TexasCHLforum.com

So my "limited experience" with gun smiths/shop owners/sale persons has been that I should NOT waste my time on a .22 and I should just go with a 9mm.

But my experience on e-boards, gun specific boards has been the opposite - the majority has said to get a .22 hand gun and practice with it.

I did shoot two 9mms (Glock 19 and XD 9) yesterday and did not have any issues with recoil or kick back, I was'nt 100% accurate every time but had decent enough scores to pass the CHL easily. (CHL Target)

So heres where I need opinions:

1) Do you think for someone starting out they should spend the $$ on buying a .22 and the cheap ammo to practice? (Even though they will be carrying a higher caliber/different gun).

or

2) Do you think its a waste of time and I should practice with a 9mm (that's what I'm leaning on carrying).

3) Which .22 pistol would you recommend and why? I'm only interested in hand guns to practice quick drawing, concealing, cleaning, hitting the targets, basically getting my feet wet. (I'm on a tight budget).

TIA

In my opinion practice is never a waste of time or effort. However that being said I would also say the practicing with what you will carry will be the logical choice. Practice with either will help you get more comfortable with your ability.

I own a Browning Buck Mark, it's a fun plinker and seems pretty reliable.

-Cain

I'm a .22 fan, so I will expand on the economics. You can buy a good used .22 for around $300, and years from now it will still be worth $300. A new piece will lose some value, but not much, not like a car or electronics.

As I said, you don't spend money on firearms, you invest.

Let's say you go to the range once a month and shoot 100 rounds each time. That's a low rate of practice for the people who frequent forums like this one, but it's much more than the typical handgun owner. That's 1,200 rounds a year, which would cost around $25-30.

Shooting 9 mm would cost around $250-350 for 1,200 rounds, depending upon how aggressively you shop.

Most enthusiasts shoot a lot more than 100 rounds a month. My wife and I were going through more than 500 rounds a month (before our range washed away).

We have a Dan Wesson .22 revolver, which IMHO is a fine handgun, but something of a collectors item these days.

You can't go wrong with a Ruger Mark III pistol. It has the advantage of giving you real-life failure-to-fire practice, since cheap .22 has a fairly high rate of misfire.

- Jim

There is nothing wrong, at all, with buying a .22 as a complement to a larger caliber. It's strictly economics; buying enough 9mm to practice enough to become and stay proficient, even though that's the cheapest "defense caliber", would cost a couple hundred dollars (1,000 rounds is the minimum, IMO, not only to break in the weapon but to become very familiar with its behavior, and 250-boxes of my favorite 9 round are about $50 apiece) Contrast that with $15 for 500 .22 rounds (Remington GBs). You can spend the day shooting an entire brick and not spend as much as a single dinner out.

In addition, the lighter recoil helps in training. A 9 will jump a bit; not as much as a .40 or .357, but enough. In trying to control it, you end up making mistakes on the shooter's wheel such as tightening your grip too much, flinching, jerking the trigger, etc. If you start with and keep coming back to a .22, those habits manifest themselves in the shot pattern of the .22 as the shooter's wheel predicts them, where the 9mm might just be inconsistent. That allows you to correct your technique, then you can go back to the 9mm and see a difference in tighter shot groupings and better control.

I have a Buckmark .22, and it's the most fun gun I own. My 12-gauge kicks like hell after the first few shots, and my 9, though fun, has a bit of flip to it and takes some patience and concentration to shoot really tight groupings. It's also a great way to introduce non-shooters to guns; not much kick, cheap, easy, and relatively quiet. Once they fire it the first time they largely get over the fear that the gun will somehow twist around and bite them.

One other thing: It's not an either-or choice. You can buy two pistols now. You can buy a .22 now and a centerfire pistol in a couple of months. If you're going to get a CHL, it takes at least two months to get the plastic after you take the course.

$300-600 isn't pocket change to most people, but you can come up with it if you take a close look at your budget.

- Jim

BlackWidow wrote:...3) Which .22 pistol would you recommend and why? I'm only interested in hand guns to practice quick drawing, concealing, cleaning, hitting the targets, basically getting my feet wet. (I'm on a tight budget).
TIA

Guess that arguments can be made either way - start with a .22, or start with the 'carry caliber'. You MUST get proficient with the 'carry caliber', but you also want to learn proper shooting techniques. For most, it's easier with a .22, for others it doesn't matter.

The .22's are lot's of fun and are great tools for teaching/re-enforcing proper sight alignment, trigger control and follow-through.
Those folks 'brand new' to pistol shooting and those that are recoil sensitive to 9mm or .38-Special loads should probably start with a .22 caliber pistol.
It is most important to instill good shooting habits at the beginning of the learning cycle (so you don't have to unlearn bad habits later).

That said, 9mm is where I started 'a few moons ago' and then later on bought a separate .22LR conversion unit for my primary 9mm pistol.
Using a conversion unit has the advantage of allowing you to stay with a single type of trigger, sights, grip, etc.
After getting used to shooting 9mm, I found that I used the .22LR conversion unit primarily for introducing my kids to the shooting sports, and not really to just shoot my same gun with 'lots cheaper' ammo.

One option to consider is to invest in the 9mm ($400-$700), get professional training ($75-$150), buy lots of ammo ($$$), and start a live-fire, and dry-fire($free) practice regimen.
Dry-fire is your friend and is a great tool to build your skills with regard to the draw, the reload, sight alignment, trigger control.
Live-fire - there is no substitute - as it is where you will learn how the gun reacts and how you handle/adjust to the gun during the firing cycle.
Take what you learn in your training sessions and work on it in practice.

And remember, it's never a bad thing to have more than one gun, so if you can, acquire a separate .22 pistol (the Ruger MK II/III or Browning Buckmark) in addition to your carry gun.

And welcome to the shooting addiction.

When I first thought about getting a pistol my father-in-law recommended that I buy a $200ish .22 first to see if I really liked shooting. He also told me that it would help me with the basics. I bought a Beretta U22 Neos for $229. I put about 5000 rounds through it before I purchased another pistol. I loved shooting the .22 and especially loved the fact that I didn't have to worry about how much money I was spending. Even now when I go to the range I always cycle 5 rounds of .45 and 10 rounds of .22. It helps keep me from anticipating the recoil and improves my aim with the .45. It also keeps me from spending big bucks each time I go to the range. I always recommend a .22.

Thanks for the "push towards the .22s".

Now the question lies of which one to get? I've done several searches and read many reviews - it seems the ruger mark III is a very reliable choice, but I really like the look of the Walther P22 and the Sig Mosquito. However from reading it seems both the latter ones are not as reliable as the ruger mark III.

I plan on shooting atleast a brick a month so I want to be able to atleast get 2000-3000 cartridges through my practice gun before it develops any issues.

Which ones would you guys recommend from the P22 or the Mosquito? Or is it best to avoid both?

Small handguns are harder to shoot accurately. The reasons are small grip, short sight radius, and lack of mass (weight). This leads to frustration.

Rimfire cartridges were never meant to be used in pistols, and the engineering compromises necessary to make a compact .22 pistol also make it somewhat less reliable. But you're shooting paper targets, not bears.

If you have a really good work ethic and want something like a Mosquito, go for it. Just be forewarned that it will take more concentrated practice to shoot well with it.

I should say that by "shoot well" I mean bullseyes at 15 yards. If you can hit the paper every time, you are on your way to good practical shooting.

I still recommend a full-size pistol for beginners. That is what serious competitors use. You are not going to be packing a .22 in your cargo shorts much.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Small handguns are harder to shoot accurately. The reasons are small grip, short sight radius, and lack of mass (weight). This leads to frustration.

Rimfire cartridges were never meant to be used in pistols, and the engineering compromises necessary to make a compact .22 pistol also make it somewhat less reliable. But you're shooting paper targets, not bears.

If you have a really good work ethic and want something like a Mosquito, go for it. Just be forewarned that it will take more concentrated practice to shoot well with it.

I should say that by "shoot well" I mean bullseyes at 15 yards. If you can hit the paper every time, you are on your way to good practical shooting.

I still recommend a full-size pistol for beginners. That is what serious competitors use. You are not going to be packing a .22 in your cargo shorts much.

- Jim

But the Mosquito is 90% of its full brother. It seems like its significantly "larger" then the P22 aswell.

Do you think these (Mosquito, P22) are reliable and capable of shooting several bricks like the Mark III? Or do they have issues often?

BlackWidow wrote:Which ones would you guys recommend from the P22 or the Mosquito? Or is it best to avoid both?

Avoid the Mosquito. It has reliability issues and there's nothing more frustrating than constant FTFs when you're trying to have some shooting practice.

I love my Walther P22, although the loose rear site is a distraction to me. I don't think I've ever had a single issue with mine.

I also have a Ruger MKII (that's a 2, not a 3. It's the 1976 edition) and I really enjoy shooting it. It's kind of a boring gun but very accurate and never ever gives me a single problem.a single issue. I love the trigger on it, and it's a heavier gun. The slide is different from other handguns, though, so training from it won't roll over exactly to a more traditional slide system.

BlackWidow wrote:Do you think these (Mosquito, P22) are reliable and capable of shooting several bricks like the Mark III? Or do they have issues often?

I don't know. I've only shot a few rounds at the range with borrowed .22 pistols.

The nice thing about buying used firearms is that you can get most of your money back if you don't like them. Modern-day Americans are conditioned to want new stuff. Firearms are a different story. Many have a higher price now than when they were new, and some are worth far more.

- Jim

If you are going to get a 22 as a range gun I think it is best to get a full sized gun such as a Browning Buckmark or a Ruger. Smaller 22s are fun and cute but I found that for reliablility and accuracy in practice a full size is better, especially as you mentioned in one of your thread that you have large hands.

Thanks for all the opinions guys.

I went with the Sig Sauer Mosquito "Sport", reading several reviews it seems this was the .22 that fit my hand (after trying all of them) best, is backed by a strong manufacturer (Sig), is a great training tool (with the external thump safety), feels realistic (recoil wise), and is easy to field strip (from reading unlike the Buck)...

Let's hope this is a good buy and I don't regret it.

My objective is to learn about guns and get some time in on the range, that's it for now. Not thinking about carrying yet, when I do I'd like to have something like a subcompact XD 9mm.

Thanks for the advise guys - I don't feel ashamed to start out with a .22