.22 Training Pistols: Pros & Cons by Todd Louis Green
- Thread starter Wendell
- Start date
I agree with most of the stuff he gave. However he only lightly stressed the key element for me. And that was using my first .22 to help me kick the flinch issue I had as a new shooter. For that alone it was a worthy purchase. The fact that the same pistol continues to make me smile as I use it to shoot more with cheap ammo is just a bonus.
And let's not forget that the author wrote that based on a long history of working in an industry that serves the military, law enforcement and self defense groups in the USA. I doubt that he wrote that with much thought given to shooting as a sport.
And let's not forget that the author wrote that based on a long history of working in an industry that serves the military, law enforcement and self defense groups in the USA. I doubt that he wrote that with much thought given to shooting as a sport.
I don't know if I want to waste a few hundred dollars on a .22LR pistol.
Does it make more sense to use that money to buy more ammo for the service pistol? Also for marksmanship, strong- and weak-hand only shooting, draw stroke and reloads can't we train dry with those actions? Also isn't that .22LR trainers pistol magazines are not the same dimensions as the service pistol equivalent?
From my current point of view, I rather have 2000 to 3000 more rounds of 9mms then a new .22 pistol.
Does it make more sense to use that money to buy more ammo for the service pistol? Also for marksmanship, strong- and weak-hand only shooting, draw stroke and reloads can't we train dry with those actions? Also isn't that .22LR trainers pistol magazines are not the same dimensions as the service pistol equivalent?
From my current point of view, I rather have 2000 to 3000 more rounds of 9mms then a new .22 pistol.
I have lots of .22 pistols and now I rarely use them since I began reloading I just don't see the value or savings any more, I enjoy shooting center-fire way more...
The things is you can get a pretty functional .22 for $300-$400 bucks. A gsg 1911 has the same feel of a regular 1911 and can be had for $380 bucks. The price of 1200 9mm rounds. Once those 1200 are gone you still have to pay 15 bucks a box, where as that same 15 bucks can almost get you 500 rounds in your new .22.
I think they don't substitute for the real all the time, but considering their low price and the low price of ammo I don't see why you shouldn't get one.
300Spartans
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Canada of course
The top competitive handgunners spend literally hours per day on dryfiring. There is more recoil with even a .22 than a dryfire. I disagree with the author's assertion.
Someuser, it'll depend on you but I know that I went through about my first 300 to 500 rounds of 9 with a flinch that I knew I had but could not break. And even a lot of dry firing didn't help. Mind you I didn't spend an hour a day dry firing either. But I feel that it didn't help much because deep down I knew if the gun was loaded or not.
With time and a lot more ammo perhaps I could have kicked the flinch. But instead I chose to have a .22 sitting alongside my 9. I'd shoot some .22 working on a stable non flinching hold while perfecting a smooth trigger pull and follow through that avoided any passing recognition of the round firing. I'd then finish the mag of .22 and flow on to a mag of 9. For the first few sessions this helped for the first shots but by the time I'd get to the end of the mag of 9 the flinch was back so it was back to the .22. I "trained" this way for a good dozen or more sessions before I was able to say that I had licked the flinch for the moment. Some later remedial sessions with both guns side by side were needed over the next year.
Could I have done this with center fire only? I'd like to think so but it would have taken longer, used as much or more than the cost of the .22 gun in ammo and likely still not given me the increase in accuracy through training to achieve the proper trigger control. For me the .22 was an ideal training aid for the basics of accuracy, trigger control and learning to hold the gun with a calm, firm but gentle and stable grip. But mostly it was a great aid in learning to shoot without paying attention to the round going off. This last bit isn't as easy as it sounds for many of us.
How important is having the exact same platform in a .22 training gun? It depends. If you're going to get into competition and will only ever buy and shoot ONE handgun then having an identical .22 has some merit to it. If you're like most of us and enjoy a variety of hanguns then it's not a big deal. Although I would suggest that getting something with a similar grip angle is a good idea. So if you shoot 1911's, Sigs, CZ's or S&W semis then you likely would want to avoid the Luger like grip of a Ruger MKIII or similar. But other than this grip angle I did not find it a big deal due to the rest of my guns varying in the fine details.
Tricks such as dry firing with an empty case or coin sitting on the slide just behind the front sight can teach you to focus and not flinch and to some extent how to pull the trigger without pulling the gun to the side. But it takes some shooting to prove if this worked out and if you're doing it right. This is where the .22 comes back into it. The holes it makes are the "test" that proves if all the rest of your dry fire practice is helping at all. To me a .22 during that stage of my learning was much like dry firing but with a pop and a hole to tell me if I was doing things right. Otherwise there's no really good feedback from dry firing to let you know if you're doing it right or not. Although I suppose mounting a laser dot to the gun would soon show if you're dry firing well or not.
In the end you're still the best person to say if you would benefit from a .22. If you can shoot 3 inch groups that chew out the bullseye at 5 to 10 yards with no flyers and can do so fairly quickly and don't feel that every gun out there has maladjusted sights then you likely don't need a .22. For many of the rest of us a .22 is a good idea that will speed up our learning and prove worth keeping. I know that I still find it worth while to run through a box or two or .22's at my practice sessions as it reinforces my accuracy, calm and control while firing the big stuff.
Besides, they hold their price fairly well. Find and buy a quality used .22 pistol and you'll likely find that you can own and shoot it for a couple of years and sell it for only a little less than you paid. Meanwhile the similar cost in ammo you had to buy to learn the lessons with the center fire that a .22 would have taught much sooner is all gone.
With time and a lot more ammo perhaps I could have kicked the flinch. But instead I chose to have a .22 sitting alongside my 9. I'd shoot some .22 working on a stable non flinching hold while perfecting a smooth trigger pull and follow through that avoided any passing recognition of the round firing. I'd then finish the mag of .22 and flow on to a mag of 9. For the first few sessions this helped for the first shots but by the time I'd get to the end of the mag of 9 the flinch was back so it was back to the .22. I "trained" this way for a good dozen or more sessions before I was able to say that I had licked the flinch for the moment. Some later remedial sessions with both guns side by side were needed over the next year.
Could I have done this with center fire only? I'd like to think so but it would have taken longer, used as much or more than the cost of the .22 gun in ammo and likely still not given me the increase in accuracy through training to achieve the proper trigger control. For me the .22 was an ideal training aid for the basics of accuracy, trigger control and learning to hold the gun with a calm, firm but gentle and stable grip. But mostly it was a great aid in learning to shoot without paying attention to the round going off. This last bit isn't as easy as it sounds for many of us.
How important is having the exact same platform in a .22 training gun? It depends. If you're going to get into competition and will only ever buy and shoot ONE handgun then having an identical .22 has some merit to it. If you're like most of us and enjoy a variety of hanguns then it's not a big deal. Although I would suggest that getting something with a similar grip angle is a good idea. So if you shoot 1911's, Sigs, CZ's or S&W semis then you likely would want to avoid the Luger like grip of a Ruger MKIII or similar. But other than this grip angle I did not find it a big deal due to the rest of my guns varying in the fine details.
Tricks such as dry firing with an empty case or coin sitting on the slide just behind the front sight can teach you to focus and not flinch and to some extent how to pull the trigger without pulling the gun to the side. But it takes some shooting to prove if this worked out and if you're doing it right. This is where the .22 comes back into it. The holes it makes are the "test" that proves if all the rest of your dry fire practice is helping at all. To me a .22 during that stage of my learning was much like dry firing but with a pop and a hole to tell me if I was doing things right. Otherwise there's no really good feedback from dry firing to let you know if you're doing it right or not. Although I suppose mounting a laser dot to the gun would soon show if you're dry firing well or not.
In the end you're still the best person to say if you would benefit from a .22. If you can shoot 3 inch groups that chew out the bullseye at 5 to 10 yards with no flyers and can do so fairly quickly and don't feel that every gun out there has maladjusted sights then you likely don't need a .22. For many of the rest of us a .22 is a good idea that will speed up our learning and prove worth keeping. I know that I still find it worth while to run through a box or two or .22's at my practice sessions as it reinforces my accuracy, calm and control while firing the big stuff.
Besides, they hold their price fairly well. Find and buy a quality used .22 pistol and you'll likely find that you can own and shoot it for a couple of years and sell it for only a little less than you paid. Meanwhile the similar cost in ammo you had to buy to learn the lessons with the center fire that a .22 would have taught much sooner is all gone.
I do a lot of my drills with a .22cal kit on top of my 226. He is correct that you can become overconfident using just the .22cal, but it is still a great tool. I suspect his tone might change if he was not getting and sponsorships. Few of us can afford to shoot centrefire as much as we would like, even reloading has cost, most of which for 9mm is time.
What I am finding is that you start the day by running through your drills with .22cal and then do them with full calibre on the same day, so you don’t “forget” the recoil effects.
What I am finding is that you start the day by running through your drills with .22cal and then do them with full calibre on the same day, so you don’t “forget” the recoil effects.
One of the posters says he doesn't know why you would want a .22 pistol? I for one wonder why you would not want one! I never go to the range without taking at least one of mine. I think they are a great tool and besides that just a lot of fun to shoot and isn't that why we do this sport, for the fun of it?
Graydog
Graydog
He specifically mentions that 22 is cheaper and that is one reason for using it. In other articles he covers dry fire and the good and bad behind it. However one reason to use dry fire over 22s is because you are using the gun you would actually use. And the same trigger etc. Certainly training kits that drop onto your main gun allow you to train with those same benefits, but not at home in your basement or living room or somewhere.
Todd's focus in shooting is on centerfire, so obviously the article is written to discuss the benefits of 22 in that area of training. As well while he may be getting his ammo supplied currently, for the test gun, he certainly didn't write the article as a way to promote sales of centerfire ammo or guns.
How some of you can find a negative in everything is beyond me.
Todd's focus in shooting is on centerfire, so obviously the article is written to discuss the benefits of 22 in that area of training. As well while he may be getting his ammo supplied currently, for the test gun, he certainly didn't write the article as a way to promote sales of centerfire ammo or guns.
How some of you can find a negative in everything is beyond me.
Your long term costs will be lower for the same total round count once your ammo savings are recovered from shooting less expensive .22 ammo. Alternately, you can shoot more for the same ammo budget. Gun costs are small in the long run compared to ammo/components.
Any quality .22 pistol is a good tool to learn and maintain marksmanship fundamentals and I think every serious handgunner ought to have at least one. I think they compliment centrefire pistols rather than being a substitute for them.
A lot of what he said makes perfect sense. However the tone of the article sure seems to downplay the validity of using .22 and the scope of how it has helped a lot of us in our early days.
For seasoned shooters that have been shooting for many years with high round counts per year along with many compeitions going "back" to a .22 would not really make sense as a training tool. He's very much in that boat I'm guessing. And if I were a long time shooter I'd be in much more agreement with the tone of the article. But for those of us still pretty wet behind the ears with our newbiness, and I'm one of them, there's still much to be gained by a steady diet of .22 among our center fire efforts. Advantages that seem to be downplayed or passed over in this article.
After reading everyone's posts, I feel that I should get a .22 conversion kit for my Glock. The more I think about it, it makes more sense to get a kit if I want to shoot A LOT! I want to shoot bricks and bricks of .22 to get better as fast as I can. Also like as per Slavex said about conversion kits will use the same trigger will help.
Thanks guys for giving me your opinions.
Thanks guys for giving me your opinions.
- Location
- Montreal, Quebec
I've recently returned to the sport and my 9mm and .45 flinch was huge. Some .22 therapy worked like a charm. The last few range visits started with a .22 and it keeps my focus on the fundamentals. Getting a .22 conversion or variant of your primary center-fire seems like solid advice to me. Does the M&P 9 have .22 conversion yet? Smith & Wesson site does not seem to mention it.
It all depends on what you are trying to get out of it. If you are learning for self defense or law enforcement or action type competition the value of 22 training will not be as great as if you were training for slow fire events. As he notes, there is nothing to be gained (or very little) when it comes to recoil management and transitions. If all you want to work on is basic marksmanship then they have value. If its a training kit on top of your normal frame, then its allows you to learn your trigger. But for fast, multiple target training you need to use what you are going to use in that situation.
Slavex, I'm in total agreement with his and your thoughts on training for match work such as IPSC and IDPA, or for those south of the border for SD practice. In these cases the recoil of the rounds plays such a big part in how the gun is handled that practicing such things with a .22 would be not only pointless but damaging to the shooter's center fire skills on their competition or regular use gun.
But that all happens later well after the initial learning. It's during that learning phase where the .22 and it's mild recoil can be of great advantage as an aid for learning proper techniques and chasing away that all mighty flinch. It's this early phase that the article seems to gloss over and basically ignore by making it sound like a .22 has little or no value.
And for some of us even once we've gotten past that early stage shooting a .22 still has value for some aspects. Obviously and correctly this is not for practice at double taps and the like where the recoil is an integral part of the drill. Using the .22 needs to be limited to the sort of practice where it's relevant. But much like a martial arts student uses their "kata" to practice their moves in slow motion some of us still find shooting a .22 for some aspects to be good practice for settling ourselves and maintaining that calm separation from the recoil in our shooting. I know that for me it really helps a lot. And as so often mentioned all trigger time is good time. Using the .22 just let's me rack up more practice for cheaper.
But that all happens later well after the initial learning. It's during that learning phase where the .22 and it's mild recoil can be of great advantage as an aid for learning proper techniques and chasing away that all mighty flinch. It's this early phase that the article seems to gloss over and basically ignore by making it sound like a .22 has little or no value.
And for some of us even once we've gotten past that early stage shooting a .22 still has value for some aspects. Obviously and correctly this is not for practice at double taps and the like where the recoil is an integral part of the drill. Using the .22 needs to be limited to the sort of practice where it's relevant. But much like a martial arts student uses their "kata" to practice their moves in slow motion some of us still find shooting a .22 for some aspects to be good practice for settling ourselves and maintaining that calm separation from the recoil in our shooting. I know that for me it really helps a lot. And as so often mentioned all trigger time is good time. Using the .22 just let's me rack up more practice for cheaper.
Got Juice?
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Peoples Republik of Kanukkistan
Shooting .22 at silhouette targets improves a lot of things, and will help your IPSC and IPDA scores.
It teaches many many things.
Trigger control
Hand Pressures (heeling/anticipation etc)
Sight Pictures POA vs POI
breathing control
Sight Picture alignment (instinctive)
There is NO forgiveness in silhouette. ZERO.
1 Shot per target, each target in order, 5 loaded in mag only.
If that doesn't teach accuracy to a student, nothing will.
In fact, shooting 5" round steel plates after shooting 2 complete rounds of silh, is so instinctive, and fast without any misses, that it's damn near telepathic....
On our last HG Silhouette match, a few new shooters sneered a little at the 'game' we were playing. That is, until they stepped up to the line to shoot. My My My... how their tune changed.... in a hurry too!
It teaches many many things.
Trigger control
Hand Pressures (heeling/anticipation etc)
Sight Pictures POA vs POI
breathing control
Sight Picture alignment (instinctive)
There is NO forgiveness in silhouette. ZERO.
1 Shot per target, each target in order, 5 loaded in mag only.
If that doesn't teach accuracy to a student, nothing will.
In fact, shooting 5" round steel plates after shooting 2 complete rounds of silh, is so instinctive, and fast without any misses, that it's damn near telepathic....
On our last HG Silhouette match, a few new shooters sneered a little at the 'game' we were playing. That is, until they stepped up to the line to shoot. My My My... how their tune changed.... in a hurry too!
