How beneficial is training with a 22 pistol?

[breakingcontact]

Hey folks. I am trying to do the things that work this year in terms of improving my abilities.

I am running drills that proficient friends suggest and just in general looking to collect and act on sound advice.

How much can a person benefit from practicing with a 22 pistol?

I shoot an M&P fullsize, so there is the M&P 22 which would give me some of the similarities to my main gun. The triggers are wildly different though.

Thanks.

[Chris Rhines]

It's different for different people.

I find that practicing with a .22LR pistol is no better than dry fire with my actual gun. There are other shooters, some very good ones, who find that practice with a .22LR is very useful.

Oddly, I find that practicing with a .22LR rifle is much more useful. I do most of my off-season 3-gun training with a TacSol AR-22.

[ToddG]

There are a lot of things that I find useful about training with a .22 pistol, the biggest benefit obviously being less expense. The key thing to keep in mind is that recoil is so minimal in a .22 pistol compared to any "LE caliber" that you are cheating yourself if shooting multi-shot drills. But for things like drawing, reloading, basic marksmanship fundamentals... I like it better than dry fire because there is real accounting of where each shot landed.

[45dotACP]

There are a lot of things that I find useful about training with a .22 pistol, the biggest benefit obviously being less expense. The key thing to keep in mind is that recoil is so minimal in a .22 pistol compared to any "LE caliber" that you are cheating yourself if shooting multi-shot drills. But for things like drawing, reloading, basic marksmanship fundamentals... I like it better than dry fire because there is real accounting of where each shot landed.

What he said. I like .22's for the accountability, because that means I can begin to learn to call my shots with a cheaper round. Shot calling is IMO, a valuable skill to have.

[Malamute]

Some good comments already, not much to add. I've shot vastly more 22's than centerfire. I never would have been able to shoot as much centerfire as I have 22's. Probably never would have gotten very far shooting things in the air only shooting centerfire, or as much moving targets as hunting small game with a 22.

When I hadnt carried or shot a 1911 for a while, running a brick or two of 22's through the conversion kit got me pretty well tuned up.

[MD7305]

I use to incorporate a lot of .22 into range sessions. I used an Advantage Arms conversion kit so I could get the same trigger pull and utilize my carry gear. As Todd mentioned, any drills requiring rapid fire were done in .40 but anything I could do requiring fundamentals or, say, drawing to one shot drills, etc. we're done in .22. When I was learning the press out the conversion kit really helped me. It was better than dry fire because I got some feedback of POI.

Ironically, at that time I used the conversion kit to save money/ammo but eventually sold it because I couldn't find ammo to feed it. Now that .22 ammo is available again I may acquire another. A dedicated .22 could be useful for fundemental type stuff or teaching new shooters but I really prefer the conversion kits, if there's one for you primary gun, because the repeated use of that platform can't hurt anything.

[HopetonBrown]

I remember Hackathorn saying he didn't see much value in training with 22.

From my Motorola StarTAC.

[45dotACP]

I remember Hackathorn saying he didn't see much value in training with 22.

From my Motorola StarTAC.
I'd be interested to know why...

[Alpha Sierra]

If you know how to call your shots, the value of a RF pistol is slim to none. Shooting RF ammo still costs money, while dry fire is a) free and b) doable just about anywhere.

I don't recall Ben Stoeger recommending 22 pistols as a training tool.

[Odin Bravo One]

Is there value?

Depends. For some, there isn't any because they don't subscribe to that theory. For others there is value, for whatever theory they subscribe to that led them down that road.

The value gained can only be assessed by the individual involved.

[LSP552]

IMO, it has benefit for things other than recoil control. .22s are great in general for basic sight alignment and trigger control drills and I'm a firm believer that any quality shooting is good shooting. I use a .22 conversion for my 226 occasionally to practice my press outs, double action shots and for the DA/SA transition. I DON'T use it for dealing with recoil, since there isn't any.

I believe it does have weapon handling value if it duplicates your carry gun and, as others have said, ballistic dry fire with accountability.

I enjoy shooting .22s, and own several. Even at today's prices, .22s are a lot cheaper than 9mm where I'm at.

[Up1911Fan]

I regularly use my AA conversion kit for things like the drawstroke and reloads. I also shoot a lot of groups at 25 with it for trigger control work. I bought an extra frame on gunbroker for it, and put the same sights as my carry and training Glocks. It was worth the money to me. I've got a nice, low cost dedicated rimfire version of my primary gun.

[JustOneGun]

I think the military and some police department save big bucks using conversion kits. It is a great way to get many people introduced to the pistol while getting feedback on the complete shooting cycle. But for police and military it is up to the individual to spend money to become truly a great shooter.

As a civilian, I am skeptical. After learning to shoot the basics, what makes a good shooter? Some of it is tweaking the grip to properly take up the recoil of the LE caliber. So if you become a master shooter with a conversion kit you save dollars. To become a master with the LE caliber you then have to shoot that round enough to recalibrate the shooting cycle to that impulse and recoil. I believe as a new shooter you also have to start relearning to adjust all the little things of your grip to deal with the increased recoil.

When you look at the whole learning cycle the savings isn't that much or none at all. But you have increased the amount of time it took to get that proficient with the pistol.

[Surf]

I don't do it as a regular routine because I have the resources available, but I definitely don't discount the value in it. I do know guys who do the overwhelming majority of their training with a .22 or even airsoft pistols and dry fire / manipulations. Of course they back that up with live fire of a larger caliber, but they may only fire 50 rounds a week in a larger caliber, if even that. Yet they fire thousands with a .22 or airsoft and these guys put many people to shame who may fire just as much in a "standard" caliber. I am not saying it is better or worse, but understanding what it can do, or the limitations is key. So yes, I do think there is very good value in it, especially if you are restricted or have certain limitations that you need to meet, be it financial or logistical.

[ToddG]

I remember Hackathorn saying he didn't see much value in training with 22.

I wish I'd known that! I don't think I've ever discussed it with him but we talked on the phone for more than an hour just the other day. I would have loved to hear what he thought about it. At least now there's a good excuse to call him. :cool:

[SLG]

I think the military and some police department save big bucks using conversion kits. It is a great way to get many people introduced to the pistol while getting feedback on the complete shooting cycle. But for police and military it is up to the individual to spend money to become truly a great shooter.

As a civilian, I am skeptical. After learning to shoot the basics, what makes a good shooter? Some of it is tweaking the grip to properly take up the recoil of the LE caliber. So if you become a master shooter with a conversion kit you save dollars. To become a master with the LE caliber you then have to shoot that round enough to recalibrate the shooting cycle to that impulse and recoil. I believe as a new shooter you also have to start relearning to adjust all the little things of your grip to deal with the increased recoil.

When you look at the whole learning cycle the savings isn't that much or none at all. But you have increased the amount of time it took to get that proficient with the pistol.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but as is, I have to strongly disagree. Forgetting about already accomplished shooters, I think that beginners can benefit tremendously from a ton of .22 shooting. I learned almost everything important while shooting a brick of .22 every week as a college kid. I finished my session with 50 rds of 9mm, but I learned press outs, sight tracking, multiple targets, follow through, etc. all on a .22 My .22 at the time was NOTHING like my 9mm G19. Didn't matter, good shooting practice is good shooting practice. If I had 500 rds of 9mm to shoot every week, I'm sure it would have been nice, but there's nothing like a .22 for teaching a new shooter how to shoot groups at distance. Doubt what I'm saying? Show me a single military or law enforcement basic program that can graduate people capable of shooting a 2-3" group at 25 yards. And do pressouts. And watch their sights, and...I think you get my point.

With today's .22's all of this should be even easier to accomplish.

[Gio]

.22LR training was very valuable to me in the past, but I find myself not shooting it as much anymore in part due to the cost. I can reload 9mm for about the same price / round as .22 with it being up in the $.09-.11 cents per round range. I'd love to see the day where a 550 round brick of .22LR dropped to under $10 again.

[MDS]

I'm far from an SME and I have only my own experience to share, but I believe much of my trigger control (what there is of it) has come from shooting groups with my 22 revolver. And probably all of my ability to "do things right from a surprise start" is from running around my buddy's deer lease looking for bunnies to pop...with the 22 revolver. I'm thinking about getting a 22 upper for my glox, so I can practice surprise appendix draws on small game while rucking around in the hills. So yeah, I think there's a lot of value in practicing with a 22, but if I had no reasons to go with 22 instead of my carry caliber (reasons like, say, preserving bunny meat or saving on ammo cost) then I don't think shooting 22 is necessarily any better for me. Relatedly, learning the revolver trigger helps me, too, independently of caliber choice.

[ACP230]

I shot at the largest bowling pin shoot for 10 years. Most of my winter practice was done with a Colt Conversion Unit
installed on an old 1911 frame. With the floating chamber it had a bit more recoil than a .22 without one. (But not near as
much as the same gun in .45.)

I got faster over the winter with the .22 and refined things in the spring with .45 reloads. So, at that time .22 practice
helped quite a bit. Now I do a lot of practice with my revolvers and .38 Special reloads.

Around the same time I taught myself to shoot a rifle offhand by dry firing an M1 ever couple of days all winter.
That stuck better than the .22 practice has. I am shooting an air rifle for practice this winter, (when I'm not moving snow around and cussing) and
shooting offhand comes back to me as the sights align.

[JustOneGun]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but as is, I have to strongly disagree. Forgetting about already accomplished shooters, I think that beginners can benefit tremendously from a ton of .22 shooting. I learned almost everything important while shooting a brick of .22 every week as a college kid. I finished my session with 50 rds of 9mm, but I learned press outs, sight tracking, multiple targets, follow through, etc. all on a .22 My .22 at the time was NOTHING like my 9mm G19. Didn't matter, good shooting practice is good shooting practice. If I had 500 rds of 9mm to shoot every week, I'm sure it would have been nice, but there's nothing like a .22 for teaching a new shooter how to shoot groups at distance. Doubt what I'm saying? Show me a single military or law enforcement basic program that can graduate people capable of shooting a 2-3" group at 25 yards. And do pressouts. And watch their sights, and...I think you get my point.

With today's .22's all of this should be even easier to accomplish.

I do get your point and perhaps we are talking two different philosophies? You're talking about you, not his friends. Remember just because you can do it or did it doesn't mean the average group of the OP's friends can, will or even should. So yes I let my philosophy creep into my answer and I should have qualified my answer.

I should have asked if the OP's friends shoot 2200 rounds of ammunition a month like you did as a new shooter. I should have added what others said, there is definitely a round count cutoff. The more you shoot the more it makes sense to use .22 but that amount isn't just a pure numbers game due to the reasons I put in my post. Some departments have tried the recalibrate at the end of each session and found that shooting two different pistols while newb is actually a detriment that slows progress for many shooters who will have to defend themselves in a few weeks. I suppose a kit would help with that but it is still two dramatically different recoil impulses that can cause problems. I certainly agree with that but again you may be different?

You suggest that you would shoot the 9mm if you had it. I am assuming that you shot .22 to save money? If so that's fair enough. It's the same reason some departments do it. But you shot 9mm at the end of each session? Why? I am guessing it's for a similar reason that I talked about? Perhaps some agreement.

Where we will not agree is that you seem to boast rather aggressively that I doubt what you are saying and then ask me to show you a police department that had your results? I can do one better. Look at all the police departments that use or used .22 to save money and they fail to live up to your standard. They don't graduate recruits that shoot 3 inch at 25. They use the .22 and don't get the gains you do so there must be a different reason for the failure. The reality is that the way most POST demand the student learn is not even remotely the way it should be done and it hasn't much to do with round count.

[ToddG]

I don't think anyone -- especially SLG in his post -- was advocating .22 over everything else.

It's a cost effective, reduced-recoil way to get in practice while still knowing if your bullets are landing where you want them to.

I know a number of agencies that have very successfully used .22 and even laser-verified dry fire to jump start their new recruits. No one is suggesting it's as good for recoil control. But it's better than not practicing.

I'd venture to say that if you gave a new shooter $800 worth of .22 and $200 worth of 9mm to teach him how to shoot, he'd be doing better at the end than the guy you gave $1k worth of 9mm, all else being equal.

[SLG]

Just One Gun,

I was using your post as an example, I was not talking directly to you. I certainly wasn't "boasting aggressively", it was just a phrase to make a point. My example of the ineffectiveness of a basic Mil/LE program has many flaws in it, and it was unfair of me to compare a basic program to one motivated individual training correctly. The individual will always best the State. There was some hyperbole there, and I apologize if I was unclear.

Since the OP was asking about his own training, and presumably not "how to train a basic mil/le group", I used my own training from 20 years ago to illustrate the point.

To tell the truth, I'm not totally sure what you were getting at with most of your initial post. My response would have been better directed at the last line of your post, which is where my real disagreement (in regards to the OP's point of view) was.

Having extensively studied the problem of training basic and advanced mil/le folks, and having actually done so for the last 20 years, I assure you that any losses in training effectiveness from using .22's point to the incorrect use of the .22, not the concept itself.

At any rate, I again apologize for being unclear in my post.

[GJM]

The Rogers Shooting School uses .22 heavily in their basic course. First a .22 317 revolver, to learn to steer the sights while pressing a long trigger. They then progress to the .22 M&P semi-auto, which allows a bunch of sight and trigger work without concussion/over pressure. Finally, they go to the 9mm once the student has shot a certain level with the .22.

Bill tells me that a week demoing in the basic class with a .22 improves his center fire shooting the following week in the Int/Adv class immensely. He also said he would use it in his Advanced class, but student preconceived notions get in the way. You know -- advanced men shoot center fire.

When I decided to stop sucking at one hand shooting, I fixed it with thousands of rounds thru my .317 .22 revolver.

[David Armstrong]

Put me in the pro-.22 camp. To build on something Todd said, while i spent many hours dry-firing a S&W K-frame duty gun, being able to go out and also see where the rounds from my K-frame .22 were landing, how the group was sized, and all the actual end-product results were extremely helpful to me. I've used .22s to supplement my revolver shooting, my autoloader shooting, and my rifle shooting and consider it to have been very helpful. I've found the .22 to also be of great help when training others, not just in my own training. Taking the recoil issue out of the equation for new shooters makes a big difference sometimes. When one is working on the mechanics of aiming, trigger pull and such the lack of recoil doesn't hurt, it seems to help. Would we argue that using Airsoft, Simunitions, or BB guns for teaching and training doesn't help? I certainly wouldn't, and I don't see how the .22 would be any different.

[JustOneGun]

Just One Gun,

I was using your post as an example, I was not talking directly to you. I certainly wasn't "boasting aggressively", it was just a phrase to make a point. My example of the ineffectiveness of a basic Mil/LE program has many flaws in it, and it was unfair of me to compare a basic program to one motivated individual training correctly. The individual will always best the State. There was some hyperbole there, and I apologize if I was unclear.

Since the OP was asking about his own training, and presumably not "how to train a basic mil/le group", I used my own training from 20 years ago to illustrate the point.

To tell the truth, I'm not totally sure what you were getting at with most of your initial post. My response would have been better directed at the last line of your post, which is where my real disagreement (in regards to the OP's point of view) was.

Having extensively studied the problem of training basic and advanced mil/le folks, and having actually done so for the last 20 years, I assure you that any losses in training effectiveness from using .22's point to the incorrect use of the .22, not the concept itself.

At any rate, I again apologize for being unclear in my post.

Thanks for the reply. I too assumed some stuff from my experience of instructing new shooters in a police recruit environment. And of course I should not have made those assumptions.

As to the rest of my post, perhaps I am showing how jaded I am or maybe I'm just being realistic. I believe that your personal example is a great way to shoot cheaply. But it is in no way the norm. I know for myself that when we gave out FREE ammo, most did not come and shoot it. Can't get much cheaper than that.

I have found that most people, including civilians, shoot a certain number or rounds and that's it. Give them cheaper ammo and they will spend the savings elsewhere. Not on more ammo. If I tell you that I want to shoot a 1000 rounds month, if you suggest I use .22 and then I only shoot a hundred rounds a month it will take me a longer time for me to recover my initial purchase of the conversion kit. But more importantly, will the slower learning curve of the finer parts of the grip, recoil control cause me harm? If the OP's friends are trying to be a sharpshooter, IDPA champ I guess it really doesn't matter. If they strap that 9mm on their waist and don't get into a shooting, I guess it doesn't matter. If they get in a shooting the next day I think that lengthening of the self defense learning process was a net minus for them. FYI: At my old agency the record is 15 minutes on FTO in the patrol car to getting into a shooting on his first traffic stop.

There is a cost benefit for the .22 but it just isn't as clear cut as some good, high round count instructors believe. We should think of those things before saying the .22 will be a good idea for someone. It's more complicated than money.

[JustOneGun]

I don't think anyone -- especially SLG in his post -- was advocating .22 over everything else.

It's a cost effective, reduced-recoil way to get in practice while still knowing if your bullets are landing where you want them to.

I know a number of agencies that have very successfully used .22 and even laser-verified dry fire to jump start their new recruits. No one is suggesting it's as good for recoil control. But it's better than not practicing.

I'd venture to say that if you gave a new shooter $800 worth of .22 and $200 worth of 9mm to teach him how to shoot, he'd be doing better at the end than the guy you gave $1k worth of 9mm, all else being equal.

I hear what you are saying. I poorly articulated the same thing. It's a great way to save money but it has drawbacks. Interestingly enough many of the police departments that used or use .22 pushed the switching to LE caliber sooner in the training because it was holding back development. Many found that those recruits that were afraid of the pistol due to recoil could learn to shoot with the .22 but became gun shy when going back to LE caliber. Often it amounted to starting over. The majority that were not gun shy didn't seem to benefit in the final outcome. Our agency finally settled on crappy reloads. Cost effective, same impulse by design with the added benefit of a few malfunction clearance built right in with out any dummy loads. LOL

As to the dryfire using a laser, that is a whole different subject which I think we have had a thread on. Lot's of pros and cons to that also.

[ToddG]

JOG -- I think the primary disconnect is individual vs agency.

Teaching an agency of shooters is always a miserable thing because it's like trying to teach a bunch of city dwellers how to navigate in a forest: some may find a passion for it but most will be bored out of their minds and convince themselves they will never, ever need that skill. But they have to learn it anyway, and they'll resent you for it. We can argue pros and cons of different approaches to making that unwanted training easier or more effective, but at the end of the day it's still going to be unwanted training for most of the trainees.

In terms of the motivated individual, I think the .22 has great benefit unless you have unlimited ammo availability and remain healthy enough to withstand th recoil, etc. Ten years ago I never would have given the slightest thought to that second issue. Now, I have to just like many people around my age and beyond. :cool:

[JustOneGun]

JOG -- I think the primary disconnect is individual vs agency.

Teaching an agency of shooters is always a miserable thing because it's like trying to teach a bunch of city dwellers how to navigate in a forest: some may find a passion for it but most will be bored out of their minds and convince themselves they will never, ever need that skill. But they have to learn it anyway, and they'll resent you for it. We can argue pros and cons of different approaches to making that unwanted training easier or more effective, but at the end of the day it's still going to be unwanted training for most of the trainees.

In terms of the motivated individual, I think the .22 has great benefit unless you have unlimited ammo availability and remain healthy enough to withstand th recoil, etc. Ten years ago I never would have given the slightest thought to that second issue. Now, I have to just like many people around my age and beyond. :cool:

I think we agree that training the average LE or Mil is a different. But even motivated LE and civilians tend to fall into a groove and shoot a set amount. I'm not suggesting that it is always the minimum but it does tend to steady out. What I've seen, and you may disagree, is that when new people say they will shoot a lot and then life gets in the way. Good intentions and all that. That is something to bring up with a new student as it can change what they decide to do with their training, including buying and using a .22 kit.

I have arthritis in my hands. Nothing crazy yet and nothing like you are going through but if you told me 3 years ago that I would be rolling Stop Pain on my hands I would have laughed. Dryfire hurts the most. The lighter recoil didn't help with the arthritis. As it's gaining the rock solid grip that does it for me. I would be interested to see what is more painful for other people with ailments, grip, recoil or equal. I honestly have never thought about breaking it down that way before.

FWIW: I never believed SLG was saying everyone should do it as I hope you didn't believe I thought no one should do it. But we should look at and discuss the pros and cons before they decide?

[ToddG]

I think what it boils down to is where do you run out of resources first, time or money?

Best I can tell, we're all in agreement that when health & economics are non-factors it is better to shoot with full power ammo all (or almost all) of the time. The problem is that almost no one has unlimited money and unlimited endurance. And I say this as a guy who used to shoot thousands of rounds of 9/40/45 per week when I could.

When either health or economics become an issue, then the benefits of .22 practice start to become more important. It's part of the argument in favor of dry practice: most people can make the TIME, they just don't have the ammo to be shooting whenever they have the time. (dry fire also has the obvious additional benefit that you can do it pretty much anywhere, which further reinforces the time resource benefit, as well)

OTOH, let's look at it from the opposite end. If you have unlimited resources, are they points in a person's evolution as a shooter where they'd gain as much from .22 as they would from 9/40/45? If so, then why waste money just for the sake of it? Sure there are aspects of shooting that you really need to learn with recoil but as has been discussed repeatedly here there are aspects which do not require it. Sometimes, less recoil allows folks to pick up on certain flaws in their performance which could get masked by shooting more powerful ammo. Sometimes, it's just a matter of being able to endure 500 rounds of .22 practice easily when 500rd of 9/40/45 might wear people out too much.

[45dotACP]

I think what it boils down to is where do you run out of resources first, time or money?

Best I can tell, we're all in agreement that when health & economics are non-factors it is better to shoot with full power ammo all (or almost all) of the time. The problem is that almost no one has unlimited money and unlimited endurance. And I say this as a guy who used to shoot thousands of rounds of 9/40/45 per week when I could.

When either health or economics become an issue, then the benefits of .22 practice start to become more important. It's part of the argument in favor of dry practice: most people can make the TIME, they just don't have the ammo to be shooting whenever they have the time. (dry fire also has the obvious additional benefit that you can do it pretty much anywhere, which further reinforces the time resource benefit, as well)

OTOH, let's look at it from the opposite end. If you have unlimited resources, are they points in a person's evolution as a shooter where they'd gain as much from .22 as they would from 9/40/45? If so, then why waste money just for the sake of it? Sure there are aspects of shooting that you really need to learn with recoil but as has been discussed repeatedly here there are aspects which do not require it. Sometimes, less recoil allows folks to pick up on certain flaws in their performance which could get masked by shooting more powerful ammo. Sometimes, it's just a matter of being able to endure 500 rounds of .22 practice easily when 500rd of 9/40/45 might wear people out too much.

There you go making all that durned sense!

I really need a AA upper for my Glock...

[Slowestshooterer]

If you know how to call your shots, the value of a RF pistol is slim to none. Shooting RF ammo still costs money, while dry fire is a) free and b) doable just about anywhere.

I don't recall Ben Stoeger recommending 22 pistols as a training tool.

Stoeger mentioned in a podcast no too long ago that he has done it and finds value in it. IIRC, he likes using it to train move and shoot and transitions in particular.

[okie john]

I
The value gained can only be assessed by the individual involved.

As in almost all things, this.

To me, the signal benefit of a good .22 is accuracy, so I use one to hone fundamentals in search of pure accuracy. With good ammo, even a standard Ruger Mk I will hang with a match-grade CF out to 50 yards. I have no use for a badly-made .22.


Okie John