# Good 22. pistol?



## gooseboy

Anyone have any suggestions?


----------



## People

The Ruger mark 2 and mark 3 are very good handguns. I have heard good things about the Walther p22 but it is too small for my hands. I was just looking at the store about three days ago. Sig has a new 22 out there it is 400 bucks but it feels great in the hand. Browning also makes a pretty good gun. I do not like it but they do shoot good. The Ruger biesly 22 is the best 22 revolver I have ever shot. Not really what you wanted I am sure but there are many good 22's out there. Now only if the would cost less.


----------



## Cleankill47

I'd go with a Ruger mark 2 or 3. I've gotten the chance to fire one of the new mark 3's with the competition style grip, and it shot beautifully. You can try one of the new Mosquito pistols, I believe they are made by Springfield Armory. Watch out with them, they tend to jam with anything but high-velocity ammo.

Look around, you're sure to find something. Try to find somewhere that will let you try it before you buy it, that way you can tell what works best for you. :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

If by pistol you mean... pistol then I don't know what to tell you, but if you mean handguns in general, a taurus 94 is hard to beat for the price. Accurate, nice single action, good finish on it. My only beef if that it gets dirty fairly quickly and the double action is rather awful.


----------



## Remington 7400

Ruger Mk-II, Mk-III, S&W K22, Ruger Single Six Hunter


----------



## Dave_w

More hoo-ahs for Ruger. The Walther, to be frank, sucks. The Smith 22A is the same way: Just a glorified plinker. The Ruger MkII and MkIII are pretty much the last word, dollar for dollar. Don't believe any of the b-s you hear about all the new stuff they put on the III getting in the way of the action and trigger.

If you have a cash surplus, the Smith Model 41 is, by far, the best out there you can buy new. I got mine used at a steep discount. High Standards are very nice as well, but expensive.


----------



## Longshot

I have a ruger 22/45 and S&W 22A1 and both shoot very well. If I had to choose between the two I would go with the Ruger.

Dave what did you not like about the 22A? I also had a Walther and it was quickly traded for the 22A1.


----------



## Dave_w

Just the overall feel. I held it in my hand and it didn't feel like I was holding a really solidly-built gun. I'm used to the polymer/plastic feel (I love Glocks, Kel-Techs, and Kahrs), but the 22A just didn't inspire confidence. I shot one and it didn't change my mind; my groups were about the size of the ones I made with a P22. That, and the grips were a little funny. I know I can swap them easy enough, but why risk having it be an issue I couldn't correct?

The Ruger MkIII KMK512 ("Hunter"), on the other hand, really felt right.

Sure, part of it may be a subconscious need, but that's a big part of it, too. Some guns, although quantitatively not as good, just inspire more confidence, and I think that really has to enter into your buying considerations. So what if Gun A isn't as good as Gun B? I feel more confident with it, so I'm going to shoot better with it.


----------



## bukn77

ruger mark II. Havent shot the mark III, but I do have a competition mark II and I love it. My boys love to shoot it also.


----------



## Longshot

Dave_W

Thanks for the reply. I didn't like the grips of the 22A that much either but did like the larger wood grips on the 22A1. I put an ATI Halo sight on it for the fun of it so the Ruger 22/45 is the one in the holster to carry in the field.

Later...


----------



## buckseye

Ruger MarkII


----------



## Dave_w

Say, I've always been wondering about those holo sights. I threw an el-cheapo tube red-dot on my III to get ready for spring/summer club meets, but I was thinking about the holos. I just didn't want to blow the money and find out they sucked.


----------



## Longshot

Dave_w

I like the Halo site alot. I like it better than the red dot I had on it. Not having to worry about head and eye alignment is really nice. The ATN digital is nice but I wise I had spent a little more money for a nicer one. Have been looking at a C-More.


----------



## fireman299

i bought a S&W model 22a target pistol it was the biggest piece of &$#* i ever waisted $300 on. fired 500 rounds through it and it was fine then it would'nt hit the fireing pin hard enough to fire. also my buddy bought one the same day same model and it done the same way, i probably will never own another S&W.


----------



## Dave_w

Don't knock S&W for the sake of two guns. You sure it was the gun's fault it broke? I''ve got a little .22 revolver that's something like 20 or 25 years old (older than I am), a relic my dad bought back in the day. Performs flawlessly, finish never wore in the slightest, and this is a gun that gets shot at least once a week. We've also got a similarly-aged Centennial featherweight and a few more revolvers, plus two Model 41s. None have ever had a problem.


----------



## 1shotWonder

I know alot of pple on here are giving props for the ruger but I had nothing but jams with the one I had(MKII) but I now have the browning buckmark and it is absolutly amazing. the beretta neos is also very good. if youhave more money to spend the sig mosquito or sig trailside would be the way to go.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Dave_w said:


> Don't knock S&W for the sake of two guns. You sure it was the gun's fault it broke? I''ve got a little .22 revolver that's something like 20 or 25 years old (older than I am), a relic my dad bought back in the day. Performs flawlessly, finish never wore in the slightest, and this is a gun that gets shot at least once a week. We've also got a similarly-aged Centennial featherweight and a few more revolvers, plus two Model 41s. None have ever had a problem.


That is the problem. S&W used to put out great guns and now pushes out junk. Of course an old S&W is going to work well.


----------



## mr.trooper

Definately Ruger MKII or a S&W 22A. No other 22 pistols exist. THEY DONT EXIST!


----------



## Longshot

I disagree MT. I own both new and old S&W and all shoot great. I'll take my own personal experience before something you read or heard. I don't take much stock in most mag. reviews I think most seem to be good writers but know little about shooting. Everyone has an opinion though.


----------



## Dave_w

I'll just revert to "knocking two guns on the basis of what two guys who probably used and handled their guns in the exact same way". Did you dry-fire them? That'll just flat out break the firing pin on any rimfire.

And frankly, Longshot, gun mag writers suck as writers, too, not just as shooters. I read "Guns", "Handgunner", "Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement", and the like, and I begin to consider writing my congressman to see if we can set up a scholarship fund for kids in rural Appalachia.

No offense if you live in rural Appalachia, by the way.

But uh, about S&W pushing out junk...well, my dad does have that two-year old 41 that hasn't malfunctioned in 5000 rounds. Give or take.


----------



## mr.trooper

Militant_Tiger said:


> That is the problem. S&W used to put out great guns and now pushes out junk. Of course an old S&W is going to work well.


Internet B.S Allert!


----------



## Longshot

Dave_w

You may be right. I don't consider myself much of a writer so I was giving the the benefit of the doubt on that one. I subscribe to a few also and most days they aren't worth reading.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Internet B.S Allert!


If you don't know what you're talking about, don't bother talking.


----------



## Longshot

MT

I suggest you take your own advice. How many handguns do you own? And what basis do you make your statements by when you say the new S&W are poor.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

With the exception of you, everything I have heard about S&W for the past several years has been poor.

Here is an example.

http://www.gunblast.com/Revolver_Accuracy.htm

Some peope are biased towards one company or another. I hoped to buy a S&W 22 revoler but didn't want to pay 2x the amount for a peice of junk when I could get a taurus for half the price that would shoot better.

Trooper, well he just dislikes me, and as such trys to destroy my credibility at every opportunity, even when it affects his own.


----------



## Longshot

MT

The only Taurus I have is my wife's 5 shot 38spl/357 (don't remember model). It is a good shooting piece but the S&W feels to be better build. I decided to try this Taurus when I traded back a laser sight for my Glock. It's the one that replaces the guide rod and I do NOT recommend this sight. It made the Glock shoot terrible. I currently have two 44 mag. S&W that I couldn't be happier with. I think they still make one heck of a good revolver.


----------



## fireman299

anybody can make a good revolver. the S&W 22a's me and my buddy bought (i had the camo and he had the black and grey one) was just poor craftmenship. nothing broke on it. the hammer wasn't hitting the fireing pin right, it was only nicking the edge of it and after 500 rounds it wouldn't even do that. i've always had good luck with S&W but 2 guns do the same thing kinda funny aint it?


----------



## Chuck Smith

My vote is for the Berretta Neos.....I love mine. But also the Ruger Marks II and III are very nice. So is a Browning Buck Mark. The watlers is a nice gun but small. just my .02 cents


----------



## Dave_w

The Neos is fine as a plinker. The Ruger IIs and IIIs in their base models play the same role, but they're very easy to make into target guns.

The Model 41 is...hmm. I guess it's the Lotus Elise or Mitsubishi EVO VIII MR of rimfire handguns: A serious tool for people that shoot seriously enough to make use of one. The sticker price (MSRP $1k, can be had for $850 around here, I got mine used for a song and a wish) keeps everyone else away from them.

The Walther P22 just isn't a decent gun at all. Trigger sucks. Some people love the feel, though. But if you're gonna shoot a bullseye meet, spend the money to get something better.

The 22A...I picked one up and put it down. Just didn't like the feel. I know S&W to be a quality manufacturer, but the 22A is really just kind of a plinker unless you tear one open.


----------



## sdbaydogs

I have two Smith 22's. A model 41 and a 617. Both are very well built, have great triggers and are very accurate. I have seen used 6" 10 shot 617's for around $400 and used 41's for around the $600 mark. The old saying *"spend the money on the best and cry only once"* holds true here. I love my other Smiths - 686 and 610 - both great revolvers.


----------



## Dave_w

lol Yeah...when you blow that much money on a .22, a la Model 41, sublime performance is inevitable. And like the cars I mentioned above, there's very little you can immediately think of to make it any better. 30mm red-dot, maybe aftermarket grips, and you've got a formiddable rimfire bullseye gun.

Ruger MkII or III, I think we have to admit, is the Honda Civic of rimfire pistols. Affordable pricing, aftermarket support out the wazoo.


----------



## CO.500SW

Sig trailside? I shot one of the ones with the really controured grips, (target model) had a Sightron red dot, and it shot like a dream. I could shoot pop cans pretty readily 2 handed out to 30 yards.

Also shot a Baikal, very similar setup, much more utilitarian feel, but also very much a target pistol. Iron sights were probably the only thing that held this back in comparison to the sig.

Browning Buckmark? I actually own the camper model, it was my first pistol. I like it, but I think I'd rather have the Sig. Buckmark is easier to find a holster for though.

Btw, mine just gets used for plinking and the occasional spruce grouse.


----------



## predator14

*

Walther P22 i think is one of the pest semi auto light weight good triger pull everything you could want in a target pistol and the cost isn't that bad either 
:sniper: *


----------



## clampdaddy

I really like my browning buckmark. The grips and wide trigger are more comfortable to me than my brothers ruger (he thinks so too). I also like that in the event of a jam,once you pull back the slide you have access from both sides of the reciever to clear it. And lastly if someone ever makes a 17macII coversion it should only require a barrel,spring and mabee a heavyer slide. the ruger will need the same parts but the barrel and reciever are one piece if I'm not mistaken. To buy a reciever is the same as purcasing a new gun---paperwork.


----------



## Dave_w

Walther P22's a target gun? I'm gonna have to disagree there. The trigger is set at a stock eight pounds. That's waaaaaay too heavy. My Ruger breaks at 3. The Walther has a ton of creep as well. And it's just not accurate enough to make a decent target gun. Plus the optics mounting system is so very convoluted.

What I want you to do is find a Smith and Wesson Model 41, and a Ruger KMK512 "Hunter". Shoot both, and THEN tell me that the P22 is a target gun.


----------



## predator14

*

easy easy i have ruger too and it shoot very very well but i have a small hand so the p22 makes my grip a lil easier but with a bouble action an easy break the p22 still holds good i wasn't trien to say that Ruger or S&W wearnt at all :beer:

:sniper: *


----------



## Dave_w

All I'm saying is, the benchmark for target .22 performance is bullseye pistol at 25 yards or so. And the P22 trigger is just too creepy to be able to do that. I can appreciate the hand thing (I run into the same problem), but there comes a point. Also, a decent Ruger costs the same as a P22.

I'll call the P22 a really decent plinker, but I'm not willing to put it in the same category as a true target-grade pistol.


----------



## predator14

*

Ok understandable i agree just leaveing all sides open you know

:sniper: *


----------



## Dave_w

Hmm. If we're gonna call the P22 any good, the S&W 22A, the Brownings, and the Beretta Neos have to be considered.

But here's my thing...the Rugers can serve as a cheap plinker (you can pick them up for less than the rest, actually). But you can turn them into some very fine bullseye guns, too. Or anything else you need.

Only downside...weight. Metal frames are heavy. The P22 gets the weight nod, as does the 22A. Try the Ruger MkII and III 22/45. Might fit your hand better.


----------



## northerndave

depends on how much you are going to shoot it. I'm sure there are others that will hang with the Mark II in the endurance catagory, but I haven't seen it yet. (not that it aint out there, I'm just saying I haven't found it yet.)

Side by side, bullet for bullet, you'll wear the rails out of several light slide action pistols before the Ruger action starts showing wear.

I've seen it with the buckmarks.


----------



## Dave_w

Good point. I mean, the Ruger, I'm finding, can get really heavy when I'm holding it out there with a red-dot for a good long time with one hand (as when bullseye shooting). But at the same time, it's a big goddamn hunk of steel.

My personal preference for .22 handguns goes from the S&W Model 41, to the 1950s S&W Combat Master N-frame .22 revolver (identical gun also chambered in .38), to the Rugers. The 41 is out of most people's price range, and the Combat Master is so old you can't get them anywhere...I'm lucky enough that my dad has the .22LR and the .38, so I get to shoot what is, in my estimation, the sweetest trigger ever made.

That leaves the Rugers. Personally, I think there'd have to be a real reason for someone to bother with anything else (short of a High Standard or something like that).


----------



## northerndave

Dave_w said:


> That leaves the Rugers. Personally, I think there'd have to be a real reason for someone to bother with anything else (short of a High Standard or something like that).


see, now that's just not fair. bringing in choices that we can't easily acquire anymore.

If I had a time machine I suppose I might opt for a colt woodsman.


----------



## Hawkeye_90

The person who made this post is look for a plinker or a target pistol. I do like the rugger mark 2 and 3 shoot very well. Rugger is also made in america and that in my book is important. no one has mentioned COlt they make a good handgun, but like any other gun its what works for you. For me my k38 and my colt work great and I love them both very much and will never sell them.


----------



## kyhunter89

fireman, have you replaced the recoil buffer, it's the weak points of the 22-a's. i have a 22a-1, but i'm still not AN expert but id rather have a mkII


----------



## omegax

No love for the Browning Buckmark? I really like mine. I went in thinking I was going to buy a Ruger, but I just liked the way the Browning felt.


----------



## Dave_w

The Browning Buckmark is okay. I honestly didn't think of it. I didn't find any of the examples I picked up to feel particularly handy, though.

My point about buying a potential bullseye gun with an aftermarket to grow with is that you won't have to go and buy a different gun if you ever decide to get really serious. In my part of the country, pistol permits are tough to come by. Thus, buying versatile, customizable hardware is a smart move.

And yeah, Colt Woodsman is pretty good. We should make a list of the ultimate .22LR pistols, going solely on outstanding factory stuff, no aftermarket specials:

S&W Model 41 - still the reigning champ
S&W Combat Master 22 - the best-kept secret ever
Colt Woodsman - the list would be incomplete without it
High Standard Victor - a rarity, like so many good things
(add some more, in no particular order)


----------

