Is a .22 Pistol really any good for practice.
- Thread starter GoInnaWoods
- Start date
- Status
Stanley J. Liszcz Sr.
Member
I agree with Murf. Sometimes a good shooter really gets bummed out. I took out my Ruger MarkIII, fired three boxes of .22's. It was fun, but a little underfulfilling, 150 rounds, and only two holes in the target. One the size of a pencil eraser, slightly tattered, and one the size of a .22 bullet....damned flier. Three boxes, two holes, maybe one day I will be a good shootist. Until then, one can only hope.
Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,805
I am in my 50's. I started shooting as a teenager: skeet with my dad, single-shot bolt action 22 rifle in the woods, and eventually a Ruger Single Six 22lr for plinking. I didn't own a centerfire handgun until after I finished college. Apparently the thousands of rounds I put through my Single Six paid off. When I bought a 4" medium-farmed 357 for HD, I found that I shot it quite well from Day One. To this day I start every range session by "warming up" with a 22 handgun. In my lifetime I've probably shot as much or more 22lr through handguns as all other calibers combined.
I've taught a lot of people to shoot handguns. I always start them off with 22's, and let them work their way up through 32's, 38/9mm, etc. as they gain confidence and feel comfortable. It works well.
As for the revolver/semiautomatic debate, I shoot both regularly. When I teach handgun shooting, I alternate between the platforms so that they new shooter feels comfortable with both. In my experience they seem to prefer revolvers early on, as their operation is more intuitive, but maybe that's just because I'm still a revolver guy at heart and subconsciously influence them.
There would be no point in me buying a pistol more accurate than my Buck Mark. It is more accurate than I am. If the groups are larger on some days than on others, that's entirely my fault. My mediocre shooting skills would doubtless lead to similar groups with the Buck Mark and a more expensive target pistol. With a better shooter I would expect the results to be noticeably different.
I've taught a lot of people to shoot handguns. I always start them off with 22's, and let them work their way up through 32's, 38/9mm, etc. as they gain confidence and feel comfortable. It works well.
As for the revolver/semiautomatic debate, I shoot both regularly. When I teach handgun shooting, I alternate between the platforms so that they new shooter feels comfortable with both. In my experience they seem to prefer revolvers early on, as their operation is more intuitive, but maybe that's just because I'm still a revolver guy at heart and subconsciously influence them.
There would be no point in me buying a pistol more accurate than my Buck Mark. It is more accurate than I am. If the groups are larger on some days than on others, that's entirely my fault. My mediocre shooting skills would doubtless lead to similar groups with the Buck Mark and a more expensive target pistol. With a better shooter I would expect the results to be noticeably different.
I would second the pellet gun, or airsoft. There are some very good copies out there that have all the controls in the same place as the "real" gun. Holsters fit, everything but the recoil.
The better ones are a bit spendy....but the cost of "ammo" will really help....and with airsoft you can practice in your living room, garage....whatever.
The better ones are a bit spendy....but the cost of "ammo" will really help....and with airsoft you can practice in your living room, garage....whatever.
22-rimfire
Member
There is no doubt in my mind that shooting a 22 handgun has improved my center fire shooting. You can also switch back and forth. Shooting is all about fundamentals and 22's are great for polishing up your gun fundamentals. Same goes with rifles.
I would decide which way you are leaning as far as center fires go... revolver or semi-auto and choose a 22 with that action to get you acclimated to that design. Try to get a grip design on the 22 that is similar to the future center fire you are leaning toward. The controls may not be the same, but it helps.
I would decide which way you are leaning as far as center fires go... revolver or semi-auto and choose a 22 with that action to get you acclimated to that design. Try to get a grip design on the 22 that is similar to the future center fire you are leaning toward. The controls may not be the same, but it helps.
Yup.
I have a .22LR revolver with a DA trigger pull that is about 13lbs. Learning to shoot that pistol accurately and rapidly in DA has been very good for my centerfire pistol marksmanship. And it has been a lot more fun than dryfiring.
Joe A.
Member
I kinda did the whole .22LR and move up backwards.
About 2 months ago, I bought a Tanfoglio Witness PS 9mm (Full Size, Small Frame, for HD and Targets) and learned to shoot with that. After 1.5 months, I decided I needed a .22LR conversion kit for it, so I could work on my accuracy while cutting the cost of shooting. Keep in mind, getting a conversion kit allows you to use the same lower frame, grip, trigger, and it's close to the same weight. So far it's worked out well. I start practice shooting the .22LR (100-150 rds), then switch it over to the 9mm (50 rds). I really enjoy shooting both.
About 2 months ago, I bought a Tanfoglio Witness PS 9mm (Full Size, Small Frame, for HD and Targets) and learned to shoot with that. After 1.5 months, I decided I needed a .22LR conversion kit for it, so I could work on my accuracy while cutting the cost of shooting. Keep in mind, getting a conversion kit allows you to use the same lower frame, grip, trigger, and it's close to the same weight. So far it's worked out well. I start practice shooting the .22LR (100-150 rds), then switch it over to the 9mm (50 rds). I really enjoy shooting both.
Fundamentals are fundamentals. Getting a quality 22lr pistol is something that will last throughout your shooting career. Practicing with 22lr is an excellent practice, especially if you are more accurate with the 22 (it shows you need work on the bigger gun).
1911 guy
Member
I'm all for having a .22 rifle and pistol. My favorite time spent at the range is making small groups at large distances. I spend lot of time dry firing and burning .22 ammo, which helps when I get behind a .223 or .308.
Same goes for handguns. Dry fire and .22 go a long way toward refining the skills you need for a centerfire.
Same goes for handguns. Dry fire and .22 go a long way toward refining the skills you need for a centerfire.
CaptTripps
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
- Messages
- 284
They're great or improving and maintaining the fundamentals of pistol shooting. I've fired probably between 12K-15K rounds thru my Mark II, I feel it has definitely helped my pistol shooting.
I love the Ruger Standard, but after over 4 years of no 22 under 12c/round, I gave up, and bought a CZ. 9mm costs 11c/per round (reload). If its available in your area cheap, its a great caliber. Saying .22 wont help you develop skills is like the idea that swinging a framing hammer wont help you hit nails with a finish hammer. Its all the same reflexes
mljdeckard
Member
I have a Ciener .22 conversion for my Kimber, I should start training with it again, now that .22 is more available and cheaper than cocaine again.
22-rimfire
Member
Saddlebag Preacher
Member
I use an M&P .22 compact to help me train for my M&P Shield. The shield is a soft shooter, but the .22 helps me in trigger control so I don't pull my shots left and low, (which I seem to do a lot with a smaller handgun) and will show me if I'm starting to flinch or not. It's cheaper to put a couple of hundred .22 downrange. It also has pretty much the same grip feel and trigger.
lsudave
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,042
I'll join in this almost universal chorus- get a fullsized, reasonably heavy .22lr to learn how to shoot. There was a question of translating to the bigger calibers... well, placing the first shot on target is a skill you want, and that will translate. You will learn that on a 22, and you will learn it better than with a larger caliber pistol or revolver, especially at first.
Coal Dragger
member
I refined my pistol marksmanship fundamentals shooting collegiate bullseye pistol with match grade .22LR target pistols. In my humble opinion this was invaluable to have lots of trigger time on a very accurate pistol with formal instruction, coaching, and structured goal/performance driven training.
The fundamentals of trigger control, sight alignment, and grip will translate to larger calibers. When it is time to learn go fast shooting or other types of pistol craft, you will never be sorry you learned how to make very controlled trigger presses that don't disturb the sight alignment of the pistol. Best way to do this is on a .22LR for most shooters including experienced ones.
My last training class (with Pat McNamara) had us shooting pistols a lot one handed, and the "Certificate of Victory" for training day one was a pistol oriented course shooting two handed, strong hand only, and then weak hand only. Not to boast but due to my background I had no issues at all winning the "Certificate of Victory", the course of fire called for the shooter to declare his score beforehand and I declared that I was going to shoot a perfect score. Which I did. Twice. Pat asked where I learned to shoot one handed, and I told him I used to shoot competitive bullseye, and his response was "I can tell.". Incidentally this go fast tactical guy, who unlike mall ninjas you see at the range, used to shoot bad men in the face for a living in Delta Force feels that basic marksmanship and bullseye style shooting is actually very very good training. He flatly states that his classes stress basic rifle marksmanship and basic pistol marksmanship for the first bit of each training day as a shooter IQ test. He told us that if he only had 5 rounds to practice with a day he would shoot weak hand only at 50 yards for accuracy. If his students have a good understanding of the basics he knows he can turn up the wick, but if not he knows he will need to focus on it. Says too many classes, and shooters are way too focused on making a lot of expensive noise hosing down targets doing mindless drills trying to achieve some arbitrary par time. After training for performance where the goal is to improve how well I can perform the task, I have to agree with his methodology.
The fundamentals of trigger control, sight alignment, and grip will translate to larger calibers. When it is time to learn go fast shooting or other types of pistol craft, you will never be sorry you learned how to make very controlled trigger presses that don't disturb the sight alignment of the pistol. Best way to do this is on a .22LR for most shooters including experienced ones.
My last training class (with Pat McNamara) had us shooting pistols a lot one handed, and the "Certificate of Victory" for training day one was a pistol oriented course shooting two handed, strong hand only, and then weak hand only. Not to boast but due to my background I had no issues at all winning the "Certificate of Victory", the course of fire called for the shooter to declare his score beforehand and I declared that I was going to shoot a perfect score. Which I did. Twice. Pat asked where I learned to shoot one handed, and I told him I used to shoot competitive bullseye, and his response was "I can tell.". Incidentally this go fast tactical guy, who unlike mall ninjas you see at the range, used to shoot bad men in the face for a living in Delta Force feels that basic marksmanship and bullseye style shooting is actually very very good training. He flatly states that his classes stress basic rifle marksmanship and basic pistol marksmanship for the first bit of each training day as a shooter IQ test. He told us that if he only had 5 rounds to practice with a day he would shoot weak hand only at 50 yards for accuracy. If his students have a good understanding of the basics he knows he can turn up the wick, but if not he knows he will need to focus on it. Says too many classes, and shooters are way too focused on making a lot of expensive noise hosing down targets doing mindless drills trying to achieve some arbitrary par time. After training for performance where the goal is to improve how well I can perform the task, I have to agree with his methodology.
Mike OTDP
Member
No brainer, get the .22. If you go back and read books on shooting, especially those written before big-money schools became a business, they all recommended starting with a .22.
Look for an older High Standard in good shape. Stay away from the pot metal linkers, you need a good trigger to learn good habits.
Look for an older High Standard in good shape. Stay away from the pot metal linkers, you need a good trigger to learn good habits.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,893
Do it! You'll thank yourself after!
A lot of people don't get this. First, you are absolutely correct, bullseye is so demanding on your fundamentals that any mistake will *devastate* your scores. I used to have a trigger jerk on the 45. Two-handed at under 20 yards, it wasn't noticeable at all, I was pretty much dead on shooting small groups. When I went out to 25 yards with the rapid fire standard bullseye target, I was quickly humbled. I hit the dang target frame low left so many times with my jerking finger. My 22 (a Pardini) has such a good trigger that the heavier required trigger on the 45 and the 1911-single-stage style break was hard for me to learn. But again, this is pure fundamentals. If you can make a hit on a bullseye target at 50 yards one-handed in the black, it greatly increases your confidence that you could place your shots at a shorter distance.
Not only does it increase confidence, but your fundamentals improve in two-handed action shooting. When I began IDPA, I felt like my accuracy was a big advantage over the other newbies, and the fact that I learned to get my shots off in rapid fire and keep the trigger moving. Now obviously at the high level, IDPA and action shooting is its own skill, but as a core discipline to begin with, I cannot emphasize how good bullseye is enough.
Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,805
To go OT a little bit...
I shoot about 50% 22 handguns and 50% centerfire. The mixture is about even between revolver and semiautomatic. I am fortunate to own a wide variety of types and calibers of handgun. I try to practice on as many different kinds as I can. I think it really helps. At short range I can do well with just about anything within a shot or two. I usually shoot at 15 yards, and within 2-3 shots I will be hitting pretty tight groups with whatever I pick up.
I think it's all about fundamentals. Being able to train with different calibers and types makes you a better shooter overall, IMHO.
I shoot about 50% 22 handguns and 50% centerfire. The mixture is about even between revolver and semiautomatic. I am fortunate to own a wide variety of types and calibers of handgun. I try to practice on as many different kinds as I can. I think it really helps. At short range I can do well with just about anything within a shot or two. I usually shoot at 15 yards, and within 2-3 shots I will be hitting pretty tight groups with whatever I pick up.
I think it's all about fundamentals. Being able to train with different calibers and types makes you a better shooter overall, IMHO.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
v35
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 910
Years ago, much to my surprise I had somehow developed a "flinch" problem. Practicing with a .22 fixed it. Years later, it hasn't come back.
Different people have different needs but that was all the reason I needed.
375supermag
Member
Hi...
I believe that the fundamentals of shooting a handgun are best learned with a .22LR revolver.
It is cheap effective practice that transitions over to a centerfire revolver quite well(except for perceived recoil).
I have two .22LR revolvers , one is a SA .22LR/22Mag and the other a large frame Dan Wesson in .22LR. Both revolvers go to the range with me regularly. I usually warm up by shooting the SA revolver and then switch over to the Dan Wesson. By the time I put 100 rounds or so through those two handguns, I have completely shut out all outside distractions and am squared away to do some serious shooting with my centerfire handguns.
A .22cal revolver is, IMHO, an invaluable training tool for learning to shoot a handgun well.
If my handgun shooting begins to suffer with centerfire handguns, it usually only takes a few cylinderfuls of .22LR before the reason becomes apparent. Usually that reason is sloppy trigger technique or lazy sight alignment because of anticipating recoil. Both problems show up quite readily on a target and are easily correctable by practicing proper technique with a .22cal. handgun.
I believe that the fundamentals of shooting a handgun are best learned with a .22LR revolver.
It is cheap effective practice that transitions over to a centerfire revolver quite well(except for perceived recoil).
I have two .22LR revolvers , one is a SA .22LR/22Mag and the other a large frame Dan Wesson in .22LR. Both revolvers go to the range with me regularly. I usually warm up by shooting the SA revolver and then switch over to the Dan Wesson. By the time I put 100 rounds or so through those two handguns, I have completely shut out all outside distractions and am squared away to do some serious shooting with my centerfire handguns.
A .22cal revolver is, IMHO, an invaluable training tool for learning to shoot a handgun well.
If my handgun shooting begins to suffer with centerfire handguns, it usually only takes a few cylinderfuls of .22LR before the reason becomes apparent. Usually that reason is sloppy trigger technique or lazy sight alignment because of anticipating recoil. Both problems show up quite readily on a target and are easily correctable by practicing proper technique with a .22cal. handgun.
- Status
