.22 LR for training

[Hudson69]

How many else out there are doing this as well; augmenting/supplementing their range training with .22 LR pistols and rifles?

My old agency does that (Smith's .22 LR AR's) some and I have more than a few (hand gun and rifle) myself that I always take to the range. The fundamentals are the same just less recoil...

[retdetsgt]

Nope. We only shoot our service weapons. I found I shoot better with some pistols than others. For instance, I always got my best scores with my Glock 21. My worst was always my .38 spl. 2" Colt revolver. I don't think shooting a .22 would improve my score with that Colt at all.

[manahmanah]

I don't see the point. Now, I am not a gun nut, nor am I a sniper. I was an active duty Marine for 8 years and have been a cop for over 5 years. I can tell you that I have extensive firearms training (not as much as many others on this site) and the value of shooting (with the recoil) and waiting for the rifle to come down to it's original position prior to taking your next shot is invaluable.

If you follow the basic fundamentals of rifle marksmanship it should not matter how much recoil your rifle has. I've shot with 22's to a 50 cal and am just as good a shot. I say go for the same rifle you're gonna be using in the field. Different rifles and handguns have different feels to them. Some have pistol grips, some don't. Some pistols have different girth grips. While it does not make that much of a difference, I always say practicing with the weapon you are actually going to be using is the best idea.

Cheers!

[michiganstud]

I have seen where departments are using a .22 conversion in their AR's or M-4's. Keeps the training more simulated, using your own service rifle. Seems logical, but I don't know if it is the same.

[MountainMan]

I love training with a 22.lr Especially if it is a conversion kit on a duty weapon. You can run the fundamentals using your real duty weapon and tactics and get feedback from reactive targets and paper. Its a great training tool. Just not the only training tool.

It has its place and there is no arguing the savings on ammo.

[ChesCopPodz]

.22 shooting is great for beginners. Doesn't matter what they're beginning to shoot. The S&W AR is great for new rifle shooters (which a lot of cops are as more and more departments remember the urban rifle concept). If I were a competition shooter, I'd get a .22 version of my competition gun. If I already have the skill to shoot competition, then it just allows more practice for the dollar.

I will say this, the .22 S&W AR is one fun gun. I may go buy one.

[retdetsgt]

I love training with a 22.lr Especially if it is a conversion kit on a duty weapon. You can run the fundamentals using your real duty weapon and tactics and get feedback from reactive targets and paper. Its a great training tool. Just not the only training tool.

It has its place and there is no arguing the savings on ammo.

Maybe if you're shooting a conversion of your weapon, but I don't see where just picking up a .22 is going to be all that helpful.

When I first went in the Army, we were shooting M-14's and then converted shortly afterwards to the M-16. I saw very little similarity in shooting the two weapons other than they were both rifles.

I'm no gun nut either by any stretch, but that's sure been my experience. Shooting a .22 is fun and as said, inexpensive, but I don't see it as a substitute for practicing with my duty weapon and ammo. And I have to put some stock in what a former Marine says, those guys have probably the best training there is out there when it comes to shooting. In my academy, you pick out the Marines from the initial shooting scores.

[mcsap]

USAF basic training in 1978. We used AR-15's converted to shoot .22's.

Not a bad idea since some people never fired a gun before and it was cheaper.

[retdetsgt]

USAF basic training in 1978. We used AR-15's converted to shoot .22's.

Not a bad idea since some people never fired a gun before and it was cheaper.

And most wouldn't be firing a gun again, at least in the AF.

[Cat_Doc]

And most wouldn't be firing a gun again, at least in the AF.

Ouch!

At least ease the pain by admitting how much you appreciated the fast movers when they answered the call for help?

[retdetsgt]

Ouch!

At least ease the pain by admitting how much you appreciated the fast movers when they answered the call for help?

I didn't mean that as any kind of slam at all against AF guys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless an airman is assigned to a specialized or security unit, they aren't really around small firearms, are they? Sorta like the Navy, you don't see the average sailor on a ship toting around a shootin' iron.

And if your duty isn't going to entail grabbing a rifle, what's the point of worrying too much about qualifying?

That's what always impressed with the USMC, everyone there is a rifleman first and whatever else is secondary.

[Cat_Doc]

I didn't mean that as any kind of slam at all against AF guys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless an airman is assigned to a specialized or security unit, they aren't really around small firearms, are they? Sorta like the Navy, you don't see the average sailor on a ship toting around a shootin' iron.

And if your duty isn't going to entail grabbing a rifle, what's the point of worrying too much about qualifying?

That's what always impressed with the USMC, everyone there is a rifleman first and whatever else is secondary.

I didn't take it as a slam, sorry if I gave that impression. (The internet sucks sometimes because you miss out on voice inflection) It was meant only as “locker room” banter.

You are correct. I can only speak of how the Strategic Air Command was back in the 70's, but only Security Police, Missilers, Pilots and Para-Rescue were routinely under arms.

I'm not sure how it works now, with AF being in the AO's of the Middle East, but I would assume they have enough small arms to hand out to the cooks if the base is being overrun.

[retdetsgt]

I'm not sure how it works now, with AF being in the AO's of the Middle East, but I would assume they have enough small arms to hand out to the cooks if the base is being overrun.

Could be. When I was in, an AFB was about as secure a place as you could find. I don't know if they cared all that much about the troops, but they didn't want their big, expensive airplanes and other equipment endangered.

The Air Police (boy, did I just date myself!) kept inside the base secure and either the Army or Marines kept the perimeter safe. Any attacks were pretty much hit and run, maybe a few mortars, but that was about it. The average aircraft mechanic, cook, etc. was pretty safe inside one.

[Cat_Doc]

The Air Police (boy, did I just date myself!) kept inside the base secure and either the Army or Marines kept the perimeter safe. Any attacks were pretty much hit and run, maybe a few mortars, but that was about it. The average aircraft mechanic, cook, etc. was pretty safe inside one.

LOL @ Air Police. My badge said Air Police and we still wore the white hat when I was in. Went to the blue beret just before I got out.

I worked with quite a few guys who had been stationed in 'Nam and they predominately spoke of mortar/rocket attacks and firing on sappers trying to make it to the aircraft bunkers on the flight line. I don't recall anyone talking about an actual all out assault on an air base.

[greg72982]

I didn't take it as a slam, sorry if I gave that impression.

I did. In fact, I think it' safe to say RDS hates the Air Force.