Re: Just bought my first pistol

**War.mongeR1** · 08-04-2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by machineofdeath

A 22 is ok but if you want a real gun get a glock .45cal. Thats what I have and carry

Sure, a .45 is superior for self-defense, but at the range, the Ruger .22 is the star of the show. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to shoot (I bought my last box of 1000 for around $10 on clearance), has little recoil so you can shoot all day without fatigue, more accurate at farther distances, not as loud, easier clips to load, etc. A much better range gun in my opinion. It's best to target practice with the .22, then those skills transfer over to your .45 or whatever else you want to shoot (with some minor adjustments). After the last couple 1000 rounds I've put through my Ruger, my aim has dramatically improved across all calibers. And for a whole lot less money, too!

Another plus is that you can use the Ruger as a great tool to teach people who have never shot a handgun before. It's easy to become comfortable with and good at shooting, before moving on to the more "intimidating" platforms. Give your girlfriend a .50 Desert Eagle for her first time at the range, and I'll pretty much guarantee she'll never want to shoot again. Let her shoot the .22, and she'll think it's a blast. That's been my experiences any how.

**MagnaCentipede** · 08-04-2008, 04:22 PM

I disagree somewhat. You should have both, use both, and become skilled with both.

Fatigue is your body's way of telling you to exercise. Calibre has nothing to do with accuracy; a quality gun (even an inexpensive quality gun) will force you to prove that you are more accurate than it is. Loudness isn't a consideration. My .22 Ruger button-slide magazines will blister my thumb long before my 40S&W's jam-'em-in magazines.

If money is an issue, then it is an issue, but there's no excuse to have a 40 or 45 that you can't aim because you never gave yourself range time with it. That's how bad things happen, like missing the crook and hitting someone out jogging the dog.

The recoil aspect is interesting. As far as I can tell, if you think the weapon will jump out of your hands, you will let it jump out of your hands. Also, people think that a rifle or shotgun will hurt less if they have a gap between the weapon and their shoulders. lol newbies.

**tuoply** · 08-04-2008, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by MagnaCentipede

people think that a rifle or shotgun will hurt less if they have a gap between the weapon and their shoulders

And they'll only do that once

On topic, nice gun... My father has a very similar one (don't know the exact model, only that he bought it in the 60's). It's very accurate, but has a hair trigger, I wasn't expecting that the first time I shot it

**War.mongeR1** · 08-04-2008, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by MagnaCentipede

I disagree somewhat. You should have both, use both, and become skilled with both.

Fatigue is your body's way of telling you to exercise. Calibre has nothing to do with accuracy; a quality gun (even an inexpensive quality gun) will force you to prove that you are more accurate than it is. Loudness isn't a consideration. My .22 Ruger button-slide magazines will blister my thumb long before my 40S&W's jam-'em-in magazines.

If money is an issue, then it is an issue, but there's no excuse to have a 40 or 45 that you can't aim because you never gave yourself range time with it. That's how bad things happen, like missing the crook and hitting someone out jogging the dog.

The recoil aspect is interesting. As far as I can tell, if you think the weapon will jump out of your hands, you will let it jump out of your hands. Also, people think that a rifle or shotgun will hurt less if they have a gap between the weapon and their shoulders. lol newbies.

You're right on several issues. I should have specified better. The Ruger Mark II/Mark III .22 is more accurate than most larger caliber handguns due to barrel length. Not caliber. Whereas my Springfield XD-40 ACP has a 3" barrel, my Ruger has a 6 7/8" barrel. Obviously, my Ruger is more accurate at long range than my Sub-Compact Springfield.

I regularly shoot my Springfield to maintain proficiency, but would say that my Ruger .22 is more fun to shoot. For sheer target shooting, it just can't be beat.

Here's the Ruger that I have...
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger_MarkIII-Hunter.htm
[media]http://www.gunblast.com/images/Ruger_MarkIII-Hunter/1Mvc-002f.jpg[/media]

**Uranium - 235** · 08-05-2008, 01:41 AM

He's right on the .22. Going out shooting targets for fun, nothing beats being able to buy a box of 500 .22s for $30 at Walmart. How much will 500 .45s cost you?

**Greasy Mullet** · 08-05-2008, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

Nice choice! I also have a Ruger .22. I have the Mark III Hunter. Basically the same thing as yours, but with a fluted barrel and wooden grips. I've pumped thousands of rounds through it and not one jam. Whenever I go shooting with family and friends, every one ends up having the most fun with the Ruger. You can't go wrong. Dirt cheap ammunition and super accurate as well. You're going to love it!

Same here, love the 678H! The Ruger .22's are the best!

Nice choice Fallen, I am sure you will get a lot of enjoyment out of it. It is also great that you are showing your children up front about the firearm. IMO that is the best safety you can have. I also loved the little convo you posted, especially the end with the Zombies!

**ScratchMonkey** · 08-05-2008, 03:49 PM

My .44 Ruger Redhawk with wood grips hurt like the devil when I fired it, leaving bruises in my palm. (I'm thin, so there's absolutely NO padding in my hand.) I replaced the stock wood grips with Pachmeyr rubber grips and almost all the pain went away.

Thread Tools

Display