Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sometimes the nephews simply need a light pistol to plink around with at my brother's home in the country...

 Just Tony wrote:
Sometimes the nephews simply need a light pistol to plink around with at my brother's home in the country...

I see you have impeccable taste in firearms.

It’s probably just my eyes, but the grip looks like a dog’s given it a chew!

Reckon it’s for grip though.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Before my entire collection was lost in a series of freak boating accidents,

That sounds like its time for a disaster montage...

LOL, last night I dropped my wife off at a Concealed Carry class. I came to pick her up a little early and overheard the Sheriff conducting the class on where the ladies (all female class) could pick up a tazer or stun gun if that was more their style.

As the class ended, I noted to the Sheriff, "hey, you do know that Tazers and Stun guns are illegal here, right?" Surprised Pikachu face from him with a "WTF, no they're not." 30 seconds and a google search later I was able to quote him the law. Yes, we are the only county in hundreds of miles that has banned them, and the police don't even know it. Oddly enough, it does NOT leave any provision for Law Enforcement use either.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s probably just my eyes, but the grip looks like a dog’s given it a chew!

Reckon it’s for grip though.

Yes, and beware the ones that claim to be "aggressive," because that's advertising code for "feels like sandpaper."

I have small, soft, girlish hands, so I prefer something that doesn't take skin off when I shoot it.

Of course, the photo is of a Walther which means it is superbly comfortable to shoot.

Isn't that the Walther P22? Why did you put grip tape on it? It's a .22LR. Were you worried about the recoil?

That being said, I loved my P22 when I owned one, great little plinker and worked fairly well with most .22, but the mags were the bad part (Problem with most .22 autos). It would just fail to feed every 20 or so rounds. Easy to just rack the slide and go on, but still, great little 150 plinker.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't that the Walther P22? Why did you put grip tape on it? It's a .22LR. Were you worried about the recoil?

That being said, I loved my P22 when I owned one, great little plinker and worked fairly well with most .22, but the mags were the bad part (Problem with most .22 autos). It would just fail to feed every 20 or so rounds. Easy to just rack the slide and go on, but still, great little 150 plinker.

I think that's how the grip was molded. "Aggressive textured grips" are now a thing.

I like .22 LR handguns, but I would not rely on them for self-defense. If I wanted something that had similarly light recoil and an even more compact package, I'd get a Beretta tip-up in .25 ACP. Those things are super-fun to shoot.

The old Beretta Cheetah in .22 LR was also much fun.

The only reasons I see for having a 22LR handgun for self defense are either as a backup gun, or if you REALLY want to concealed carry and you have a tiny, tiny piece that can fit in a pocket or something. It's better than harsh language though.

 cuda1179 wrote:
It's better than harsh language though.

You better have 100% confidance in your shot placement. .22lr can kill, but it's quite likely to make someone very very angry while they're dying and give them just enough time to do something about it.

I imagine this is already known by many of you here but just in case H&K has a Micro Compact 9mm coming out.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't that the Walther P22? Why did you put grip tape on it? It's a .22LR. Were you worried about the recoil?

That being said, I loved my P22 when I owned one, great little plinker and worked fairly well with most .22, but the mags were the bad part (Problem with most .22 autos). It would just fail to feed every 20 or so rounds. Easy to just rack the slide and go on, but still, great little 150 plinker.

I think that's how the grip was molded. "Aggressive textured grips" are now a thing.

I like .22 LR handguns, but I would not rely on them for self-defense. If I wanted something that had similarly light recoil and an even more compact package, I'd get a Beretta tip-up in .25 ACP. Those things are super-fun to shoot.

The old Beretta Cheetah in .22 LR was also much fun.

My brother bought that firearm for his teen/preteen sons to shoot milk jugs with. Period. It probably won't be used on any lifeform, let alone an intruder. He has several higher caliber pistols for that as well as shotguns, and a rather focused hunting dog.

Those .22 LR "duty" style guns are really nice, particularly as a first handgun. You can learn to shoot on that then move up to the higher caliber version and probably be better for it. An interesting way of marketing. I am sure the nephews enjoy it!

This is my latest. I have been impressed with the accuracy so far.



TWO
WORLD
WARS

 Just Tony wrote:
My brother bought that firearm for his teen/preteen sons to shoot milk jugs with. Period. It probably won't be used on any lifeform, let alone an intruder. He has several higher caliber pistols for that as well as shotguns, and a rather focused hunting dog.

I think everyone should have a 22 for inexpensive practice and training new shooters. I (used to) have both a Beretta Cheetah and an Iver Johnson Sidewinder (that's a DA revolver from the 70s).

I like revolvers for when its muddy and you don't want to deal with flying brass.

Man, I miss my WC CQB Two Tone. I tricked the hell out of that gun, which was for IPSC competition. But I sold it because it cost too much to actually keep up.

If you're not shooting at least 500 rounds per practice, you're not really practicing, and that costs close to 1k USD now in .45ACP

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Man, I miss my WC CQB Two Tone. I tricked the hell out of that gun, which was for IPSC competition. But I sold it because it cost too much to actually keep up.

If you're not shooting at least 500 rounds per practice, you're not really practicing, and that costs close to 1k USD now in .45ACP

I don't know, I find that there's a point where you aren't really gaining anything, just burning through ammo. I'm not a competition shooter, but I've found that there comes a point in practice where you've peaked and locked in what you are going to get. This is true in music, fencing, martial arts and shooting.

That is to say, you can do a practice of 100 rounds per session and get good training, just be sure to do it every week.

Also helpful to shoot a cheaper caliber.

 Slowroll wrote:
Those .22 LR "duty" style guns are really nice, particularly as a first handgun. You can learn to shoot on that then move up to the higher caliber version and probably be better for it. An interesting way of marketing. I am sure the nephews enjoy it!

This is my latest. I have been impressed with the accuracy so far.

Spoiler:

TWO
WORLD
WARS

Went with the black Operator, nice.

I've got a green one. My first gun too btw.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Man, I miss my WC CQB Two Tone. I tricked the hell out of that gun, which was for IPSC competition. But I sold it because it cost too much to actually keep up.

If you're not shooting at least 500 rounds per practice, you're not really practicing, and that costs close to 1k USD now in .45ACP

I don't know, I find that there's a point where you aren't really gaining anything, just burning through ammo. I'm not a competition shooter, but I've found that there comes a point in practice where you've peaked and locked in what you are going to get. This is true in music, fencing, martial arts and shooting.

That is to say, you can do a practice of 100 rounds per session and get good training, just be sure to do it every week.

Also helpful to shoot a cheaper caliber.

So I'll give you that after 100 you are possibly reinforcing bad habits, but if you know what you're doing, then it's not just 500 at a static target. I'd say the first 50 went to paper static target, then 150 rounds on running the course, then maybe another 100 on just speed drills, then another hundred on fast shooting practice, and the last 100 are usually just for fun, say long distance or just ringing steel. I mean, if you are running 10 round mags, that's only 50 mags, and you go through 20-30 rounds each time you run the course, so it goes by fast.

On rounds, I’m guessing for each calibre (?) you’ve options in manufacturer.

But do you get Off-Brand or Own-Brand for super cheap, some where you’re just paying more for the name etc?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I'll give you that after 100 you are possibly reinforcing bad habits, but if you know what you're doing, then it's not just 500 at a static target. I'd say the first 50 went to paper static target, then 150 rounds on running the course, then maybe another 100 on just speed drills, then another hundred on fast shooting practice, and the last 100 are usually just for fun, say long distance or just ringing steel. I mean, if you are running 10 round mags, that's only 50 mags, and you go through 20-30 rounds each time you run the course, so it goes by fast.

I would never put 50 on a static target. No more than ten, unless it's a new purchase and I'm finding the aim point. After that, I go into whatever drills I'm doing and I usually go light on ammo because target acquisition and engagement are what I'm chiefly concerned with. I never put more than five rounds in a magazine as this forces more reloading and handling.

Again, I'm not doing a competition thing, where those extra shots are doing something useful, so I get why one would have to make a larger expenditure. If your drill is going 10 for 10 than you need 10 rounds to do it.

My group has found that using shorter courses of fire seems to speed up our improvement because we get more feedback after each run. And yes, after a certain point, fatigue sets in an bad habits start to return, which when we quit for the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On rounds, I’m guessing for each calibre (?) you’ve options in manufacturer.

But do you get Off-Brand or Own-Brand for super cheap, some where you’re just paying more for the name etc?

Depends on the caliber. If you're shooting 8x22 Nambu, options are very very limited.

Mostly ammo choice isn't brand so much as type. Standard FMJ vs jacketed hollow point or +P ballistic tips.

There are "premium" manufacturers, but I don't know anyone has true brand loyalty. Partly this is because each weapon has its own preference so even top-shelf ammo may run poorly in a given gun. Part of shooting is figuring out what runs well in which platform.

And yes, there are "hogs" that eat anything you give them. Such weapons are rightfully prized.

Mostly the division is between "range" ammo (usually FMJ, sometimes lead round nose), and stuff like hollow points for hunting/self defense, which always costs more.

Plus, you save money sure, but when you are using cheap ammo to save tens of dollars, but wearing out your 400 dollar barrel's life, is it really worth the trade?

I don't think the price of ammo really has anything to do with how fast it wears out your gun. That's the realm of video game logic.

Cheaper ammo at worst might mean more malfunctions, at least ammo related ones like hangfires or large variation in performance between rounds.

For those addressing excessive round expenditure for practice drilling?


Mantis X

There is quite a lot to it, and very little is absolute.

Generally speaking, the more popular the caliber, the more ammo choices you'll have. Bottom of the barrel cheap stuff is generally junk. Old surplus ammo is often corrosive and is of varying reliability depending on where it came from. Steel cased ammo is usually not very accurate and puts wear on the extractors of western guns. Other cheap ammo might not have sealed primers or might have a wildly inconsistant velocity from shot to shot.

In terms of paying for the name, there is some of that but supply and demand is a bigger factor.

A lot of the available target ammo is at least "ok". Some more accurate and dependable than others, and for the most part, the more expensive it is, the better. As Commissar said, the same ammo will have a different point of impact and different performance in different guns for a variety of reasons. Sometimes a given ammo choice may be just about unusable in some guns.

For handguns, the idea is to find a target load that hits in a similar spot with similar accuracy to your more expensive "carry" ammo and practice with that. Similar recoil is nice to have also but less important.

In terms of carry/HD ammo (hollow points for the purposes of this discussion), the cheap stuff is again usually junk. Expensive stuff is often also junk, and a given type of round might be great in one caliber or even bullet weight, mediocre in another.

We can look at this test for examples of that.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm

Again, very little is absolute and this is just one test. The first thing that stands out is that quite a few of the options had minimal or no expansion. A lot of those are the cheaper ones, but the Hydra Shok and the 147g Speer are expensive and come from proven brands. A lot of people like the Ranger bullets and the medium weights were mediocre here.

Obviously, you bought that expensive carry ammo for the worst possible situation, and want it to actually work if ever needed. About 1/3 of these either didn't reliably work here or are an unproven gimmick (Barnes monolithic hollow points are proven at this point). Another chunk of them have good, not great expansion and some may be great options (accuracy wasn't measured here). That leaves a dozen or so choices with both good penetration and large reliable expansions. Probably a good place to start.

Again thats just one test with one 3.5" barrel gun and not the definitive word on anything, but it does show just how different ammunition can perform in the same caliber.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't think the price of ammo really has anything to do with how fast it wears out your gun. That's the realm of video game logic.

Cheaper ammo at worst might mean more malfunctions, at least ammo related ones like hangfires or large variation in performance between rounds.

Are you sure?

Try running old Russian surplus ammo through a brand new weapon, and watch how fast the gun; fails to feed, fails to eject, fails to go boom, stove pipes, and then goes BLAM. The quality of rounds absolutely has a detrimental effect on stuff like Match Grade parts. Both due to corrosive materials being sprayed everywhere, badly assembled rounds not functioning to spec 100% of the time, and their bullets being literally mis-cast, so they warp after firing, causing gauging to the threading of a barrel.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't think the price of ammo really has anything to do with how fast it wears out your gun. That's the realm of video game logic.

Well, more expensive ammo can also be a problem. We had a situation in Afghan where a US unit ran British supplied 5.56 ammo through their M4s and damaged rifling, receivers and bolt assembles (the firing pin? no idea what was damaged there). NATO interoperability is not always correct...

Carrying that thought and string of discussion on? Is there a brand of ammo you just..won’t use?

No need to name and shame!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't think the price of ammo really has anything to do with how fast it wears out your gun. That's the realm of video game logic.

Cheaper ammo at worst might mean more malfunctions, at least ammo related ones like hangfires or large variation in performance between rounds.

Are you sure?

Try running old Russian surplus ammo through a brand new weapon, and watch how fast the gun; fails to feed, fails to eject, fails to go boom, stove pipes, and then goes BLAM. The quality of rounds absolutely has a detrimental effect on stuff like Match Grade parts. Both due to corrosive materials being sprayed everywhere, badly assembled rounds not functioning to spec 100% of the time, and their bullets being literally mis-cast, so they warp after firing, causing gauging to the threading of a barrel.

And in other guns that ammo will run just fine, even new ones. Literally the only thing about those rounds that can damage the gun is the corrosive primer/powder. And only if you are dumb and don't clean your gun after each range day.

I have never heard of miscast bullets causing damage to rifling. Nor have I seen any such bullets in Russian surplus.

If your match grade gun is being damaged by ammunition, that is a problem with the gun and you got skunked by whoever sold it to you. Well-made guns don't care what gets put in them. If it can't handle the steel it doesn't deserve the brass.

Bullets with a bi-metal jacket will wear out a barrel faster. The last time I did the math, the savings would pay for a new barrel & still have money left over.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Try running old Russian surplus ammo through a brand new weapon, and watch how fast the gun; fails to feed, fails to eject, fails to go boom, stove pipes, and then goes BLAM. The quality of rounds absolutely has a detrimental effect on stuff like Match Grade parts. Both due to corrosive materials being sprayed everywhere, badly assembled rounds not functioning to spec 100% of the time, and their bullets being literally mis-cast, so they warp after firing, causing gauging to the threading of a barrel.

The worst I've heard of happening with surplus ammo is old Greek and Turkish stuff that was improperly stored and that caused issues with the powder becoming unstable.

I use surplus ammo with corrosive primers because in some calibers that is all you can get. With proper cleaning procedures, it isn't a problem and I'll just point out that SMLEs were issued corrosive primer ammo for decades and yet they can be found with beautiful, shiny barrels because the Brits took good care of them.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Carrying that thought and string of discussion on? Is there a brand of ammo you just..won’t use?

No need to name and shame!

Nope, but there are some brands that don't work well in some guns as we discussed. I have also found the aforementioned "not nearly worth the price" situation.

There have been remanufacturers of ammo that I avoid, but I haven't yet come across a commercial brand and said "Wow, that's terrible/unsafe/never getting it again.