What's the big deal with .22LR?

Yes, the 22 LR is economical to shoot. But it's also very accurate.

As for plinking fun, you need to get some metal plates or soda cans filled with water. Even plinking with a 38 isn't going to be much fun unless you can see where the bullet is hitting.

I love my 22 rifles and handguns. They cost so little to shoot AND I can shoot them in my backyard without the neighbors raising a fuss.

As it turns out I have divided the world into two kinds of shooters - smoke and fire vs. volume. Most of the time, volume shooters just like running rounds, thousands of rounds per year and that gets spendy without having a reasonable amount of .22 in the mix. There are competitive shooters, and hard core plinkers and some precision folks that all fall into the catagory of not being driven by the recoil (in fact some really like that .22 is soft shooting in any platform) or the higher power. Most of these folks that I know (and I'm in this catagory) also have centerfire guns and enjoy shooting them. I certainly use a .22 for diagnosing when my flinch is getting bad and that sort of thing as well.

Now Smoke and Fire shooters are just at the other side of the spectrum. It isn't that they aren't as interested in accuracy or anything of the sort, it's just that to "feel like real shooting" as you put it the gun needs to push on you some, make some noise and push some power. I don't have any problem with this at all.

I think the "hype and hooplah" of the .22 is really this - for about $400 I can get a S&W 15-22 or a Sig 522 which look, feel and handle exactly like their $1,200 - $1,500 bretheren at $20 a case of ammo. Anywhere I can shoot at all I can shoot a .22 and with a .22 an exciting shot can be at 125 yards instead of 300 - 400. I can get as accurate a bolt action .22 as exists for under $3000, and certainly I can get 95% of the way there for under $800 whereas a Cheytac or some other exotic really long range rifle is going to start at $3,000 or more. I can get a Clark Custom SW41 for probably less than $2,000 with all the bells and whistles and I can probably just barely break into a Wilson Combat 1911 for $2,500. It's true all up and down the price point of the .22, you can get the "equivalent" of the centerfire features for much less money.

So, you may be in the minority on this one - but I can respect where you are at. I do love shooting my 1911's in .45 and 40, and I've been seriously thinking about a 10 mm just to have something that pushes hard. I'm not immune to the sentiment, but at the end of the day I thoroughly enjoy running my .22's and not really being concerned about my round count or anything else.

Thinkingblade

When I get into any shooting slump, I go back to plinking with my 22lr. They are inexpensive to shoot all day long so I can work on the fundamentals of marksmanship without killing my bank account.

They are awesome for small game and pests.

Someone could stockpile thousands of rounds and survive for a long long time in an anarchist or emergency situation.

People generally learn to shoot a rifle with a .22 and most people who own guns have at least one.

Lastly, they are fun.

There has to be a smallest round. If not the .22 LR, then it would be the .25 auto, an inferior round, and much more expensive.

The .22 short is rare, and I haven't seen a .22 long in years, The .22 CB and BB cap are only popular in Europe for galleries. The .22 LR has just Enough power to work a semi-automatic.

Personally, I wonder how an ancient rimfire like this has stayed popular so long. No other R/F is really being produced at all. Not the .44 Henry, .56 Spencer, not Anything. Its Longevity must be its saving grace.

EDIT: Kid, I know. I'm saying smallest Muzzle Energy. A .17 Bee is about three times the muzzle energy of a .22LR.

Personally, I'd rather shoot an AR-15, but the .22LR ammunition is cheaper than dirt, so I'm not going to knock it. Other than that there isn't much reason to shoot it, but hey, when I spend a dollar per round for my .30-06 I'll take 500 bullets of any caliber for $25, and even go out to buy a new gun to match it with all the money I saved.

I've only shot a .22 at two of my friend's houses. Personally I had fun with it, Probably the best thing about .22s is that you can absolutely pelt a target full of bullets because of its low recoil. So its fun in the sense you can pretty much shoot it like an extremely lightweight, quite machine gun

.22 are what everyone starts with. for most kids about 13 or older when they start shooting its amazing to them and still is to me. you practicly never run out of bullets cause there dirt cheap. also you dont have to go to a shooting range cause when you shoot the whole neighborhood doesnt hear you. its just something people like. if you get a henry golden boy repeater they were the coolest things ever a way better upgrade from airguns. you could hit 100 yard targets which is really cool for most people.

I was taught the proper technique of shooting with rifles & handguns using 22LR ammo. I can't imagine teaching young children to shoot with my 44 mag. I have shot lots of squirrels with my antique Savage NRA rifle. There is nothing wrong with shooting them with a shotgun except that it hardly seems sporting.

Most people I know just consider the 22LR a plinking round that is cheap and one that does not bring the sheriff snooping around.

if you want to know what real shooting is try hitting a quarter at 100 yards with a 22...a lot of people say they can but most can't ..i shoot competition with 22s ...It's not the size of the bullet but where you can put it..i don't use hammers on screws or screwdrivers on nails..but nothing wrong with 22 shooting..

You said it. I can plink all weekend for $100 against a relatively flimsy back stop. Shooting my .308 is almost $2.00 a shot. But yeah the recoil is great. And the real thrill is the Barrett .50 cal.

But you need an inch of boiler plate for a back stop