The Great Debate: 18 or 22?


 
B

BBrock

New member
I am torn at this point and am leaving my decision to everyone here for the most part. I currently have a Brinkman Bullet Smoker, roughly the same size as the 18.5. It has worked fine for shoulders and small briskets but I do have to cut the ribs to smoke them obviously. I do want more space at this time, so I am able to utilize the top rack for everything. I generally smoke for my family and an occasional get together. Money is not an issue. Here are the pros and cons that I am weighing out:

Pros to 18:
Small
Better Heat Control
Price
Less fuel used

Cons to 18:
Small
Wouldnt be ideal for ribs, our favorite
Wouldnt be ideal for entertaining
Small door

Pros to 22:
Plenty of space for everything
No need to cut meats to fit
Pefect for entertaining
Large door

Cons to 22:
Size
Difficult to move
Burns fuel
Price

I am leaning towards the 22, just so I will have the space if need be and using the 18.5 inch charcoal ring when we just do small cuts and ribs. Plus when we smoke beans, etc. I can easily fit it through the access door onto the bottom shelf. Thoughts and opinions?
 
Hi there, and welcome aboard.

I have both an 18 1/2" and a 22 1/2" WSM. I use them both but if I had to have just one, I'd have the 22 1/2" model.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
What Bob said. More space means the cooker comes up to temp quicker and things don't need to be out past the edge of the pan much for more even cooking. I've got a 15lb brisket to smoke tomorrow. Which cooker do you think I'm gonna use? Sure, the 22.5" uses more charcoal, but I only use water for spares, and that helps some with charcoal conservation.
 
Dave Russell said:
What Bob said. More space means the cooker comes up to temp quicker and things don't need to be out past the edge of the pan much for more even cooking. I've got a 15lb brisket to smoke tomorrow. Which cooker do you think I'm gonna use? Sure, the 22.5" uses more charcoal, but I only use water for spares, and that helps some with charcoal conservation.
Click to expand...

I am thinking of ordering the 22 1/2, with the 18 1/2 charcoal ring. I figure this can't hurt if I am cooking something on the smaller side.
 
22.5, 22.5, 22.5, 22.5 for all of the pro reasons.:cool: As to the cons, Size, actually, that's a pro. Move, put on wheels and side handles, fuel and price, you said money did not matter.:p..............................d
 
I also use an 18 1/2" charcoal ring in my 22 1/2" WSM. It saves fuel on short and low temp cooks.
 
Well, I am from the other camp;). I recently (December) got my first WSM and chose the 18.5". Original cost had nothing to do with my decision. Efficiency decided me on the smaller cooker. There are only two of us except when the kids visit. Frankly, I can cook more than enough (for me) on the 18.5. For me, "Less is more"...

Each and every one of us has to make their own decision on this - I prefer to cut my rib racks in half (I can do six halves on one grate and six on the other grate) so my ribs are perfectly cooked (no burned ends - in this case it is a PLUS). At any rate, I am pleased with my choice and believe that, for me, it is the way to go.

FWIW
Dale53
 
B Brock, I'll give you my two cents on my 18.5: I think its perfect for small groups (<8). I've gotten two 8 lb butts to fit on top as well as three racks of BB (not at same time of course). With that said, it is a very tight squeeze. General thought would be to use both top and bottom grates at one time to cut down on squeezing, but for my WSM, there is about a 10 degree variance. For butts: no big deal; for ribs: big deal. A rib rack can help fit 3 bb racks on top, but here again, it'll be tight and you may have to do some trimming.
 
BBrock said:
I am thinking of ordering the 22 1/2, with the 18 1/2 charcoal ring. I figure this can't hurt if I am cooking something on the smaller side.
Click to expand...

Your cooker will cook on the hot side until well-seasoned, so the smaller ring might come in handy for the first few short cooks, especially if you decided to cook dry from the get-go. On my 22.5" wsm though, the smaller charcoal ring makes it harder to get up to temp with water in the pan (st. Louis ribs), and also if trying to cook very much faster with a dry pan (chicken). Most or all of the charcoal in my ring is lump anyway, so I just try to reuse all I can of what's left in the ring after shutting down the vents at the end of the cook.
 
I went through the same dance and ended up with the 22.5" with zero regrets.
Now I'm in the process of building a mini-WSM for smaller cooks. (and it's cool)
 
Since you already have an ECB (modified preferably to equal the performance of an 18.5 WSM) the 22.5 WSM would be your obvious choice.
 
Robert McGee said:
Well, I am from the other camp;). I recently (December) got my first WSM and chose the 18.5". Original cost had nothing to do with my decision. Efficiency decided me on the smaller cooker. There are only two of us except when the kids visit. Frankly, I can cook more than enough (for me) on the 18.5. For me, "Less is more"...

Each and every one of us has to make their own decision on this - I prefer to cut my rib racks in half (I can do six halves on one grate and six on the other grate) so my ribs are perfectly cooked (no burned ends - in this case it is a PLUS). At any rate, I am pleased with my choice and believe that, for me, it is the way to go.

FWIW
Dale53
Click to expand...

Great post. We were talking on another thread about how that Harry Soo is back to competing on one 18.5" wsm, and I have no idea why so many folks are so hesitant to cook on both grates. Reason I bought a 22.5" as well is that I cook for a BIG household, but yes, I found half slabs in rib racks to be the way to go in my 18.5" wsm. Specifically, I prefer the 6 slot Charcoal Companion racks, and cooked three slabs cut in half on each grate with great results several times. Only full length slabs of ribs I'd put on my 18.5" grates would be dainty little 2 pound-ish babybacks, but I can't even find those in the stores anymore.
 
As has been stated, 2-8lb Pork Butts will fit on each grate on a 18.5, or 1-11lb Beef Brisket on each grate, 6-half racks of ribs on each grate. So 32lbs of pulled pork or 22lbs of beef brisket, will feed alot of people at one sitting, 12 half racks of ribs not as many people, at least not as many if they can eat ribs like I can. So if you want to feed a crowd with ribs maybe the 22.5 is the way to go, but if not for a bunch of ribs, the 18.5 will feed a crowd quite nicely!
 
I have both. Got the 18.5 first and use that one more, but wanted the 22.5 too. What can I say, I got hooked. It nice having the 22.5 when you need it and I have run them both at same time for a few cooks.
 
Robert McGee said:
Well, I am from the other camp;). I recently (December) got my first WSM and chose the 18.5". Original cost had nothing to do with my decision. Efficiency decided me on the smaller cooker. There are only two of us except when the kids visit. Frankly, I can cook more than enough (for me) on the 18.5. For me, "Less is more"...

Each and every one of us has to make their own decision on this - I prefer to cut my rib racks in half (I can do six halves on one grate and six on the other grate) so my ribs are perfectly cooked (no burned ends - in this case it is a PLUS). At any rate, I am pleased with my choice and believe that, for me, it is the way to go.

FWIW
Dale53
Click to expand...

The 18.5 works for me. Butt then again, it's all about capacity. Two in my family and occasionally the grandbrats or another 2-3 for supper. I usually have the kettle going as well.
I like my ribs, dry rubbed and everybody loves the presentation as nobody has ever seen them coiled before. It is pretty neat. I've done eight racks this way butt must admit not able to foil them like this. If you are cooking single items like a butt the 22 seems to be a bit of a waste butt load it up and it makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top