22 Lr For Training

ranger dave · December 7, 2005, 02:43 PM

The Army Has Now Bought Sub Cal Kits For M4a1 To Do Cqb In Stead Of Running A Corse 10 Times You Can Run It 30 Or 40 Times At The Same Cost Good Idea Or Have The Bean Counters Taken Over???????

gddyup · December 7, 2005, 05:09 PM

IMO, if you havea good feel for the rifle in it's "natural" caliber then I see no reason why using a 22 conversion to help practice your movement and timing would be non beneficial. Sounds like a good idea to me although I would certainly mix in hitting the course with the caliber you would usually take into combat. That would only make sense.

warwagon · December 8, 2005, 12:17 AM

Dave,
In my opinion, utilizing anything other than a duty load for cqb is nuts!
The .22 is a great round for training those not accustomed to the fundamentals of firearms, but not for combat.
I am a certified weaponscraft instructor for law enforcement, and as such, I would refuse to participate in any such nonsense.
In my 50 plus years, this tops the level of stupidity.

model 25 · December 8, 2005, 02:56 AM

When it came time to teach my nephews to shoot I bought them seven shot bolt action 22 lrs. I gave them all the safety points I could every time we went shooting and as they got older they got really good with their 22s.

Bolt actions made them both solid hunters as they had to make their shots count. I am happy I started them with those guns and trained them in what they needed to know.

One of them went into the Marine Corps and shot expert. He went to Somalia and said he was happy he had learned to shoot so well as alot of others had to work hard to acheive his skill level.

The other is one of the best Elk hunters you have ever seen and is still on the same box of bullets for the last five years after killing an elk every year.

Guys where I shoot at the club shoot speed steel with 22LR and they are very fast with them. I believe all shooting is good for training and the more you get to shoot the better you will be. But I am no expert.

25

H&K4Life · December 8, 2005, 11:29 AM

I think it is a good idea, only if it is part of a larger program. For beginners, the .22 would be a good start. If someone has never run through the kill house before, how could you argue that they would not benefit from 30 rotations, as opposed to 10. (much much better than running through with blanks....hell, they were probably slanted towards using BBs, and at the last minute chose the .22s as a compromise). Anyway, CQB is not about marksmanship anyway (especially military). Moving through as a team is totally different than moving through as an individual.

After your team techniques become seamless and flawless, the you graduate to your regular load. Most units will not have the budget to run you through, using your regular load, on a consistant basis (unless you are a tier 2 kind of guy).

(.45s...9mm.....22, pretty soon it's gonna be rocks!)

stephen426 · December 8, 2005, 11:45 AM

For muscle memory and lots of trigger time, .22 LR is great. The obvious problem is that the recoil is very different and this serverly affects the controlability. I had the opportunity to shoot a Tommy gun in .45 ACP and an H&K MP5 in 10mm last weekend. I consider myself a decent shot with my pistols shooting slowly but full auto is a whole different ball game. My first shot hit what I was aiming at but the recoil opened up the groups quite a bit. The MP5 is an excellent weapon and has a gas operated recoil system, but even 2 round bursts were a bit hard to control. I'm sure a .22 LR full auto would be much easier to control but I wouldn't learn how to manage the recoil. I think it might even create a false sense of security if the shooter becomes accustomed to the .22 LR. I guess as long as the shooter spends a significant amount of time shooting the gun in the real calibers, .22 LR can only help.

rn22723 · December 8, 2005, 01:33 PM

I am firm believer that 22LR serves a purpose, especially shines in learning to shoot a handgun! I suppose that in some guard units their ranges might not tolerate 223 ammo, so the sub cal units for training makes sense.

Ranger325 · December 8, 2005, 02:14 PM

Good idea to 'supplement' CQB training, but not intended to 'replace' full-up live fire iterations.
Subcal training has been around for years and yes it does save $$.
Regards,

Jeff22 · December 9, 2005, 12:27 AM

If they're doing that as a SUPPLEMENT to the regular training, I think that's fine.

We used (elderly and beat up) M16s with .22 rim fire adaptors to qualify with when I went through Air Force Basic Training in 1980. For a while in the early 90s the ANG was short of 5.56mm ammo to qualify category B & C personnel with the rifle, so we used .22 RFAs. Of course, by then all the RFAs we had were old and beginning to wear out and spare parts were no longer available. The AF wouldn't allow us to use the army converters (which were a different design) for safety reasons. (And I never did know what made them unsafe . . . ) We sent out a teletype to all the CONUS bases (active and guard) that we wanted any .22 RFAs they wanted to part with, and there for a while about every week UPS would show up with another box full of conversion units from some base happy to be rid of them . . . We still had problems, mostly because (1.) the magazine springs were wearing out (2.) the RFAs themselves were wearing out, and (3.) whoever spec'ed out .22 ammo for the government bid at the time got us Eley target velocity ammo rather than something a little hotter. (The Eley worked great in my High Standard target pistol but not so good with the rim fire adaptors).

I have a .22 conversion unit (one of the old ones, made by Bro-Caliber International in 1982) that I had tuned up by John Norrel, and it works pretty good, provided it's kept clean and well lubricated and fed quality ammo.

Specific to military training, the Beretta conversion unit for the M9 is EXCELLENT. There are lots of conversion units for the M1911 pattern pistols available. For the first 7 years of my military career (and about 6-1/2 of my civilian police career) I carried a S&W 15 revolver as a duty gun. (Law Enforcement Specialist in the Security Police). I bought a used S&W 18 .22 Combat Masterpiece as a practice gun, because .22 was lots cheaper than .38. We had sporadic access to the 50 ft indoor range at a nearby ARNG armory where we could only shoot .22s and .38 wadcutters (because the steel in the backstop was soft and the ventilation wasn't very good) and I'd usually shoot about 150 rounds of .22 to warm up and then 50 (or sometimes 100) rounds of the .38 for "real" practice.

As a SUPPLEMENT to training, use of a RELIABLE .22 conversion unit is a fine idea. In my opinion, if you're doing regular marksmanship practice, it's best to use a reduced silhouette with the .22, because shooting on a full-sized target is just way too easy. I certainly wouldn't advocate replacing regular training with the .22, but I find shooting a .22 to be lots more interesting than dry fire . . .

My PD just bought a couple .22 conversion units for the ARs we keep in the squad cars. The intent is to allow us to do remedial training on the indoor range without having to buy specialty ammo.

Steamship Trooper · December 12, 2005, 09:31 AM

Back when I started shooting, I learned the basics of rifle on a .22, and pistol on a .45. The thinking was- riflery usually doesn't have the time constraints that pistolry does. You revert to your level of training, so initial training with a full size caliber is what you will expect (nose, recoil, etc) when the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

Fast forward a few years. I became a pistol instructor, and for people who had never fired a pistol before, I would start them with a Smith 66, with 158 gr 38 Special wadcutters. A friend started her training with a .22.

After firing .38 for a while, and when the student felt ready, I'd give them five .357 mag rounds, and one .38. The comparison eliminated any further complaits about recoil, nose, etc. from the .38. My friend could never get used to a SD calber, until I did this to her. She still complains about recoil, though. I suspect as a holdover from her .22 days.

Point is, .22 has it's place, but ONLY after you know what the "real" deal feels and sounds like.

(and I maintain that .38, although a little weak, works better for SD than .22

)

December 7, 2005, 02:43 PM	#1
ranger dave Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2005 Posts: 485	22 Lr For Training The Army Has Now Bought Sub Cal Kits For M4a1 To Do Cqb In Stead Of Running A Corse 10 Times You Can Run It 30 Or 40 Times At The Same Cost Good Idea Or Have The Bean Counters Taken Over???????

December 7, 2005, 05:09 PM	#2
gddyup Senior Member Join Date: July 22, 2005 Location: Derry, NH Posts: 219	IMO, if you havea good feel for the rifle in it's "natural" caliber then I see no reason why using a 22 conversion to help practice your movement and timing would be non beneficial. Sounds like a good idea to me although I would certainly mix in hitting the course with the caliber you would usually take into combat. That would only make sense. __________________ Firefighter/EMT - Currently teamed on Engine 1... I always get to play with my Knob! "Good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from poor judgement" - Unknown. "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein

December 8, 2005, 12:17 AM	#3
warwagon Senior Member Join Date: November 7, 2005 Location: Dayton Oh Posts: 341	.22 for training Dave, In my opinion, utilizing anything other than a duty load for cqb is nuts! The .22 is a great round for training those not accustomed to the fundamentals of firearms, but not for combat. I am a certified weaponscraft instructor for law enforcement, and as such, I would refuse to participate in any such nonsense. In my 50 plus years, this tops the level of stupidity. __________________ SWAT certified Ret LEO certified weaponscraft instructor OPOTA Ret NRA Endowment member

December 8, 2005, 11:45 AM	#6
stephen426 Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2005 Posts: 3,840	For muscle memory and lots of trigger time, .22 LR is great. The obvious problem is that the recoil is very different and this serverly affects the controlability. I had the opportunity to shoot a Tommy gun in .45 ACP and an H&K MP5 in 10mm last weekend. I consider myself a decent shot with my pistols shooting slowly but full auto is a whole different ball game. My first shot hit what I was aiming at but the recoil opened up the groups quite a bit. The MP5 is an excellent weapon and has a gas operated recoil system, but even 2 round bursts were a bit hard to control. I'm sure a .22 LR full auto would be much easier to control but I wouldn't learn how to manage the recoil. I think it might even create a false sense of security if the shooter becomes accustomed to the .22 LR. I guess as long as the shooter spends a significant amount of time shooting the gun in the real calibers, .22 LR can only help. __________________ The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!

December 8, 2005, 02:14 PM	#8
Ranger325 Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2005 Location: NW Ohio Posts: 428	Good idea to 'supplement' CQB training, but not intended to 'replace' full-up live fire iterations. Subcal training has been around for years and yes it does save $$. Regards, __________________ Ranger325 "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. " George Orwell

December 8, 2005, 02:56 AM	#4
model 25 Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: out west Posts: 892	When it came time to teach my nephews to shoot I bought them seven shot bolt action 22 lrs. I gave them all the safety points I could every time we went shooting and as they got older they got really good with their 22s. Bolt actions made them both solid hunters as they had to make their shots count. I am happy I started them with those guns and trained them in what they needed to know. One of them went into the Marine Corps and shot expert. He went to Somalia and said he was happy he had learned to shoot so well as alot of others had to work hard to acheive his skill level. The other is one of the best Elk hunters you have ever seen and is still on the same box of bullets for the last five years after killing an elk every year. Guys where I shoot at the club shoot speed steel with 22LR and they are very fast with them. I believe all shooting is good for training and the more you get to shoot the better you will be. But I am no expert. 25

December 8, 2005, 11:29 AM	#5
H&K4Life Member Join Date: October 2, 2005 Posts: 77	I think it is a good idea, only if it is part of a larger program. For beginners, the .22 would be a good start. If someone has never run through the kill house before, how could you argue that they would not benefit from 30 rotations, as opposed to 10. (much much better than running through with blanks....hell, they were probably slanted towards using BBs, and at the last minute chose the .22s as a compromise). Anyway, CQB is not about marksmanship anyway (especially military). Moving through as a team is totally different than moving through as an individual. After your team techniques become seamless and flawless, the you graduate to your regular load. Most units will not have the budget to run you through, using your regular load, on a consistant basis (unless you are a tier 2 kind of guy). (.45s...9mm.....22, pretty soon it's gonna be rocks!)

December 8, 2005, 01:33 PM	#7
rn22723 Junior member Join Date: December 10, 2001 Location: Burbs of Minneapolis Posts: 676	I am firm believer that 22LR serves a purpose, especially shines in learning to shoot a handgun! I suppose that in some guard units their ranges might not tolerate 223 ammo, so the sub cal units for training makes sense.

December 9, 2005, 12:27 AM	#9
Jeff22 Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2004 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 715	.22 conversion units in M16s If they're doing that as a SUPPLEMENT to the regular training, I think that's fine. We used (elderly and beat up) M16s with .22 rim fire adaptors to qualify with when I went through Air Force Basic Training in 1980. For a while in the early 90s the ANG was short of 5.56mm ammo to qualify category B & C personnel with the rifle, so we used .22 RFAs. Of course, by then all the RFAs we had were old and beginning to wear out and spare parts were no longer available. The AF wouldn't allow us to use the army converters (which were a different design) for safety reasons. (And I never did know what made them unsafe . . . ) We sent out a teletype to all the CONUS bases (active and guard) that we wanted any .22 RFAs they wanted to part with, and there for a while about every week UPS would show up with another box full of conversion units from some base happy to be rid of them . . . We still had problems, mostly because (1.) the magazine springs were wearing out (2.) the RFAs themselves were wearing out, and (3.) whoever spec'ed out .22 ammo for the government bid at the time got us Eley target velocity ammo rather than something a little hotter. (The Eley worked great in my High Standard target pistol but not so good with the rim fire adaptors). I have a .22 conversion unit (one of the old ones, made by Bro-Caliber International in 1982) that I had tuned up by John Norrel, and it works pretty good, provided it's kept clean and well lubricated and fed quality ammo. Specific to military training, the Beretta conversion unit for the M9 is EXCELLENT. There are lots of conversion units for the M1911 pattern pistols available. For the first 7 years of my military career (and about 6-1/2 of my civilian police career) I carried a S&W 15 revolver as a duty gun. (Law Enforcement Specialist in the Security Police). I bought a used S&W 18 .22 Combat Masterpiece as a practice gun, because .22 was lots cheaper than .38. We had sporadic access to the 50 ft indoor range at a nearby ARNG armory where we could only shoot .22s and .38 wadcutters (because the steel in the backstop was soft and the ventilation wasn't very good) and I'd usually shoot about 150 rounds of .22 to warm up and then 50 (or sometimes 100) rounds of the .38 for "real" practice. As a SUPPLEMENT to training, use of a RELIABLE .22 conversion unit is a fine idea. In my opinion, if you're doing regular marksmanship practice, it's best to use a reduced silhouette with the .22, because shooting on a full-sized target is just way too easy. I certainly wouldn't advocate replacing regular training with the .22, but I find shooting a .22 to be lots more interesting than dry fire . . . My PD just bought a couple .22 conversion units for the ARs we keep in the squad cars. The intent is to allow us to do remedial training on the indoor range without having to buy specialty ammo. __________________ You can only learn from experience if you pay attention!

December 12, 2005, 09:31 AM	#10
Steamship Trooper Junior Member Join Date: December 10, 2005 Posts: 1	Back when I started shooting, I learned the basics of rifle on a .22, and pistol on a .45. The thinking was- riflery usually doesn't have the time constraints that pistolry does. You revert to your level of training, so initial training with a full size caliber is what you will expect (nose, recoil, etc) when the rubber meets the road, so to speak. Fast forward a few years. I became a pistol instructor, and for people who had never fired a pistol before, I would start them with a Smith 66, with 158 gr 38 Special wadcutters. A friend started her training with a .22. After firing .38 for a while, and when the student felt ready, I'd give them five .357 mag rounds, and one .38. The comparison eliminated any further complaits about recoil, nose, etc. from the .38. My friend could never get used to a SD calber, until I did this to her. She still complains about recoil, though. I suspect as a holdover from her .22 days. Point is, .22 has it's place, but ONLY after you know what the "real" deal feels and sounds like. (and I maintain that .38, although a little weak, works better for SD than .22)