|
|
Post by Callahan on Feb 9, 2009 23:51:42 GMT -5
Need some suggestions on a .22 pistol. Don't have one.
It looks like the Ruger 22/45 is an inexpensive bargain while the Mark III has all the bells and whistles and is highly thought of.
Friend of mine has a new S&W .22 and still hasn't fired it, so he's no help on that.
Any suggestions? I'm even open to a revolver, though that might not make much sense, what with all my handguns being semi-auto.
I've heard good and bad on Beretta Neos, Sig Mosquitos, Walther P22s. Ruger keeps coming up a a good 'un.
What do you guys think? Comments on the guns I've mentioned or any that I should have?
|
|
|
|
Post by TMan on Feb 10, 2009 12:46:55 GMT -5
If you decide on the Beretta Neos, be sure to get the Deluxe one.
I wouldn't recommend the P22, and I think the Mosquito is overpriced for what accuracy that you get. Stay away from the S&W 22A jam-o-matic. The S&W 41 is a great gun on the other hand.
Personally, I like the Buckmark's and the Ruger's, but I like the Ruger's a little better than I do the Buckmark. The Ruger is a solid piece of hardware. A lot of people have problems with field-stripping and putting the Ruger back together. A lot of the same people voted for BO too. If you get a Ruger, pay attention to how the hammer strut fits into the main-spring housing and you won't have any problems.
At the range, I see a lot of Buckmarks and Rugers worn by the people that are wearing special hats, which they won in competition. However, the big time winners nearly always are shooting modified Rugers, and there are a lot of aftermarket modifications available for the Ruger.
I have the MK III Hunter and 22/45 Hunter. I like them both, but detail stripping is different on them. Both are clever pieces of engineering. Unless you really like the feel of the 22/45, you should probably go with the MK III.
|
|
|
|
Post by 5ontarget on Feb 10, 2009 22:26:43 GMT -5
I have a early model of the P22, quite picky on ammo, mine only likes Remington, have a friends that will only feed Federal  I've heard they've fixed the problem since I bought mine. Fun little pistol to plink with... That being said, it hasn't seen range time in a couple years. Now my Ruger MKII, makes its way into the range bag nearly every trip. Got hooked after shooting a friend's, and reading all the glowing reviews. Functions like a pocket camera, just point and shoot.  |
|
|
|
Post by Callahan on Feb 11, 2009 11:41:49 GMT -5
TMan: I fired a Browning years ago and I recall it was accurate. I also recall cutting my hand on the slide. Maybe that's tipping me toward the Ruger, though it was not the Browning's fault! I notice you recommend the Mark III over the 22/45. Why is that? Are they basically the same gun or are there differences?  |
|
|
|
Post by Callahan on Feb 11, 2009 11:45:53 GMT -5
I have a early model of the P22, quite picky on ammo, mine only likes Remington, have a friends that will only feed Federal I've heard they've fixed the problem since I bought mine. Fun little pistol to plink with... That being said, it hasn't seen range time in a couple years. Now my Ruger MKII, makes its way into the range bag nearly every trip. Got hooked after shooting a friend's, and reading all the glowing reviews. Functions like a pocket camera, just point and shoot. 5ON: Mark II. Does that mean you've had it for awhile or bought it used? Thanks for the info about ammo. I will let my friend know so he does not get discouraged when he FINALLY gets around to firing it. I like the feel of the gun. It's about a 4-inch barrel, as I recall, and points well, with a nice balance to it. It's at least a year to a year and a half old, so it's probably one of the ones with the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by TMan on Feb 11, 2009 12:43:56 GMT -5
Callahan, the 22/45 is a polymer pistol vs steel for the MK III. There have been problems with the hammer pin wearing the polymer frame and expanding the hole in the frame. Ruger has a new part number for the pin to prevent this from happening.
What sold me on the 22/45 in the first place was that the grip is at the same angle as the 1911 vs the Luger like grip on the MK III.
On the 22/45, the sear spring holds in the pins for the sear and the hammer to prevent them from walking out of the frame (clever).
With the MK III there are several after market grips that you can buy. With the 22/45, the grips are molded into the frame.
I like the 22/45 because it does fit my hand well. I used to have one that jammed a lot, and I ended up trading it. After Gun Tests magazine gave it a "don't buy" rating, it ticked me off so much I bought another one, the "Hunter" version, and I'm very pleased with it.
My major problem with the Buckmarks is the "captured" recoil spring. During field-stripping, the little "c" clip can go into orbit, and be hard to find. The Buckmarks just don't seem as rugged to me as the Rugers.
|
|
|
|
Post by MLB on Feb 11, 2009 19:50:47 GMT -5
I looked at the Ruger Mark II and Buckmark seriously when I was in the market for a .22 auto and went with the Ruger eventually. Others that I remember looking at were the S&W 21 (didn't like the feel of it), and the S&W 41 (didn't want to pay for it.)
Since then, I've heard mixed to poor reviews on the Walther, very little on the Beretta and trailside outside of TMan's reviews, so I'm little help there.
The breakdown on the Ruger isn't simple. It's not rocket science though. Way too much is made of it.
Although I liked the Browning, I wouldn't trade my Ruger for it. The newer Rugers (Mark III) has a few new gadgets on it like a loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect, and if I'm not mistaken, a magazine release as opposed to the European style on the earlier ones. I like the magazine release, but still like my old one better though overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by TMan on Feb 11, 2009 20:59:52 GMT -5
MLB, I agree with you on the Ruger MKIII. Internally, they did the magazine disconnect the right way. Unfortunately, it does add extra steps to the field stripping because the hammer won't drop without the magazine being in.
Personally, I like the European magazine release better than the button on the side. I've had the magazine fall out of a pistol because I didn't have it inserted all the way. That has never happened on a MKII or anything with the European style disconnect.
Now if looking at two USED pistols that showed equal amounts of wear, and one was a MKII and the other a MKIII, I'd pay 10% more for the MKII.
I gave my MKIII receiver to a friend to put on his MKI frame. It didn't work until we removed the loaded chamber indicator. Then we were concerned that there might be hot gas coming out the slot, but it didn't happen. He found that it improved the precision (yes, you can teach me something) over his old barrel, which been shot to sheet. (I had put the Pac-Lite barrel on the new MKIII frame).
It is also possible to remove the magazine disconnect, but I don't recommend doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by 5ontarget on Feb 12, 2009 8:00:12 GMT -5
I bought my MKII new after the release of the MKIII. I got a pretty good deal on it. At the time, there was much debate as to which was better MKII vs MKIII, and there was the usual and customary price increase with the new model. Some dealers increased their MKII prices to match the MKIII. I lucked into a dealer that was trying to clear out old inventory to make room for new stuff. He had actually discounted his MKII's relative to prices in previous months.
|
|
