AR15.Com Mobile
RAINIER RRA STAG VORTEX VERIFORCE BLUE FORCE GEAR CMMG DEL-TON MAGPUL FSI GEISSELE
BROWNELLS SKD PK AIM DSG MI BRAVO SWFA LARUE DPMS JT
» 0 Online
What's the most reliable, accurate, and dependable semi .22 pistol?
What's the most accurate, reliable, and dependable .22 pistol?
Total Votes: 3386
Walther P22

Ruger MK I,II,III

Buckmark

1911 conversion

S&W 41








(268)  7.91%

(2111)  62.34%

(609)  17.99%

(114)  3.37%

(284)  8.39%
Jamul123  [Team Member]
I keep thinking I want to get a p22, but it just seems really hit and miss as far as reliablilty goes. What do you guys think is the most reliable semi .22 pistol? I'll do a poll if it's debatable. ETA: Poll added


my buckmark
Paid Advertisement
packingXDs  [Team Member]
OST.

Been looking for a good 22 pistol. So far I have moved away from the P22 and thinking more about a conversion kit for the 1911.
foxherb53  [Team Member]
Walther P22 ...I have about (near as I can tell) 5K through mine with narry a hitch.
BaNo  [Team Member]
Depends on what you want the pistol for.
My 21a is 100% reliable, but try hitting anything smaller than "man size" at 30ft with it...
cuate  [Member]
There's a herd of .22 pistols out there but for reliability, accuracy, dependability the Ruger Mk I, II. or III fits the bill. I have owned two and they don't seem to ever wear out if cleaned and oiled. There are lots of add on things you can do but I find mne works fine just as it came from the factory.

Find a Ruger owner, go to the range and fire one before you spend bucks on all the
brands you may hear are so super. Only thing plastic on mine is the factory grips and I like them as is.
chakup  [Member]
Buckmark.
LastRites  [Member]
The S&W 41 shouldn't even be in this poll. How do you compare a $800/900 dollar gun to a $300/400 priced pistol. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Volkswagon.
sdrct  [Member]
All things considered, Ruger MK II, especially if you want to do any level of aftermarket modification downstream. That being said, my Buckmark is one helluva lot of fun to shoot. I guess I go to the Buckmark for fun and plinking, the MK II for more serious shooting.
ALPHAGHOST  [Team Member]
Ruger imo
ElIntocable  [Team Member]

Originally Posted By ALPHAGHOST:
Ruger imo


+1
Jamul123  [Team Member]

Originally Posted By LastRites:
The S&W 41 shouldn't even be in this poll. How do you compare a $800/900 dollar gun to a $300/400 priced pistol. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Volkswagon.



welp ....take $800 divide by $400.....That should make it twice as good as the $400 gun and if it's not as good then it's not the better buy. I think simply in matters as such

JoshD  [Member]
My grandfather bought a NIB MK III standard and I bought a NIB Buckmark camper.

Accuracy- Buckmark
Reliability- MK III
Handling- Buckmark
Magazines- Buckmark

The buckmark seems more accurate, but it does have a heavy barrel, and we just use cheapo federal, winchester, or remington bulk pack. Handling, the buckmark wins, it feels more like a full size automatic. The magazines on the buckmark seem easier to load and have a bigger floorplate. The MK III has the edge on reliability and seems more "solid". The buckmark will jam every so often, by not fully ejecting the empty case from the slide area, very easy to clear but still annoying. We have had misfires in both pistols. Most of the time a 2nd strike will fire the round, even though rim has a nice firm imprint of the firing pin on it. A couple rounds have been complete duds. Both pistols have several hundred rounds through them.

I would guess that ammo such as CCI would be more consistent and the problems would probably be gone. However, I bought a box of CCI Stingers the other day just to try out, and at 4-5 times the price of bulk pack, I will stick with the cheap ammo for target shooting and plinking.
LastRites  [Member]

Originally Posted By Jamul123:

Originally Posted By LastRites:
The S&W 41 shouldn't even be in this poll. How do you compare a $800/900 dollar gun to a $300/400 priced pistol. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Volkswagon.



welp ....take $800 divide by $400.....That should make it twice as good as the $400 gun and if it's not as good then it's not the better buy. I think simply in matters as such



Jam, I gotta agree with you. I'd buy a Ruger modify it and have a better gun. Wait I did just that look at the picture thread. Ok I can't help myself

ClemY  [Member]
I have a Ruger MK II 678 GC and a MK III 512 as well as a S&W 41. While they are all equally reliable, the Rugers will cycle with lighter ammo than the Smith. The Rugers have a rep for extreme durability. After modification, the Rugers have very good triggers, but the Smith has a crisper trigger and better ergonomics. Is the Smith twice as good as the Rugers? I doubt it. It is very good, but not twice as good.

Bottom line: you need to at least get to handle the guns you are considering, and shoot them is possible and make your own decision.
BB4XL  [Member]
I agree about the S&W 41 it was the second gun That I got I paid $422.22 at the Medina gun show back in 87. I should have bought 2! The Ruger and the Buckmark take a beating and keep going.Mags are cheap price for the Ruger I think the Buckmark mag run a liitle more. I have no experince with the Walter
LastRites  [Member]

Originally Posted By ClemY:
I have a Ruger MK II 678 GC and a MK III 512 as well as a S&W 41. While they are all equally reliable, the Rugers will cycle with lighter ammo than the Smith. The Rugers have a rep for extreme durability. After modification, the Rugers have very good triggers, but the Smith has a crisper trigger and better ergonomics. Is the Smith twice as good as the Rugers? I doubt it. It is very good, but not twice as good.

Bottom line: you need to at least get to handle the guns you are considering, and shoot them is possible and make your own decision.


Nice first post Clem, glad you took the time to chime in and welcome. I agree with you too by the way. I had a smith and while the trigger was absolutely superb, I couldn't stand the way it fit my hands. I sold it and bought a Benelli MP95, now that gun is twice as nice as my Ruger in many ways and it didn't cost as much as the Smith. But I love my Ruger too, it's like one of my kids. Ok for those that don't know what a Benelli looks like

CA_TX-Cop  [Team Member]
Ruger Mk 2, or I've been looking at the 22/45 for awhile now, haven't picked one up yet though.

If mags were cheaper I'd say go with the 1911 conversion, but they aren't
stevemc  [Team Member]
I voted for the Ruger MK series, since I have never had a problem with any of the ones that I have owned.

I've heard that the S&W 41 is THE .22lr to own if you can afford one.

Steve
ARMIKEFMJ  [Member]
I hate to say it..........but.....Ruger has the others beaten.
DakotaFAL  [Member]
I have shot a Ruger Mk II for years. It is a great pistol, especially for the money, but it has a few issues.

There are some great drop in triggers for it, but with lighter hammers or springs, it can get finicky with ammunition and have the occasisonal failure to fire with harder than average rimfire ammunition.

The magazines can also be finicky with ammunition. Copper coated bullets work fine but lubricated lead bullets build up gunk in the magazines that can lead to malfunctions. The magazines themselves are a bit delicate and tend to wear out and/or acquire bent feed lips pretty quickly.

The Ruger Mk II and MK III feel ok in their regular form but the grip angle is a bit off. The 45ish clones have closer to 1911 ergonomics but are too thin and generlly feel both cheap and top heavy.

Recently my Ruger Mk II let me down during a pin shoot and I started looking for a replacement. I ended up getting a Kimber .22 Target Conversion to put on top of my Kimber Gold Match II frame. The purchase price was about the same as a decent Ruger ($280) but I got the benefit of my already excellent Kimber trigger and the ergonomics are obviously nearly identical with the .22 slide being a bit lighter. The sights are also identical and switching from one to the other requires zero adjustment and shooting one is essentially like practicing with the other.

Accuracy wise, the Kimber target conversion is every bit the equal to my Ruger Mk II with 1.5" 10 shot groups off a sandbag at 30 yards (both would no doubt do better if a machine rest were used). Reliability wise, the Kimber has been flawless with no failures to feed or failures to eject. The only failure I have ever had was one failure to go fully into battery after an extended shooting session the day after I purchased it where the slide was not fully broken in, was a bit dry lubrication wise and was quite dirty.

The Kimber magazines are $33 each - but they are very durable with very stout feed lips and I supect one of them will last twice as long as a $15 to $18 Ruger magazines, so the cost is a wash.

So in short, if you already have a 1911, the Kimber .22 Target Conversion is a good option to consider, especially if you shoot bullseye or similar competition requiring both rimfire and centerfire stages where only having to be familiar with one pistol and trigger is an advantage.
Vanquish  [Team Member]
I voted for Buckmark. I have 2 of them and never had problems with either.

Rugers are great guns, but I can't comment on Ruger .22 pistols though...I've never shot one.
desertmoon  [Team Member]
The MKII is pretty much the reliability standard for the 22 pistol as the 10/22 is for the rifle. The are the AKs of the 22 LR world.....that being said I'll stick to the AR of the 22 world...well, the pistol world, at least....

I've owned at least five MKIIs since their inception.....and I liked them all....but my favorite is still the Colt Woodsman or Huntsman.

Sleek, light, accurate, comfortable and acceptably reliable.

Hoppy  [Team Member]
I've been shooting my MKI for over thirty years now. It works better now than when new and shoots a lot better than I can.
ClemY  [Member]

Originally Posted By LastRites:

Originally Posted By ClemY:
I have a Ruger MK II 678 GC and a MK III 512 as well as a S&W 41. While they are all equally reliable, the Rugers will cycle with lighter ammo than the Smith. The Rugers have a rep for extreme durability. After modification, the Rugers have very good triggers, but the Smith has a crisper trigger and better ergonomics. Is the Smith twice as good as the Rugers? I doubt it. It is very good, but not twice as good.

Bottom line: you need to at least get to handle the guns you are considering, and shoot them is possible and make your own decision.


Nice first post Clem, glad you took the time to chime in and welcome. I agree with you too by the way. I had a smith and while the trigger was absolutely superb, I couldn't stand the way it fit my hands. I sold it and bought a Benelli MP95, now that gun is twice as nice as my Ruger in many ways and it didn't cost as much as the Smith. But I love my Ruger too, it's like one of my kids. Ok for those that don't know what a Benelli looks like
i162.photobucket.com/albums/t274/Tomb007/P8140043.jpg


This demonstrates my contention that while examination of objective performance criteria is nice, the ultimate decision is based, as it should be, on personal preference.

LastRites  [Member]
It does come down to what one perfers, because they all can have an issue here or there, my god they are rimfire pistols. I haven't seen a rimfire that didn't fail to feed, eject or fire for some reason or another, it's just the nature of the beast. And if you say your's has been absolutely 100% I believe you. Oh I voted for the ruger, for one simple reason, it has the most out of the box performance parts available, that none of the others combined can touch.
tangeant  [Member]
accurate/reliable/dependable semi 22 pistol OOTB.

For the $ it's Ruger hands down. Good bbl, good adj sights, good mags, not uber ammo sensitive, built like a tank and will last forever.
Paid Advertisement