Chief Engineer
New member
460 Weatherby with 20 " barrel 
What guns do you usually recommend to beginners?
- Thread starter Playboypenguin
- Start date
Might as well tell them to carry around a pellet gun for a month to get the "feel"... Ok, ok, that's not true 
Seriously though, if someone asks my advice for a first handgun I will generally point them toward something that can be useful for Home or Personal Defense. IMHO, a .22 is not the best choice.
Will a 9mm, etc. "scare" them a bit more the first time? Maybe, but they'll be ok
Will they have more ammo to plink at the range and improve their aim at 25yds? Probably, but you don't need to be a sharpshooter before you can own a centerfire handgun.
I guess my thinking is that you might as well get something practical and useful for your situation. If you need to kill squirrels, or knock over pop cans at 50 paces... then yes, I would recommend that your first handgun be a .22 of some kind.
Otherwise, shoot as many centerfires as you can and buy what you like the best
Seriously though, if someone asks my advice for a first handgun I will generally point them toward something that can be useful for Home or Personal Defense. IMHO, a .22 is not the best choice.
Will a 9mm, etc. "scare" them a bit more the first time? Maybe, but they'll be ok
Will they have more ammo to plink at the range and improve their aim at 25yds? Probably, but you don't need to be a sharpshooter before you can own a centerfire handgun.
I guess my thinking is that you might as well get something practical and useful for your situation. If you need to kill squirrels, or knock over pop cans at 50 paces... then yes, I would recommend that your first handgun be a .22 of some kind.
Otherwise, shoot as many centerfires as you can and buy what you like the best
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
I think the key here... is do they want to "learn to shoot", or get a gun that is truely useable for home defense or self defense ( BTW... I wouldn't feel under gunned with a 10 shot 22 for home defense, because I actually learned how to shoot ) I think if you really are wanting to learn to be a "shooter" you need the 22... if you only hope to be able to shoot "minute of bad guy" & have the money to spend on ammo, then fine... skip the 22
as I said in my previous post, rarely shoot my 22's anymore, & while I'm not a "great shooter" by any means, I do probably owe 90% of my shooting skills to the smaller caliber...
are you talking about "mall ninja wannabe's", recoil junkies with some misconception that the 22 is only a toy, or someone who really can only afford 1 gun, & has a serious need for effective home defense weapon ( in which case Im likely to suggest the shot gun anyway )... I think the person not in an economical position to train with a bigger caliber, is still better off with the 22 or a shotgun, or a can of pepper spray, than a 9mm & one box of ammo every other year, weather they need it or not...
as I said in my previous post, rarely shoot my 22's anymore, & while I'm not a "great shooter" by any means, I do probably owe 90% of my shooting skills to the smaller caliber...
are you talking about "mall ninja wannabe's", recoil junkies with some misconception that the 22 is only a toy, or someone who really can only afford 1 gun, & has a serious need for effective home defense weapon ( in which case Im likely to suggest the shot gun anyway )... I think the person not in an economical position to train with a bigger caliber, is still better off with the 22 or a shotgun, or a can of pepper spray, than a 9mm & one box of ammo every other year, weather they need it or not...
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I have experienced the opposite from many candidates. I have seen dozens of new candidates, who claimed to be good shots because they grew up shooting, almost drop the gun the first time the fired a larger caliber gun after years of shooting a .22 caliber pistol or rifle. They had the basics of trigger pull down but not muscle control regarding recoil.
You do not flinch with a .22 because there is nothing to make you flinch. It does not mean you will not develop the same flinch the second you move up to a larger caliber. Most people seem to be praising the .22 based primarily on cost. When it comes to shooting I do not think cost is as big a factor as time is to many people. I could never find the time to shoot thousands of rounds of .22 rounds. No matter what caliber most people start training with these days I feel they will be limited by time and they might as well spend a little more money when their lives might be at stake and learn with the more encompassing round. I have found that equal practice with a 9mm creates a more proficient shooter than equal practice with a .22 caliber firearm.
Two instructors start with two complete newbies on the same day and one trains their student on a .22 and the other trains their student on a 9mm. They both fire 1000 rounds through their guns during their training. At the end of the day you line 8 guns of increasing caliber in front of each student (.32, .380, 9mm, .40S&W, .357mag, .45acp. 10mm, .44mag) and let them both fire each gun. I feel the student that trained equally on the 9mm would fair much better than the student that trained on the .22 caliber firearm.
Parapliers
Moderator
Yes, if they are asking for a recommendation it is always .22 and always a revolver so they can learn the difference between single and double action. So far, no one has ever taken my advice. There are a lot of expensive wonder guns that have never been fired hiding in underwear drawers.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, there is..... and your second sentence is the reason. "Best experience" is an individual thing. Shooting a pop gun may not do it for every one. Personally, I'm nearly bored to tears by shooting a 22, and I've known some new shooters that just didn't quite see the fascination, until they shot something bigger that was actually fun.
It's not like every new shooter is 5ft short and 95lbs and your choice is between a 22 or a 500 S&W magnum. There are plenty of cartridges in between, and there are plenty of sizes, and tolerances, of new shooters. One might thoroughly enjoy a 357 mag snubbie, while another would wince at the recoil of a 40oz revolver shooting 38spl.
Just like almost everything else, there is no "one size fits all".
Last edited:
rantingredneck
New member
No, but I would prefer to.........
Let me 'splain........
If there's a new shooter who says they would like to get into shooting, they have no "pressing" need to be able to defend themselves tomorrow, and their budget is not so constrained that they can buy a couple of guns in the near future, then yes I would recommend a .22LR and then move up from there.
On the other hand........
If the person asking is someone who's never shot before, but their boyfriend just beat the living bejesus out of them and is sitting in a cell down at County, and they are terrified of what will happen when he gets out. They have scraped up enough money to buy a Taurus or Rossi .38 and a couple of boxes of ammo to familiarize themselves with the gun, then why would I recommend that they get a .22LR and spend 100 hours at the range working their way up?
The .22 route would be ideal. I didn't learn that way (at least not with handguns). There are certainly situations (my example is an extreme) that drive one to want the ability to defend oneself more immediately.
Let me 'splain........
If there's a new shooter who says they would like to get into shooting, they have no "pressing" need to be able to defend themselves tomorrow, and their budget is not so constrained that they can buy a couple of guns in the near future, then yes I would recommend a .22LR and then move up from there.
On the other hand........
If the person asking is someone who's never shot before, but their boyfriend just beat the living bejesus out of them and is sitting in a cell down at County, and they are terrified of what will happen when he gets out. They have scraped up enough money to buy a Taurus or Rossi .38 and a couple of boxes of ammo to familiarize themselves with the gun, then why would I recommend that they get a .22LR and spend 100 hours at the range working their way up?
The .22 route would be ideal. I didn't learn that way (at least not with handguns). There are certainly situations (my example is an extreme) that drive one to want the ability to defend oneself more immediately.
I'll take this on for kicks and giggles:
1. If simply learning to shoot a projectile down range with minimal recoil and cheap ammo is your goal, .22 is not your best choice. Get a decent pellet gun - like a Beeman P1. It feels a bit like a .45 and you can shoot it all day in your garrage or basement or back yard if you choose. And, ammo will cost a lot less than .22's. Also, my Beeman has a far superior trigger than my Mark II - recoil of the two guns is nearly indistinguishable to a new shooter.
2. Flinching and poor trigger control will have to be overcome when you switch from a Ruger Mark II to a 9mm or .45. Shooting a .22 does very little to teach a person who has never fied a larger calliber handgun how to deal with actual noise and recoil, especially if you plan on shooting revolvers.
3. It's not that hard to learn how to shoot 9mm for most adults willing to learn with proper instruction. Many folks can control a gun well enough during their first shooting session with proper instruction.
4. I'd bet that most of the folks here didn't learn to shoot handguns with a .22 handgun. In fact, many of the .22 advocates here have admitted as much. When many of us were younger, it wasn't common practice to learn on a .22 pistol. .22 rifle, sure, but not a .22 pistol. Heck, there really weren't but a few pistol platforms in .22 caliber, and these were more or less "specialty" type guns.
5. There's nothing magical about a .22. In fact, it's deceiving - it feels very little like firing a 9mm, .45, or .40. The grip is different. The action is different. The trigger is completely different. There is very little recoil and very little noise comparitively.
These things having been said, shooting a .22 or a good pellet gun does teach you how to aim and mechanically operate the trigger, hold the gun, follow through etc. while keeping your sights on the target. Without the distractions that larger caliber guns can present. A .22 is certainly a good "2nd gun" to get. I just wouldn't make it my very first handgun, if I was a new shooter.
"Personally, I'm nearly bored to tears by shooting a 22"
It's about hitting the target, whether paper or animal.
So, are you...
A. a recoil junkie
B. fascinated by bright flashes of light
C. afraid that somebody will think less of you if you're seen shooting a .22
None of which have anything to do with a beginner learning to shoot. It's about breathing as much as anything. And focus and muscle memory. Doesn't matter what the gun is.
I started with a bb rifle at age 5. Thank you grandmother and granddad. But the original question was phrased in terms of firearms.
Then I shot rifles and shotguns for 15 years before buying a Single-Six. Folks back then didn't bother much with handguns. My father had been a state trooper and he never bothered with handguns after he quit the force for a better paying job. A shotgun in the trunk? Yes. Handgun? Not so much.
Now the generation born in the 1890s - my other grandfather, and some great uncles and such had some old break top S&W and HRs, but they worked in town and long guns were sort of hard to hide.
It's about hitting the target, whether paper or animal.
So, are you...
A. a recoil junkie
B. fascinated by bright flashes of light
C. afraid that somebody will think less of you if you're seen shooting a .22
None of which have anything to do with a beginner learning to shoot. It's about breathing as much as anything. And focus and muscle memory. Doesn't matter what the gun is.
I started with a bb rifle at age 5. Thank you grandmother and granddad. But the original question was phrased in terms of firearms.
Then I shot rifles and shotguns for 15 years before buying a Single-Six. Folks back then didn't bother much with handguns. My father had been a state trooper and he never bothered with handguns after he quit the force for a better paying job. A shotgun in the trunk? Yes. Handgun? Not so much.
Now the generation born in the 1890s - my other grandfather, and some great uncles and such had some old break top S&W and HRs, but they worked in town and long guns were sort of hard to hide.
Para Bellum
New member
Quality airgun for kids.
Glock 19 for everybody else.
Glock 19 for everybody else.
Last edited:
Tommy Vercetti
New member
most people I know who buy guns aren't buying them to get into the shooting sports, they're buying guns for self defense, do you want to recommend a .22lr to someone for self defense purposes?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
johnbt said:
Yep, you nailed it down. Nothing but a 22 is capable of hitting the target.
I'm a recoil junkie: my favorite gun is a 204ruger.
I'm afraid someone will think less of me: I shoot alone usually and hunt deer with a 12ga.
I'm fascinated by bright flashes of light: none of my guns, from a 10/22 (yes! I own one!), 357sig, 204ruger or 12ga, create any discernible muzzle flash under normal lighting conditions.
Or..... maybe there's this..... we're not the Borg. We can all have separate, different and equally valid opinions about what is or is not fun and/or necessary.
Seems a bit like the fear that "someone will think less of you" is coming from you, being that you feel it necessary to ridicule someone for simply not enjoying the almighty 22LR.
:barf:It depends
A .22 is a perfect starting gun for the vast majority of new shooters, provided they want to learn about marksmanship.
If someone is looking for a gun to use for home defense, and it happens to be their first gun, I almost always recommend a .357 revolver.
They can plink with it using cheap .38 wad cutters to learn the craft, and they have a hand gun that can be used for home protection.
Revolvers in my opinion make a better home defense gun for MOST new shooters, and for a majority of "casual" shooters. Your technique must be more refined to keep a degree of proficiency with a semi-auto.
So, I guess it depends on the shooter as to what I recommend when it comes to handguns.
A .22 is a perfect starting gun for the vast majority of new shooters, provided they want to learn about marksmanship.
If someone is looking for a gun to use for home defense, and it happens to be their first gun, I almost always recommend a .357 revolver.
They can plink with it using cheap .38 wad cutters to learn the craft, and they have a hand gun that can be used for home protection.
Revolvers in my opinion make a better home defense gun for MOST new shooters, and for a majority of "casual" shooters. Your technique must be more refined to keep a degree of proficiency with a semi-auto.
So, I guess it depends on the shooter as to what I recommend when it comes to handguns.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I disagree with that statement. Even though I still believe a person can become an even better marksman training with a .38spl or 9mm than they can with a .22lr under smilar training criteria, I do not believe that every person that choses to defend themselves needs to be a high level marksman. They simply need to know the basics.
Last edited:
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
to repeat from one of my previous posts... if you only care to shoot "minute of bad guy"... thats fine...
BTW... at risk of rising some ire... I've witnessed an awefull lot of people carrying guns, that can not shoot "minute of bad guy"
those people would be better served with a 22 if expensive ammo keeps them from practicing, & better served with pepper spray, if they are just "too busy" to practice
BTW... at risk of rising some ire... I've witnessed an awefull lot of people carrying guns, that can not shoot "minute of bad guy"
those people would be better served with a 22 if expensive ammo keeps them from practicing, & better served with pepper spray, if they are just "too busy" to practice
mikejonestkd
New member
I voted " No "only because the question from PBP had the word " Always " in it....
Still, I think every firearm owner can benefit from having a .22 handgun with similar weight and controls to their centerfire CCW piece, and for all the positive reasons listed above by many, many other members of the board.
For the record, my first handgun was a .44 mag, the second was a new barrel in .35 remington...I didn't get a .22LR pistol for almost 5 years after I started shooting handgun. 5 years that could have been well spent with cheap bricks of .22 bulk ammo and a good rimfire handgun.
Still, I think every firearm owner can benefit from having a .22 handgun with similar weight and controls to their centerfire CCW piece, and for all the positive reasons listed above by many, many other members of the board.
For the record, my first handgun was a .44 mag, the second was a new barrel in .35 remington...I didn't get a .22LR pistol for almost 5 years after I started shooting handgun. 5 years that could have been well spent with cheap bricks of .22 bulk ammo and a good rimfire handgun.
I think johnbt nailed it.
Over years of observing shooters, it is my opinion that those who do not own at least one or two .22LR's that they use regularly, are typically not very skilled or committed. Most of whom never run their target beyond 7-10yds at the local indoor range. I'm not at all surprised that there are many here who believe they can build their shooting skill just as quickly by bypassing the .22LR. You learn through trigger time and the .22LR affords a great deal of trigger time without spending a lot of money or recoil fatigue. Those who think that rimfire trigger time does not translate well to centerfires are just plain wrong. I am living proof.
Over years of observing shooters, it is my opinion that those who do not own at least one or two .22LR's that they use regularly, are typically not very skilled or committed. Most of whom never run their target beyond 7-10yds at the local indoor range. I'm not at all surprised that there are many here who believe they can build their shooting skill just as quickly by bypassing the .22LR. You learn through trigger time and the .22LR affords a great deal of trigger time without spending a lot of money or recoil fatigue. Those who think that rimfire trigger time does not translate well to centerfires are just plain wrong. I am living proof.
This is just plain silly and flies in the face of what any authority on the subject will tell you.