In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43*am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job...

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43*am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job...

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43*am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job...

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.


A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:17 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43*am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.


A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.


New, the Sig magazines run about $40. From what I could see, quickly, the Ruger magazines are in the
$35 range, new. Maybe they're both available somewhere for a lot less, I don't know.

Now, back to the discussion. If the purpose in investing in a .22 pistol was for practice, then the
conversion kit would serve the purpose. It may not significantly improve performance when going back
to the .40 caliber (or whichever)l, but neither would a separate handgun.

Don't know and don't care who Nelson Muntz is.

On Oct 14, 3:02*pm, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:17 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028

You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.

A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.

New, the Sig magazines run about $40. From what I could see, quickly, the Ruger magazines are in the
$35 range, new. Maybe they're both available somewhere for a lot less, I don't know.

Now, back to the discussion. If the purpose in investing in a .22 pistol was for practice, then the
conversion kit would serve the purpose. It may not significantly improve performance when going back
to the .40 caliber (or whichever)l, but neither would a separate handgun.

Don't know and don't care who Nelson Muntz is.

John, Carabela's has OE ruger .22 clips for $26.00 and free shipping.

Ables has aftermarket for $17- don't know about shipping though

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/ruge...457_15463.html

Buds-

$16.74

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/i...cturers_id/369

In article 6fbaee9b-c332-4c39-b500-
, says...

On Oct 14, 3:02*pm, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:17 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028

You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.

A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.

New, the Sig magazines run about $40. From what I could see, quickly, the Ruger magazines are in the
$35 range, new. Maybe they're both available somewhere for a lot less, I don't know.

Now, back to the discussion. If the purpose in investing in a .22 pistol was for practice, then the
conversion kit would serve the purpose. It may not significantly improve performance when going back
to the .40 caliber (or whichever)l, but neither would a separate handgun.

Don't know and don't care who Nelson Muntz is.

John, Carabela's has OE ruger .22 clips for $26.00 and free shipping.

Ables has aftermarket for $17- don't know about shipping though

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/ruge...457_15463.html

Buds-

$16.74

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/i...cturers_id/369



I bought a box of six Mark III mags a few years ago for $11 each. Just
checked one of the gun auction sites and found them for $15 each for box
of six. If you shop around a little, I'll bet you can find them for even
less. Six magazines seems about right for a 22 pistol. More would be
better.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=310930559

On Oct 14, 4:50*pm, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article 6fbaee9b-c332-4c39-b500-
, says...











On Oct 14, 3:02*pm, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:31:17 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028

You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.

A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.

On 10/14/2012 3:31 PM, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:54:49 -0400, EmpacherFan wrote:

In article 0fbd714d-0101-4ac3-b0a5-da80addeaa79
@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 10, 9:43 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article c8d644c3-cbd3-4457-8d6e-aaf02ce3e028
@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com, says...











On Oct 10, 9:44 am, EmpacherFan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:41:30 -0700, jps wrote:

snippage

Still thinking about the Sig Sauer P226. This one, with a conversion kit:

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...lassic-22.aspx

Good idea, huh?

I carry for work, but not a SIG, usually a Glock 22 or a 1911, plus
another handgun for backup. The Sig P226 is a nice pistol, though. I'm
not sure what you are trying to gain by fitting it with a 22 slide and
works. The recoil, muzzle flip and noise will be totally different
between the two rounds and at distance at a target, so will the impact of
gravity, so you won't be gaining the shooting skills you want with a 40,
45 or even a 9 round in a defense pistol by running 22s through it. I've
tried a few of these combos at the range. They were fun but shooting 22
rounds isn't going to help you become proficient firing larger rounds in
the same basic pistol.

Wow, you have all the perfect weapons, for the perfect environment...
You sound a lot like a recent MIA poster here who always had the
perfect tool for the job...

I'm a federal cop. The Glock was issued to me. I encounter a lot of
firearms. I don't think the 22 slide kits are anything more than a
gimmick. What's your point?

The .22 kits (from what I understand,) were used for training purposes
as far back as WW 1 to conserve bigger caliber ammunition. Same feel
and break down as the .45 ACP but a whole lot cheaper to shoot on the
range.

I have a WW1 issue British .303 Enfield rifle chambered in .22 single
shot for that same reason.


You are absolutely correct as far as it goes. The pistol feels the same
and breaks down the same, but it doesn't shoot the same. There's much
more recoil and muzzle flip from a .40 S&W round than a .22LR round in
the same semi-auto. Also consider that the .40 round weighs about five
times what the .22 round weighs. Ten rounds of .22 in a magazine is
going to weigh a lot less than 10 rounds of .40 in a magazine, and that
will change the balance of the weapon considerably.

Several posters have suggested the way to go is with a nice defensive
semi-auto and a separate and much less expensive .22 semi-auto. I agree.

Why? If the purpose of the .22 is to practice cheaply, and the .22 conversion kits aren't the way to
go because they don't have the same heft, kick,balance, etc., etc., what is gained by practicing
with a totally different, lightweight, low-kick .22?

The logic there escapes me.


A purpose of a 22 is to be able to fire lots of round at a range or in
your backyard and just become more proficient at handling and shooting a
firearm. Using a conversion kit will help you do that for sure but
because of the differences in the rounds I don't think it will add much
to your proficiency in firing bigger rounds in the same handgun for the
reasons already stated. Another reasons to get an inexpensive Ruger is
the cost of magazines. Ruger magazines are around $10 I think. You can
buy a handful of them and load them up at the range and fire without
reloading every couple of minutes. Plus you can try out different rounds
in different magazines to see which work the best for you and the gun.
How much do spare mags cost for that conversion kit 22? I think the
Ruger or something like it would be a lot more fun than the conversion
kit. In fact unless you need the SIG for some other reason, a nice 22
may be all the gun you want or need.

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.



And I just googled Muntz and found it's a cartoon, and obviously your
reference was a derogatory shot at posters here... Thank *you* for not
being childish, and btw, welcome to rec.boats. You are now the object of
your own scorn. snerk

On Oct 14, 2:31*pm, EmpacherFan wrote:

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.


agreed!

In article b74e943e-d7f4-42ba-8aa8-216b144b45f7
@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 14, 2:31*pm, EmpacherFan wrote:

Thank you by the way for not being a Nelson Muntz clone in your reply.
Too many posters seem to think imitating Muntz is clever when in fact it
is childish.


agreed!


I really do not understand the need of some posters on usenet to toss
insults at other posters with almost every post they write. I'm glad
someone agrees.