.22 Handgun vrs. Rifle as Game Gathering Tool?

[flmason]

Hi All,
   Was lamenting how much of a practical difference the shorter barrel of say a Ruger Single 6, 10 or MK II or III makes vrs. a rifle in terms of ammo performance on game?

The selling point of course being, small size, easy to carry. The detractors are well known, not to mention generally higher cost for the handguns.

I know there's an article out there somewhere extolling "hot rodded" Mk II's/III's for such use by military guys. But of course whoever you're reading at the moment generally sounds like they have a point, LOL!

Anyone know the actual loss of velocity of a 5.5 inch barrel against a rifle barrel and just how important it is with .22? Any thoughts on just how much range one has to give up as a result (ability to make the shot issues aside).

Granted, a .22 being a fairly mild cartridge, would benefit greatly from the shot placement potential of a long arm with good scope.

[LunaticFringeInc]

Dont know what the velocity loss is in a Single Six vs Rifle.  Here is what I do know...  Facing the same delima I went with the Single Six first due to the fact that is gets the job done and its concealable.  I have found it to be minute of Bunny or Squirrel at 25 yards without too much practice.  Thats good enough here around these parts.  If you got the convertible then the the 22 WRM personal defense ammo from Hornady makes for a not to shabby defense weapon in a hand gun since this ammo was specifically designed for use in short barreled handguns and right on par with Hornadys PD ammo in 380 ACP.  Not my first choice in defense rounds but its better than 22 LR!  Just say...

[blind ear]

I have killed many coots, shovelers and other trash ducks at 100 yards on water or land with a Buckmark with a 5" barrel and open sights. Accuate gun and lots of shooting to know the sight picture.  ear

[Bugflipper]

In most fellows hands the accuracy will be more of a factor than velocity when range is concerned. Just for reference a rem golden bullet 550 bulk pack is around 1000-1040 fps in a 4" and 1040-1080 in a 5.5". They list them at 1280 from an 18" barrel. So somewhere around 200 fps more or less is pretty close in figuring. I use subsonics in rifle and pistol for hunting. Just guessing they should be around 1050 and 850 in rifle and pistol. They have plenty of power to take small game.

[Rock Home Isle]

...........Anyone know the actual loss of velocity of a 5.5 inch barrel against a rifle barrel and just how important it is with .22? Any thoughts on just how much range one has to give up as a result (ability to make the shot issues aside).

.......

Years ago I was at the range shooting my development loads for my .270 and while I was there I looked at velocities between my Ruger 77/22 and my Ruger MkII with a 5.5 inch bull barrel. This data applies to only one ammo type as at the time all I had with me was Winchester Wild Cat ammo. I fired 10 shot strings, and averaged the results.

Ruger 77/22 velocity data fell between 1050 Ft/Sec and 1258 Ft/Sec with the average for 10 shots being 1198 Ft/Sec

Ruger MkII (5.5 inch Bull Barrel) velocity data fell between 801 Ft/Sec and 1089 Ft/Sec with average for 10 shots being 926 Ft/Sec
 
I hope that helps to answer your question. 

[tacklebury]

My great uncle (god bless him) had one eye and could shoot walnuts outta the air at 15' or so throwing them up with his Colt Woodsman.  I never have gotten that good with a pistol though.  I have an H&R 9-shot .22 that has taken a fair bit of squirrels, but that knowing my limitations and keeping shots typically inside 15 yards.  If I were going to try to use a pistol as a subsistence alone, I think I'd go for a simpler mechanism than an auto or revolver and a longer barrel.  This personally would be my pick if I had to survive with one pistol, especially with the ability to use .410, .45 colt and .22 with one firearm. 
 
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/955/products_id/74819
 
***edit***  if you made or modified a stock like this, it could be used like a super short carbine in emergencies or with slugs/heavier colt loads. 
http://www.crosman.com/gear/custom/2400-110

[Lost Farmboy]

  To me the main thing is what I can hit with. 10 years ago I could hit a squirrel with a hand gun. Now I can’t see both the sights and the target at the same time. If I look below the bifocal line I can see the sights, above the line the target. I can no longer hit a small target with a hand gun at a reasonable distance. Unless I can scope the hand gun I need a rifle. How long will it be before I am scope dependent with a rifle too?


Funny thing is most of the guys I work with just got Mosins(cheap). With the Mosine I get a good sight picture. I might have to get new sights on my rifles and move the rear sight forward to shoot with iron sights.

[billythekid55]

I might have to get new sights on my rifles and move the rear sight forward to shoot with iron sights.

You may be able to rotate the rear sight 180°, that is put the back of the sight toward the barrel. Typically this will give you 3-4 more inches of eye relief. Works with some dovetailed sights and some screw mounted sights. Sometimes that is all it takes.
 
Thanks, Billy

[teamnelson]

 I was surprised the first time I shot smallbore Handgun silhouette how accurate and effective the .22 lr can be. I've even used .22 win wildcats in a 10" contender to flip over the field pistol rams at 100 yds. I prefer simple actions for survival guns, to reduce number of potential points of failure and to reduce ammo inconsistency; a Single Six with a 6.5" barrel or a 10" contender, with open sights, would be my preference over a .22 rifle in fact, with a fully enclosed holster.

[Couger]

For anyone who is interested, there's a fellow - Dr. Mark White who started and used to own "Sound Technologies" (name has since been changed) out of Pelham, Alabama or similar spelling.  Dr. White specialized making .22LR silencers and "pocket rifles," usually from Ruger 10/22.s on modified Choate folding stocks.  This was before the introduction of the Ruger Charger pistol, also based on the M10/22.
 
Most of White's customers are law enforcement or animal control types who have need for a compact, silenced .22LR ..... for dispatching wounded dogs on highways and roads, or nuisance deer and wildlife around subdivisions or airports, etc.
 
What I really wanted to post was that White has published data about the .22 Long Rifle and it performance.
 
The maximum optimum barrel length for a .22LR is 16 inches - most people know.  But White also published tables on the Model 10/22 but also the Model 77/22 (which I don't remember as well as I do about the M10/22).
 
If the 16 inch barrel length was the "0" value on percentage loss of .22LR velocity, a 14in bbl still gives 98+ percent .22LR performance.
 
A 12in barrel gave 97%, a 10in barrel around 94-95% of max porformance, and 8inch barrel would give 91+ percent, and a 6inch barrel around 83% of the velocities attained with a 16inch barrel. 
 
And I believe (don't remember for sure) a 4inch .22LR still gives around 70-72 of (16in) rifle performance.
 
White frequently built his pocket rifles with 5 1/2 inch barrels to guarentee that any ammo would shoot SUBSONIC and be silenced, but still his data is VALUABLE when determining how to set up a rifle, pistol or weapon like a Thompson/Center Contender, or when deciding what one can expect when selecting .22 ammo!

Also, a 10inch pistol approaches rifle performance!  Esp when shooting .22 Silhouette competition ot similar range-games.  That's why a 10inch barrel is often a great choice when equipping/outfitting a handgun to be used for that kind of shooting.  Or would be a great choice for a [.22] hunting firearm for say ...... squirrels, rabbits, etc.
 
I agree with Team Nelson's interest in singleshot Contenders for their versatility (and not just in .22's), but I also see a bigger need for 10inch handgun choices and also eight-inch!
 
Those familiar with Tactical Solutions (LLC) out of Boise, Idaho - know that company makes lightweight aluminum upper assemblies fir the Browning Buckmark .22LR pistols, but also aluminum upper assemblies for the Ruger RST Mark O'ne's, Two's, Three's and the M22/45's.  Any of the Buckmark's or Ruger's are much lighter in weight with their aluminum uppers!!
 
Maybe someone else will chime in, but take my word for it that anyone interested in exploiting the .22 Long Rifle cartridge in a handgun would be wise to study Dr White's studies and experiences (and various ammo he's tested), and also Tactical Solution's company and product line.
 
Also if one is shooting a singleshot like a Contender or bolt-action of any kind, it is also WISE to consider having a wide assortment of CB Caps, .22 Short ammo, high-performance LR's and other rimfire ammo choices too.
 
ADDED:  I don't mean to neglect those shooters who choose a wheelgun in .22LR or whatever one might choose.  White's data applies to ALL rimfire guns.   

[bilmac]

If you are talking rabbits and squirrels I don't think ballistics is any kind of an issue. I used to kill lots of rabbits with 22 shorts in my 6 shooter, they were easier on my ears. Now days, shorts are too hard to find and too expensive. Lots of rabbits are taken with pellet guns. If you make a good hit power is not an issue. If you make a poor hit, more power isn't going to make much difference.

[geezerbiker]

I bought a Cricket .22 single shot for my granddaughter.  Anyway I couldn't resist taking it out and shooting it to make sure it shot alright and it was as good as any .22 single shot I've ever fired. 

I was thinking on the way home from shooting that is the backing rifle that I really wanted 30 years ago...  I'm too old and beat up these days for any form of trekking but if I were, I'd be packing a Cricket .22 single shot.  It's feather light and a good shooter...

Tony

[BUGEYE]

I have killed many coots, shovelers and other trash ducks at 100 yards on water or land with a Buckmark with a 5" barrel and open sights. Accuate gun and lots of shooting to know the sight picture.  ear

uh ear, it's illegal to shoot ducks with a pistol.   and, highly unethical.

[mannyrock]

 
Dear Guys,
 
    The reason that a .22 rifle is a better game getter than a handgun is that it is very easy, given a rest (whether a limb, knee or branch) and a decent 4x scope, to hit 2 inch targets, in short order, out to 100 yards.  For the average shooter, this effectivley triples the range at which game can be taken.
 
   On game below the size of a groundhog, the velocity/power of the round is simply not an issue. 
 
   Data regarding velocity of standard .22 LR rounds seems somewhat irrelevant, since 90% of folks seem to shoot .22 "High Velocity" rounds, which are somewhat faster.
 
  A 22 to 24 inch rifle barrel should be preferred, even though there is a very small loss of velocity, simply because rifles with these barrels "point" very well, and stay on target as you sight, rather than wandering all over the place.  Next time you are at a gunshow, pick up a Ruger 10/22 and  point it at a spot in the rafters, then pick up a Marlin 39A and point it, you will see an very very large difference in how the rifle handles.
 
Regards,
Mannyrock
 
 

[bilmac]

Yup, the question really is whether you can hit what you need to with a pistol. If game is abundant and it is easy to get close shots, then a pistol will do. Something to consider though is that the situation may change. Rabbits are cyclic. they may be abundant one year and a couple years later hard to find and wild besides.

[BUGEYE]

I bought a Cricket .22 single shot for my granddaughter.  Anyway I couldn't resist taking it out and shooting it to make sure it shot alright and it was as good as any .22 single shot I've ever fired. 

I was thinking on the way home from shooting that is the backing rifle that I really wanted 30 years ago...  I'm too old and beat up these days for any form of trekking but if I were, I'd be packing a Cricket .22 single shot.  It's feather light and a good shooter...

Tony

that's what I carry.  two nice 22 rifles stay in the cabinet.
the cricket has the best trigger pull of my 3 rifles and weighs only 2.5 pounds. perfect!!

[blind ear]

I have killed many coots, shovelers and other trash ducks at 100 yards on water or land with a Buckmark with a 5" barrel and open sights. Accuate gun and lots of shooting to know the sight picture.  ear

uh ear, it's illegal to shoot ducks with a pistol.   and, highly unethical.

Not a problem on commercial fish ponds. Hundreds if not thousands of courmorants, herrons and eagrets die there annually. They transfer parasites and diseases from farm to farm and eat all sizes of fish. ear

[BUGEYE]

I have killed many coots, shovelers and other trash ducks at 100 yards on water or land with a Buckmark with a 5" barrel and open sights. Accuate gun and lots of shooting to know the sight picture.  ear

uh ear, it's illegal to shoot ducks with a pistol.   and, highly unethical.

Not a problem on commercial fish ponds. Hundreds if not thousands of courmorants, herrons and eagrets die there annually. ear

if you have your permit from the USFWS, you're good to go.

[Lost Farmboy]

  Tacklebury I saw one of those Rossi 45/410/22 combo pistols. I found it extremely tempting.






The 22 would be a great small game getter. The 45 out of a 45/410 barrel have questionable accuracy. But I think good for deer at reasonable distances. The real question I had was how useful the 410 would be. Could I hit a moving target with one? How much practice would it take to develop the skill or maintain it?


For the 22, the pistol would be as good as the rifle. I decided the 410 was more important than the 45 for the area I plan to survive in. For half the money (Walmart) I got the Rossi 22/410 youth combination. It fits in my backpack. I feel more confident that I can hit a moving squirrel in dense cover with the long gun. 410 slugs could get a deer, but I think I will use something else for large game.
 

[Pat/Rick]

I've probably killed more grouse with a .22 than a shotgun. Rabbit is about even I'd guess. I've carried one flavorr or another of 22 handgun for years fo small game opportunity's.

[tacklebury]

Well, a lot of it comes down to practice.    My great uncle shot walnuts out of the air with his colt woodsman and I got pretty good at hittin moving targets with my .22 also.  I think with a single shot .410 pistol, you'd be capable of doing sub-25 yard bird and small game hunting.  There's been several articles on the Comanche II in Backwoodsman Magazine in the last 2 years and guys are taking grouse with those and other small game.  It might be touch and go for really small birds like woodcock etc, but with my .410 single I grew up with, pheasant were no problem and grouse were pretty easy too.  I just like this one better than the comanche because of the .22 barrel included. 

[schoolmaster]

The average shooter will be much better served with a rifle over a pistol any day for most situations. Pistols are handy to carry but require a lot of practice to reliably take small game at the ranges most shots are taken. There are a number of fairly light weight rifles that will work for this application.

[mcwoodduck]

Clearly the rifle is easier to shoot and will be more accurate.
As a survival tool the rifle hands down.  The rifle has more speed and can take larger small game at longer distances.  Most 22 Rilfes are small and light enough to carry with you.  A sling is easy to mount on almost any of the rifles
As an oppertunity tool the handgun.  it is with you and the tree rat, the cotton tail, grouse, and the marsh rabbit are all easy to put on the table.  When we went Elk Hunting in Id our guide told us to pring 22 handguns if we had them for rabbits and grouse on hte way back to camp in the evening or when gathering fire wood.
 
 

[Victor3]

 Probably ~60% of all small animals (other than birds) I've shot over the past 40+ years have been with a .22 rifle. .22 handgun, maybe 10%. I don't know how many critters I've shot with .22s but it's gotta be >1000.
 
 The reasons I like a rifle over a handgun don't have to do with ammo performance; I wouldn't worry about a minor loss of velocity if I could legally own and hunt with an accurate .22 rifle having a 10" bull barrel. A 40 grain .22 HP hitting a 5# animal is plenty good enough at 1100 or 950 fps. I choose a rifle over a handgun because I'm much more likely to precisely hit my target with one shot (regardless of distance to target, bbl length. sights/optics, etc.)
 
 If a person needs to survive by killing small animals and can choose between .22 rifle & handgun, a rifle is the obvious choice simply because of erganomics, which help provide superior accuracy at all ranges out to where the round is effective.
 
 There are good reasons (apart from velocity loss) that we don't send our troops into battle with handguns chambered in 5.56. 
 

[BUGEYE]

I've killed 4 deer in my life. longest shot was 50yd.  every one could have been taken with a .22lr to the brain.

[teamnelson]

I've killed 4 deer in my life. longest shot was 50yd.  every one could have been taken with a .22lr to the brain.

There's a good thread been going on for almost a year on another site comparing the effect of a .22lr on deer skulls. The 40gr. HP has passed through out to 150 yds, although most standardized testing is being done at the 30-50 yd range with various loads.


Part of the overall discussion needs to be context as well. A relatively healthy person possessing use of both upper limbs, average eyesight and hearing, walking out of a place of relatively safely with a .22 firearm to go shoot game in a context where the sound of gunfire would not be uncommon, nor attract unwanted attention, and you can control which .22 ammo you'll have on hand ... a rifle is a clear winner, and type of action is not as significant. If I'm in unfamiliar terrain, bad weather, sick or injured, in a context were gunfire, or the visible possession of a firearm is problematic, limited access to tools, and stuck with whatever .22 ammo I can put to hand ... the rifle is less desirable, and type of action becomes more important.


We're in a survival skills discussion, so I assume a survival context. My hands are very very important to me for a myriad of things besides carrying a firearm, so my game getter needs to fit in my pack or ride in a holster.

[Pat/Rick]

Often times I will carry a .22 handgun while hunting deer. I have used them to harvest grouse numerous times. For just game gathering/foraging I still would prefer a .22 rifle and a larger hangun of say, .357 and larger. There have been deer that I could have head shot with a 22 rifle but I doubt I would attempt it with a pistol. If only having the choice between a pistol or rifle, I would take the rifle everytime.

[bilmac]

The little Rossi that farmboy pictured would fit in a pack, it breaks down to 18" and without the extra barrel weighs 5#. I bought a youth model for the grandkids and find I have no trouble shooting the short stock.

[Couger]

..... We're in a survival skills discussion, so I assume a survival context. My hands are very very important to me for a myriad of things besides carrying a firearm, so my game getter needs to fit in my pack or ride in a holster. 

Important,  good  points.
 
I recently picked up a Marlin Papoose, to compliment my Ruger 10/22 I want to equip with a Choate folding stock .....
 
The Papoose is for when I want to pack it but don't need to shoot it, like when packing a .308 MBR in more than just survival scenarios.
 
Ideally, the Papoose would have the barrel shortened to 8 or 10 or 12 inches and a "can" attached.  Also I will be modifying the Papoose stock by cutting off the bottom half of the actual wood beneath where a check weld would occur - to make it even smaller to pack in a specially designed and made zippered case.  After cutting down the stock, the Papoose assembled or unassembled would carry easily on a one point or two point system, or packed away in one's kit.  Sorry I cannot post PICS at this time.  As pointed out - regardless of power and types of rounds, a shoulder-held and sighted weapon is probably much easier to shoot more accurately than a HG.  But also don't discount the power of a rifle-fired Velocitor vs. a pistol fired CB Short either!  All RF firearms  have their places and use-scenarios!!

BTW, I picked up a 25rd Shooter's Ridge mag for it that works flawlessly.  10rd staight factory mags is what I'd actually prefer to carry with it.
 
Give the Papoose a careful look!      It weighs less than 4#.  I agree AR-7's are junk.

[keith44]

..... We're in a survival skills discussion, so I assume a survival context. My hands are very very important to me for a myriad of things besides carrying a firearm, so my game getter needs to fit in my pack or ride in a holster. 

Important,  good  points.
 
I recently picked up a Marlin Papoose, to compliment my Ruger 10/22 I want to equip with a Choate folding stock .....
 
The Papoose is for when I want to pack it but don't need to shoot it, like when packing a .308 MBR in more than just survival scenarios.
 
Ideally, the Papoose would have the barrel shortened to 8 or 10 or 12 inches and a "can" attached.  Also I will be modifying the Papoose stock by cutting off the bottom half of the actual wood beneath where a check weld would occur - to make it even smaller to pack in a specially designed and made zippered case.  After cutting down the stock, the Papoose assembled or unassembled would carry easily on a one point or two point system, or packed away in one's kit.  Sorry I cannot post PICS at this time.  As pointed out - regardless of power and types of rounds, a shoulder-held and sighted weapon is probably much easier to shoot more accurately than a HG.  But also don't discount the power of a rifle-fired Velocitor vs. a pistol fired CB Short either!  All RF firearms  have their places and use-scenarios!!

BTW, I picked up a 25rd Shooter's Ridge mag for it that works flawlessly.  10rd staight factory mags is what I'd actually prefer to carry with it.
 
Give the Papoose a careful look!      It weighs less than 4#.  I agree AR-7's are junk.

Do not worry about the power levels.  One of my favorite squirrel hunting rifles is a .22 cal pellet rifle.  It launches a 14.3 grain pellet at 800 fps which equates to 20 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle.  At a range of 20 yards the pellet will shoot completely through a squirrel (head or chest shot)  Since .22LR ammo has an average projectile weight of 40 grains, and will easily exceed 800 fps the only question is accuracy.  Even if it only has a muzzle velocity of 800 fps the 40 grain bullet will deliver over 56 foot pounds of energy.  More than double my pellet rifle.  Since the .22 LR bullet is also more aerodynamic range is limited by your ability to hit a 1 1/2 inch target.  Pick what you want and feel confident with.