Should I get a .22 conversion for 1911? Or a whole new .22?

[InnerVision]

I recently purchased a kimber 1911 and have been considering getting the kimber .22 conversion slide for it.
I don't have a .22 handgun and have been wanting to pick one up for plinking and cheap target shooting.

Since the conversion slide costs the same as a whole new gun, say a ruger mark III (which is what I've been wanting) I haven't decided which to get.

My question: If I shoot my kimber with the .22 slide a lot, will it in turn make me better when I put the .45 back on?? Should I stick to the same frame/essentially the same gun? Or will it matter?

 

[10-Ring]

If you get a high quality conversion kit, they can be alot of fun & a really good training tool

 

[Pk14]

Congrats on the purchase of your Kimber. I have two and the Kimber .22 conversion kit as well. I do like the fact that I can get trigger time on the guns using (much) cheaper .22 ammo - it helps to focus on the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger control, using the same grip / trigger as the .45 slides.

It is a little longer to switch out the conversion kit than it is with my CZ-75 and the Kadet .22 kit. I usually keep the .22 Kimber kit on one of the .45 frames for the entire range session and shoot the other in .45, mainly because I would worry about inadvertently launching the recoil plug downrange while compressing the spring into the .45 slide! I've found the benefits of the .22 kit to outweigh the negatives.

Good luck!
Pk

 

[Jim K]

There are pros and cons on conversion kits. Some say they are good training tools, but others say that if you shoot a lot of .22 the changeover to the .45 can be disruptive. (You are expecting a "pop" and you get a "bang!" with a lot more recoil.)

Plus conversion kits are often ammo sensitive and hard to clean. Unless there is some good reason for a kit (such as a legal limit on the number of guns you can own), I vote for just buying a second gun, one that is made for the .22 and will likely give less trouble. Plus you won't have to keep changing things around. The Ruger 22/45 would be a good choice as it feels more like the .45 than the regular Ruger .22.

Jim

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I have two .22 Conversion kits, one a Ciener, the other a Colt Service Ace (with the floating chamber.) While useful as training substitutes, when I go afield with a .22 pistol, I usually carry either my Colt Officers Model Target revolver, or my Colt Woodsman.

 

[varoadking]

I like my Glock 19 Advantage Arms .22 conversion kit, but for very little more, you can get a Ruger Mark II...

...and they shoot a heck of a lot better than any conversion kit...

...and 2 guns is better than 1 gun and 2 uppers, IMHO...

 

[wally]

Every time I think about one of the conversions I decide for the same or less money there's an entire .22 pistol I'd rather have instead.

IF you are a bullesye shooter and want the same trigger for all three stages, the Marvel conversion would seem to be the way to go, but for recreation, most conversions seem to have trouble with the cheap plinking ammo and spare mags at $35+ each are ridiculous, not that spare Ruger mags at $18-20 are a bargain.

--wally.

 

[TonyT]

If you really want to practise with the 45 ACP get the MARVEL conversion unit for target level accuracy. The Kimber conversion is plinking level accuracy.

 

[Majic]

Unless you are looking to just practice with your 1911 I would get a a seperate handgun chambered in .22lr.

 

[wally]

Unless you are looking to just practice with your 1911 I would get a a seperate handgun chambered in .22lr.

As far as I'm concerned, practice with the .45ACP is to control recoil for fast and effective follow-up shots. A .22 conversion is zero help here, and I suspect dry-fire would be about as effective.

--wally.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As far as I'm concerned, practice with the .45ACP is to control recoil for fast and effective follow-up shots. A .22 conversion is zero help here, and I suspect dry-fire would be about as effective.

Actually one of the benefits from using a .22 conversion is learning follow-up. People like Leatham tell you they visually track the front sight throughout the recoil cycle -- a feat beyond the capabilities of most of us. But you can practice that with a .22 conversion and eventually come close to the goal of never losing focus on the front sight.

The Colt Service Ace is pretty good for this, in my opinion -- it has a 2-part recoil, which adds a bit of a flip.

 

[Technosavant]

The Ruger 22/45 would be a good choice as it feels more like the .45 than the regular Ruger .22.

I have the 22/45 as a complement to my 1911. I call it "almost, but not entirely, completely unlike the 1911." The grip angle is the same and the controls are in the same places, but the similarities end there. The grip is thinner than a 1911, the trigger stinks, the controls (despite their similar location) operate differently, the weight balance isn't even close (the 22/45 is VERY top heavy). It is a real tack driver and very reliable, but I still don't love it. Maybe one day I'll replace the trigger parts and see if I can begin enjoying it. Or maybe I'll just sell it for something else.

If you want a .22 that is just like a 1911, get a conversion kit or a 1911 with a .22 top end (Kimber makes not just the kit, but also a full-up .22 1911). The 22/45 is a budget choice if you like the grip angle, but it isn't so close to the 1911 that you'll be able to go back and forth seamlessly; you might as well have a completely different gun, because that is what it will feel like anyway. Honestly, if you are looking at the 22/45, you'll do yourself a favor by considering other guns, like the Browning Buckmark.

The 22/45 could have been a fantastic complement to the 1911, but Ruger cut way too many corners on it- if it accepted 1911 grip panels and the slide stop and safety operated differently (more so the safety than the slide stop), it would be a far superior gun than it is. As it is, it's similar, yet you never forget that it isn't a 1911 at all.

 

[chongfa]

I used to have a conversion kit of my 1911. I would say that you might as well go for a real .22 pistol.

 

[wally]

But you can practice that with a .22 conversion and eventually come close to the goal of never losing focus on the front sight.

Keep your eye on the ball is supposedly the secret to good hitting in baseball too, but its physiologically impossible at good high school pitcher velocities -- combined head and eye angular velocity can't match the angular velocity required to track the ball as it crosses the hitting zone.

Same deal with slide moving under recoil -- its way too fast to see the sights attached to the slide until it stops moving. I fail to see how a 22 conversion is better or worse than any other .22 for following the front sight under recoil, such as it is on a 22.

Good control of recoil reduces the movement of the front sight making it easier to "find" when the slide stops moving and you can see it again.

I stand by my statement that the only way to practice and learn to handle strong recoil is to shoot guns that have strong recoil. OTOH if one shot every 5+ seconds is "fast enough" recoil doesn't matter as long as it doesn't make you flinch on the next shot.

Like I said the Marvel conversion on a good .45 is a great setup for 2700 bullseye matches, but for just about everything else, given that the price of the plinker conversions match the price of many good .22 pistols most folks are better off with the separate gun.

--wally.

Edit: I guess if you live in "pistol permit per gun" anti-gun area and the conversion remains a loophole since they are not guns under Federal law then it could make a lot of sense. But I don't know if there are any areas with laws like this that don't consider the converted gun to be a second gun.

 

[JoeHatley]

Should I get a .22 conversion for 1911? Or a whole new .22?

Both!!!




Ciener kit, on it's own dedicated RMT alloy frame.

Fun gun...

Joe

 

[mljdeckard]

My dad raised me with a woodsman and a Ruger Mk II. I bought him a Single-Six for father's day a few years ago. I bought a Ciener to top my Kimber, and I love it. I have cranked thousands of rounds through it. I am considering getting a tapped barrel and a silencer for it.

The only (small) for me for it really is that it is a little finicky about ammo. It prefers high-velocity, 40 gr, copper-plated ammo. I use only stingers or velocitors in it, but the truth is, I think now that I am spoiled to them, I would use those exclusively in ANY .22 unless I wanted to get serious about building and testing for accuracy.

I've never shot a Buckmark or Neos, but I do still find myself lusting after a Mk III.