Is there a down side Im missing??? 1st Post


 
T

Tony L (Tonyboombatz)

New member
I am deciding between the 18 and 22.. I have always loved to grill and this will be my first smoker. I have 4 big parties a year and have 3 growing boys all the time. Im thinking "go big or go home". Is this a bad idea for a "first" smoker? Any down side with the 22 as a first smoker. Thanks in advance for responses.

Tony-Long time lurker...first time poster.
 
Welcome to the site Tony!

Yes there is a big downside, you have to exercise a LOT more. I think I have gained 15 pounds this year since buying my 22...

I have talked 3 others into buying one this year as their first smoker too, and each love it.
 
If money is not an issue I would go with the 22.5 The 18.5 WSM is great, but if your parties are large then the bigger WSM might be the smart choice.
 
I'd say the only downside to the 22.5 is the amount of extra charcoal/fuel needed.

The 18.5 can hold two large pork shoulders and a combination of brisket and ribs depending on how you have things organized.

If you really get into smokin then you can always buy another 18.5 or buy the big beast.
 
I got my 18.5 WSM about a month ago and already wish I would have gotten the 22.

I cook for 3-5 mostly, sometimes 5-10. Not that it won't do, but would like the extra room.

Plus as word gets around the company seems to grow!
 
For that many parties a year I would definatly go for the 22. There is room to spare. The 22 uses more charcoal but not alot more in my opinion. You will not regret the 18 as it is a great unit for smaller smokes (and you can fit alot of meat on there if you are creative) but the 22 will fit your lifestyle better.

Jamie
 
The 22 was my first smoker and it really wasn't any trouble at all to learn (I'd already been using a Weber kettle and most of the concepts carry over). I tell you, the first time I made ribs I was kicking myself for not getting one earlier.

I would think that the 22" if anything is a bit easier for a newbie - you can probably get away with just using the top rack so everything's more accessible, and things lay down flat that you might need to roll up or cut in half with a 18". But then with a big gathering you do have the option of pulling that second layer into play and you can feed a ton of people if need be.
 
With a family of 5, I'd go for the 22" just because you'll always have the added room when you need it, especially if you tend to freeze a lot.
 
I just got my first WSM last week. I got the 22 because of the added space. Just think like this, you don't need to use the extra space, but if you need it and it's not there your stuck.

Like others have said, it will use more charcoal, but not enough to warrent one or the other. I too say go for the 22. Although if cost is an issue you won't be disappointed with the 18
 
Just about everything has a downside.

A lot of seasoned pit masters point out the importance of a sufficient amount of meat in the pit for the sake of moisture. Just think about this, in case you ever plan on cooking with a dry pan.

As far as capacity and cooking for crowds goes, the little wsm that Weber has been making since 1981 has been enough for a BIG party! For instance, start off with four butts at a total of 32 lbs to give you almost 20 pounds of pulled pork. Of course, I've read on a serious bbq competitor/caterer's website that he has added a third rack and squeezed NINE butts on one of his little wsms before! That's a lot of BBQ! Restaurants plan on 5 sandwiches to just one pound of pulled pork.

On the other hand, if you want to start catering or cook whole pork shoulders, not just butts, go with the 22 incher, and cook a LONG time. You can cook BIG beef cuts in one piece as well, but....why? It's been suggested that you can cook the biggest brisket you want to on the little wsm by cutting off enough of the point to make it fit and laying that chunk of the point by the rest of the brisket, getting done at the same time as the flat. (As far as ribs go, I can cook four racks of spares layed flat, or six with racks with my little wsm.)

Anyway, just food for thought...either way you go, you can't go wrong!
 
Originally posted by Dave Russell:
Just about everything has a downside.

A lot of seasoned pit masters point out the importance of a sufficient amount of meat in the pit for the sake of moisture. Just think about this, in case you ever plan on cooking with a dry pan.
Click to expand...

Good thing the 22" has that three gallon water pan.
icon_smile.gif
 
Concerning the big WSM: first the good news, then the bad news:

The new 22 inch WSM is a MUCH better chicken cooker, especially if you take out the pan and use the top rack. You'll not only have more room, but more distance from the coals for cooking direct. I don't have one, but I WILL be getting my homemade BDS clone out of the shed the next time I want to cook 15 LARGE leg quarters again. Last nights cook wasn't "without a hitch", to say the least...

As far as downsides go, it's mainly a matter of bulkiness. Obviously the larger one wouldn't be the one you'd think of for squeezing in with everything else on a camping trip, etc. Also, I rarely need to refuel my little wsm, but it's really easy. However, I'd imagine lifting a fully loaded 22 inch WSM off the coal bowl to be pretty strenuous.
 
Tony:

How big are your parties? We talking 15-20 people range, or 35+?

I routinely do ~40lbs of pork butt on my 18.5". As much as people talk about their love for the 22", I still remain a big advocate for the size and efficiency of the 18.5". The money savings on the charcoal and ability to cook without needed refueling on LONG cooks (~18hrs) is great.

For a family of five, you would still have alot of left overs if you cooked at capacity.

If I could change one thing about the 18.5", it wouldn't be more room, it would be duplicating it and having a second unit to enable 2 different cooking temperatures. I.E. one smoker for high heat (brisket, chicken, etc), and one for low and slow (ribs, butts, etc).

If it were me, I'd get a good deal on the 18.5" and buy two of them.
 
I originally thought that I wanted the 22". But I am a disabled Veteran so the 18" was all I could really afford. It was perfect for me and my family. The 18" is big enough for the cooks that I need to do and I don't have to spend an arm and leg for charcoal.
 
Tonyboombatz!! ... you're right... GO BIG or GO HOME!!! ...I've got both the 18 and the 22 and love em both, but if I was gonna have only one...it would be the big 'ol DOUBLE DEUCER 22"
icon_biggrin.gif
If you do big cooks or small she'll git er done !!! In my experience with both cookers...the 22 will consume no more than 1 extra chimney full of <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Kingsford</span> than the 18 on a typical cook...approx $1.80, who cares
icon_confused.gif
...and if ya wanna cook 6 racks o'ribs you can lay em all flat..no rib rack hassels and when ya sauce em, the sauce stays on!
icon_wink.gif
 
Tony, I agree with Rondo. If I had a choice it would definitely be a 22". I've got an 18 now and I have smoker envy
icon_cool.gif
 
Tony - You will hear all kinds of responses to your question. 22 or 18? Rondo really is right on with his response. The cost difference of fuel between the two is so negligible that you would never notice. But if you were to buy the 18 and then had need for the 22 - OUCH! Buy a 22 my friend and don't look back. You won't be sorry. Bob B
wsmsmile8gm.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top