thread).

As for the second gun, yes a .22lr is a great idea that will allow you a lot of cheap practice, there is a reason so many people suggest that, but 9mm is a good way to go as well. I didn't get my first .22 handgun until I had been shooting for several years. Just be aware that shooting centerfire will take a lot more money to get in enough practice to become proficient (the cheapest commercial centerfire ammo is generally 9mm, 100 rounds of WWB 9mm at Walmart runs around $11, while a 500 round "brick" of .22lr will run $9-10- that is 5 times more practice for about the same money).

You can get a Ruger MkIII new for around $250 in most areas, used a MkII can probably be had for around $200 with some looking. A Walther P22 can be had for under $300 and it is concealable (though .22lr is a pretty anemic self-defense round, but better than nothing). That is just a few weeks of going without lunch at work. Maybe you could consider a less expensive (but good) defensive gun like a Taurus PT111 Milennium Pro or Kel-tec P11 and the MkIII for just a little more than the SA XD would be by itself?

Now if you really want the 9mm first so it can double for carry work (the GP100 is a great home defense gun, but hard to carry) I'd suggest getting something bigger than the subcompacts. The subcompacts are very concealable, but you are a new handgun shooter and something easier to learn on would be a better bet.

There are some intermediate sized autos that make decent range guns yet are pretty concealable (granted, not as concealable as a subcompact, but pretty good). Something like the CZ 75 Compact, PCR or P01, the Taurus PT911, the S&W 910 or 908, the SIG 239, the Glock 19, the larger XD, etc. might be better. More controlable at the range, easier to aim accurately due to a longer sight radius, and still quite concealable. If you must go subcompact make sure it fills your hand well, you can get a full hand grip on it, and it needs to have a decent sight radius or have a reputation for accuracy. Another thing to look for is the possibility to have mag extentions for the range (a small gun using a higher cap/longer mag from a larger gun with a plastic insert to give you more grip area where the longer mag extends from the mag well). The Taurus PT111 Milennium Pro fits my list well on the rep for accuracy, filling most hands and full hand grip (for most people). The Glock 26 seems to have a decent sight radius and I think you can get mag extentions. The XD subcompact models are available with mag extentions.

The smaller autos are kind of like the snub revolvers. Great carry guns, but not the best option for a new shooter. The short sight radius means it is harder to shoot accurately than a larger gun would be and the lighter weight means more felt recoil which means slower follow-up shots and possibly less practice.

Anyway, I hope I gave some food for thought.

 

[DukeNukem]

I'd suggest shooting the GP100 a while before making a decision. The 4" GP100 is heavy enough that you should be able to shoot white box Winchester .38 SPL 130 grain range ammo without flinching. Then if you want to shoot more cheaply, you can decide if you want to go semi-auto or revolver in .22. Should have a better idea what you might want to carry by then, too.

 

[22-rimfire]

You have to look at what shooting you expect to do honestly. If you don't plan on shooting much, then I wouldn't buy anything other than the GP100 and practice with it with 38's and 357's. If you feel that you will be shooting a lot in the future, I would get the 22 also. I feel that a 22 is a necessary part of any shooters accumulation of firearms. You say shooting a 38 is "cheap", well you're still looking at about $0.20 per round vs $0.02 per round with 22's. You can spend an entire afternoon shooting the 22 a lot and shoot less than a brick of ammunition. The same aftertoon would cost you $100 with the 38's. The answer is quite clear as to what you will shoot the most when you are on a budget. The 22 will certainly help to improve your overall shooting skills.

 

[Gary G23]

I wouldn't get a .22. Shooting a .22 won't make you proficient shooting anything other than a .22.
I wouldn't get a GP100 either. As you mentioned they don't conceal well. Also wheel guns are slow to reload.
I would suggest a 4" 9mm in your case. Easy to shoot well. Easy to conceal. I can practice a lot with $3.86 a box Blazer ammo and switch to Gold Dot 124gr +P when I carry.
It would also save you the expense of investing in two guns before you get your carry gun.

 

[Mr_Moore]

I recommend/bought the Ruger Mark III for target.

Hi all,

My question to you is, would buying a .22 pistol, like a Ruger MKII/MKIII, be significantly beneficial to improving my shooting skills?

I ccw with a .357 but use a Ruger Mark III for cheap target practice for me and my family. You do get better at shooting using the .22. You can shoot 1000 rounds of .22lr for the same price as 50 .357s.

To me the only difference between shooting a .22 and a .357 is that I have to try harder not to flinch with the .357. I still tend to anticipate the stronger bang/recoil. Having said that, if you can put a bunch of rounds near the bull's eye with a .22 you can probably do the same with a .357.

I recommend the Mark III over the Mark II as it comes predrilled for a red dot scope and comes with the screws and scope attachment plate. Got mine for about $250.00.

If money were no object though, I would shoot all .357's

 

[MCgunner]

Also - any reason why you suggest a .22lr revolver instead of a semiauto?

Because if you're going to rely on a revolver, you should have another revolver to be intimately familiar with, same operation. You can also practice your DA firing with a revolver. A single action trigger is a LOT different. A DA takes practice. It's not that big a deal, though, if you find a good deal on an autoloader.

I wouldn't get a .22. Shooting a .22 won't make you proficient shooting anything other than a .22.

Total BS. Basic marksmanship skills transcend caliber or firearm type. You still have to have breath control, proper stance, proper trigger control, etc. Because one recoils more than the other, so what? Once you've learned basic marksmanship skills with the cheaper to feed gun, then I can somewhat agree you need to be sticking with your defense gun more.

However, if all I ever fired were my carry guns at the range, range trips would be really boring and my other 33 firearms would be collecting dust, I reckon. Variety is the spice of life! Put in lots of time with that rimfire, it's CHEAP to feed! End the range session with a box of .38s through the bigger gun. .22s are too much fun NOT to have one!

 

[.45&TKD]

I wouldn't get a .22. Shooting a .22 won't make you proficient shooting anything other than a .22.
I wouldn't get a GP100 either. As you mentioned they don't conceal well. Also wheel guns are slow to reload.
I would suggest a 4" 9mm in your case. Easy to shoot well. Easy to conceal. I can practice a lot with $3.86 a box Blazer ammo and switch to Gold Dot 124gr +P when I carry.
It would also save you the expense of investing in two guns before you get your carry gun.

Ditto.

In my case, when I started not too long ago, I decided on my "carry" caliber first, and then decided on what gun to buy. In my case I wanted the stopping power of 45 acp and went with 1911 platform, Springfield Loaded full size.

 

[MCgunner]

Beginners got no business starting with an auto, much less a 1911. Autos take a lot of care and cleaning. Revolvers can be neglected more. 1911s, well, carry the thing condition three if you're inexperienced. That way, your toes'll be safe.

1911s are for the dedicated. I'm dedicated to shooting, still don't like 'em. But, don't start out with one. The revolver is a far more practical choice.

 

[.45&TKD]

1911s are for the dedicated. I'm dedicated to shooting, still don't like 'em. But, don't start out with one.

Maybe if you started out with a 1911, you'd like them more. No offense, I was just sharing what I did 4 1/2 years ago. ( And I still have all my toes). Immediately after buying it I took several shooting courses with it. And, I value that experience.

My point is I would have been far behind in the learning curve for my ultimate goal of carrying a 1911 in .45 acp, if I had started out with 2 other very different handguns first.

I have added variety since then, but for me the most important thing was to be sufficently armed and proficient with my carry weapon of choice.

Again, no offense. My perspective is just different than yours, not necessarily better.

 

[MCgunner]

Maybe if you started out with a 1911, you'd like them more. No offense, I was just sharing what I did 4 1/2 years ago. ( And I still have all my toes). Immediately after buying it I took several shooting courses with it. And, I value that experience.

My point is I would have been far behind in the learning curve for my ultimate goal of carrying a 1911 in .45 acp, if I had started out with 2 other very different handguns first.

I have added variety since then, but for me the most important thing was to be sufficently armed and proficient with my carry weapon of choice.

Again, no offense. My perspective is just different than yours, not necessarily better.

Oh, no offense to me at all. I just don't think a beginner should bet his life on a 1911. There are too many things to know about a 1911's care and feeding for a beginner. You have to be "into them", IMHO, to carry one effectively. That takes a lot of knowledge of things like rotating magazines to prevent them setting, keeping it clean and lubed, stripping it for cleaning, knowing what to do to the new out of box gun to make it reliable, knowing about recoil spring weights vs load you are shooting, knowing how to clear a jam if it happens, etc. Many are not reliable out of the box. I've owned a couple. They're getting better by some manufacturers from what I read, but I still expect a 1911 to need smithing before I were to carry it. All the beginner needs to be thinking about is how to shoot. The revolver is far more newbie friendly. I even rely on one for home defense since I can leave that thing loaded for years and not have to worry about magazine springs. Besides, I like revolvers a lot, did my handgun teething on 'em back when cops actually carried 'em.

 

[Mr_Moore]

I also plan on going with the self-taught reading method... any one book that stands out from the rest?

I thought the NRA book on pistol shooting did an excellent job on the basics and some advanced topics.

 

[MCgunner]

Jerry Miculek has some videos that could be helpful for revolver shooting.

http://www.bang-inc.com/

 

[BreakerDave]

Total BS. Basic marksmanship skills transcend caliber or firearm type. You still have to have breath control, proper stance, proper trigger control, etc. Because one recoils more than the other, so what?

Recoil can affect one's ability to get the next shot lined up. If you are used to practicing with a pistol with different recoil characteristics than your primary handgun you can have some difficulty. That is not to imply that you will not be able to transition between the two, but when you have 10K-20K rounds throung one type of gun and you pick up a different gun, in a different caliber, and with a different action you do notice it. Typically, you will not be as proficient with the gun you do not practice with regularly. While one can save money and make good progress with a gun chambered in .22 LR, it is not a substitute for training with the firearm you intend to use.

Beginners got no business starting with an auto, much less a 1911. Autos take a lot of care and cleaning. Revolvers can be neglected more...

1911s are for the dedicated...

Respectfully, I have to disagree. Every year the police and military train people who have no shooting experience on semi-auto pistols and it works out fine. Like many others, I was trained on a Beretta M-9 without any adverse effects. In regards to the 1911, given its long service life and popularity with former GI's, I cannot imagine that the military had any significant safety related problems teaching people how to shoot handguns with 1911's. If you have the proper training, you can learn to shoot with any good quality firearm.

Although semi-auto's and revolvers have differing pluses and minuses, I would hardly recommend one type over the other because one "can be neglected more." You can have maintenance related failures in both designs. No gun should be neglected and no gunowner should want to neglect his or her firearms. Properly maintaining and cleaning a semi-auto is not something that is much more difficult or time consuming than doing the same for a revolver.

In regards to whether one should or not get get a gun chambered in .22 LR, that is totally dependent on the purpose the perspective purchaser has for the gun. In the case of training to become proficient with a revolver by buying a semi-auto .22 LR, that is something where the shooter is going to be learning skills and motions (i.e. reloading) that do not transition well between platforms.

 

[MCgunner]

Recoil can affect one's ability to get the next shot lined up. If you are used to practicing with a pistol with different recoil characteristics than your primary handgun you can have some difficulty. That is not to imply that you will not be able to transition between the two, but when you have 10K-20K rounds throung one type of gun and you pick up a different gun, in a different caliber, and with a different action you do notice it. Typically, you will not be as proficient with the gun you do not practice with regularly. While one can save money and make good progress with a gun chambered in .22 LR, it is not a substitute for training with the firearm you intend to use.



Respectfully, I have to disagree. Every year the police and military train people who have no shooting experience on semi-auto pistols and it works out fine. Like many others, I was trained on a Beretta M-9 without any adverse effects. In regards to the 1911, given its long service life and popularity with former GI's, I cannot imagine that the military had any significant safety related problems teaching people how to shoot handguns with 1911's. If you have the proper training, you can learn to shoot with any good quality firearm.

Although semi-auto's and revolvers have differing pluses and minuses, I would hardly recommend one type over the other because one "can be neglected more." You can have maintenance related failures in both designs. No gun should be neglected and no gunowner should want to neglect his or her firearms. Properly maintaining and cleaning a semi-auto is not something that is much more difficult or time consuming than doing the same for a revolver.

In regards to whether one should or not get get a gun chambered in .22 LR, that is totally dependent on the purpose the perspective purchaser has for the gun. In the case of training to become proficient with a revolver by buying a semi-auto .22 LR, that is something where the shooter is going to be learning skills and motions (i.e. reloading) that do not transition well between platforms.

Dude, you've got to learn to crawl before you walk. You're telling me a .454 Casull magnum is what I should teach people to shoot with because that's what they're going to be carrying in Alaska? What do you think a guy that's never fired a handgun before is going to learn by picking up that .454 and capping off the first round? Do you think he'll learn breath control or trigger control? I sorta doubt it. More'n likely, he'll learn how to flinch. .22s should be mastered before moving up, and you can buy a lifetime supply of .22 ammo to practice with for the price of a box of .454 Casull.

As to learning autos, well, if he's joining the FBI and taking their training, okay, I agree. If he's teaching himself from books, start with a revolver. Moot point anyway if he's buying a GP100.

 

[MCgunner]

Say, 5,000 rds per year of .22lr, for 60 years. So a box of 454 ammo costs $6000? Sheesh, that's expensive shooting.

So, how much is 5000 rounds of .454 ammo? And, a years worth of .22 for BreakerDave is zero, which gives an irrational number, so I think that means this conversation is irrational, not sure.

 

[22-rimfire]

Not learning to shoot with a 22 is a recipe for becoming a poor shooter for many. I do believe you have to learn to walk before you can run. If I had started out with my 41 magnum, I doubt that I would even consider shooting a handgun today. As it is, I know how well I shoot with other calibers and configurations. So, I know what to expect with the larger caliber handguns, including the beloved 1911 45ACP. Any one ever notice that the "1911" is very similar to 9-11 or 911. My point, nothing, a curiosity.

 

[losangeles]

Dryfiring is good practice for a shooter.

Shooting with a 22 is good practice for a shooter.

You can shoot several hundreds of rounds for the same price as paying 50 rounds for a 9mm. I have 22's and larger caliber handguns, and I can get in a lot of rounds with my 22. You can afford to be out in the range more. Range time is good for a shooter.

I've got my Glock 17, Ruger GP-100 and CZ 75B, but I mostly shoot my Ruger Mark III Hunter at the range.

 

[Shmackey]

Everyone should have a .22lr, if only to be able to train the newbie who comes to you asking to learn.

 

[BreakerDave]

Dude, you've got to learn to crawl before you walk. You're telling me a .454 Casull magnum is what I should teach people to shoot with because that's what they're going to be carrying in Alaska?

Wow, that's pretty sharp reasoning. You're taking a reasonable position out of context and distorting it to something beyond what I have said. Why not use the BFR chambered in .45-70 if you want to go to insane extremes?

Put it in context. He is thinking of getting a revolver in .357. My point was that getting a semi-auto in .22LR was not going to be as useful as learning on the GP-100 revolver he wanted. He stated that he would shoot both .38's and .357's through the gun. Since he was planning on shooting .38's through the gun, there is nothing wrong with him starting with .38's. That's not immediately jumping to some major caliber of your fantasies.

Many civilian intro shooting courses start people with guns chambered in .38's and 9mm's and the people do well. They learn what they need to know. I have taught many people how to shoot with .38's and 9mm's and you can "sorta doubt it" all you want but they learned the proper stance, trigger control, etc. Did some of them flinch? Sure, but I've seen people flinch with a gun chambered in .22 LR. They're holding something that goes bang, has a flash, and recoils even if only minimally. Flinching is to be expected and can be worked through.

Despite what you think, he does not "need to" learn on .22. It's not a crawl before you walk kind of thing. He's not a baby. If what you were saying was correct, no one would have been able to grasp the M-9 years ago when I was on the firing line. I imagine you must be quite shocked to learn that, with proper instruction, we all somehow managed to figure out that magically complex semi-auto chambered in 9mm, a truly monster caliber.

As far as ammo prices go, sure .22 LR is cheaper than other calibers but so what. If you are trying to get good with a particular gun in a particular caliber, you need to shoot in that caliber. Whether you are competition shooter or someone who has trained to go into harm's way, there is no effective substitute for training with the guns and ammo you will be using. It is not that he cannot learn shooting from shooting guns in .22 LR, it is that it is unnecessary for him to get a .22 LR to learn how to shoot. Further, it is a fool's economy to think that by laying out an additional $200-$300 on a pistol in .22 LR that he will both save money and become better with the primary gun he was not shooting. He'd be better off spending the same money on ammo for his primary gun.

 

[jlh26oo]

I wouldn't get a .22. Shooting a .22 won't make you proficient shooting anything other than a .22.
I wouldn't get a GP100 either. As you mentioned they don't conceal well. Also wheel guns are slow to reload.
I would suggest a 4" 9mm in your case. Easy to shoot well. Easy to conceal. I can practice a lot with $3.86 a box Blazer ammo and switch to Gold Dot 124gr +P when I carry.
It would also save you the expense of investing in two guns before you get your carry gun.

While I disagree with some of your reasoning (ie I think alot can be generalized from practice with a .22 to centerfire), I completely agree with your conclusions and recommendation.

For me personally, I bought a kmkII678gc just to flesh out range sessions for cheap. Otherwise I'd end up shooting a case of centerfire a weekend. Even at CCI prices, that adds up. THe only thing is, it wasn't near the fun as even 9mm- I have to pretty much force myself to put down my 34 and shoot the mkII instead. Last couple of weeks I actually have just been leaving the .22 at home. Now I wish I'd have just bought several more cases of ammo instead of this beautiful, accurate machine that is now going to be hard to let go of. But I don't shoot it, so that will be its ultimate fate. Just wish I had stocked up a few less thousand dynapoints (which are now just sitting there).

Though I'm not the norm- everyone else I know has fun shooting .22's. And I do agree it is good practice. But it's just not the same for me.

Also the gp100 is definitely not great for carry. Though that wasn't the reason I got rid of mine, I would opt for an sp101 if you insist on a ruger revolver for carry purposes.