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

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.

Walther P22 ...I have about (near as I can tell) 5K through mine with narry a hitch.

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...

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.

Buckmark.

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.

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.

Ruger imo

Originally Posted By ALPHAGHOST: Ruger imo

+1

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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  

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

I hate to say it..........but.....Ruger has the others beaten.

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.    

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My Beretta Neos has been 100% reliable and very accurate.

Boy you missed my favorite on that list. Glock conversion kit. I put 500 rounds through it at the range last weekend and it jammed only once.

My MKII target stainless,bull barrel has been flawless.

Mk3 Hunter is tops. My Neos has been excellent, no jams in about 1000 rounds, accurate and cheap.

Since you listed accuracy first, I voted for the Buckmark.  Mine outshoots my Rugers by a slim margin and has been every bit as reliable and durable.

Originally Posted By uncle_ho: Mk3 Hunter is tops. My Neos has been excellent, no jams in about 1000 rounds, accurate and cheap.

your first post on the forum....on my thread...I'm honored

Originally Posted By Jamul123: Originally Posted By uncle_ho: Mk3 Hunter is tops. My Neos has been excellent, no jams in about 1000 rounds, accurate and cheap. your first post on the forum....on my thread...I'm honored

Thanks man. I was wondering about the Walther. I have never shot one, but when I was buying a .22 I picked one up in the store and it seemed a little small. I know alot of people like them, so I was wondering if it just takes a while to get used to its size.

i have a friend with one of the early walther p22s that he bought used at a gunshow.  it had the same jamming and feeding problems complained of in that series--which cleared up with a new spring and mag from walther, as per forum suggestions.  like the mini glocks, if you have a walther mag with a finger extension, the pistol fits well in the hand and was more accurate than i expected.

walther several years ago fixed most of the reliability problems--look for one with an "L" in the serial number or higher letter.  

if you choose the walther, i would get the 2 barrel kit so that you can have a pocket pistol with the short barrel and a bit more of a target pistol with the longer, heavier barrel.  

tired of high ammo cost and after shooting the p22 (and rugers in the past), i caught the rimfire bug and last month bought a browning buckmark camper for accuracy, fit, ease of cleaning, reliabilty, value ($265 nib).  earlier this week, i also bought a ciener kit for my dusty ar15.  it's fun to pop several hundred rounds at metal gophers and spinners for the same cost as a single box of 45s (though i do need the boom boom once in a while).

Glock + AA Slide.

I'll vote MKII for the overall win, but the 41 will probably end up more accurate.

My Buckmark has been flawless.

I picked up a Mark III today used, 8in bull will post a small review in a week or two.


I have been shooting my 50th aniversary Mark II for years now, it works pretty well but will FTE about once every 500-600 rounds. I can live with that. Accuracy is good, 6in plate 10 out of 10 hits most every time, 3in, about 5 out of 10. This is off hand at 25 yards and I am not the greatest shot.

I like Rugers !

This sight is great.  I hardly ever have to ask questions because they are already asked for me by someone else.  I am currently undecided between a buckmark and a ruger 22/45.  Lots of good info, thanks everyone.

I vote for the MKIII 22/45 "Hunter"- longest(?) barrel then other off the shelf .22s.

I used it at the CO Pueblo shoot (my first!)and it was more accurate then my Glock 17L -FYI  I don't have the AA .22 conversion.. But thinking about it. I keep investing in more MKIII mags so I might not add the conversion. Then I'd have to buy more Glock AA Mags and they are expensive.

Remember the "45" means it has the same grip as a 1911- cool...

cons...
1. Hard to put together after field stripping- Not simple, specific insert/remove magazines steps- Get a lesson -learn the "trick" . The manual is incomplete/wrong - its missing an insert/remove mag step at the end! I  messed up and had to pay an armorer to fix. The guys at the gun shop/range couldn't fix it.he
3. The cheap lead only .22 rounds (no brass/copper jackets) jam. Need to spend a few more pennies and get the jacketed rounds... herI do believe if you have a Pistol that has an EASY to switch at the range .22 conversion, it might be better to get the kit.

But
Usually a good .22 Pistol is CHEAPER then a conversion kit.
AND You have 2 pistols for yourself or to share...

No love for the old High Standards?

Ha, I shot my mark II government today on paper target and 5" steel plates at 15, 25, and 50 yards.  Gotta love steel targets.  Was dropping the 4 plates at 50 yards with 4-5 shots once if got it figured out.

ETA +1 for the high standards, I always wanted one in the military grip configuration.  I was really tempted with the mitchell high standards but heard of too many changes with their firing pin design.  Once in a blue moon I'll see a nice one.

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr: I like Rugers ! img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/wetidlerjr/Colt%201911/RUGER22PISTOLS004Small.jpg

+1 and I own most of what is on your list.  I still need a S&W 41 though.

I own both a Ruger Mk II and a Walther P22. The first 500 rounds in the Ruger the gun jammed all the time. After that, it fires great providing your magazines are good. I haven't had any problems what so ever with the Walther P22.

No love for the old High Standards?

I was thinking the same thing.  I have the HD Military (as well as a S&W 22A, Buckmark, and a Heritage Single Six replica).  The HD is superior to the other semi's.  And it's much, much older.

I have a S&W m-41, a Ruger Mk II government model and a High Standard all with Aimpoints. The High Standard is the most accurate as well as the most comfortable in my hand. The S&W is next with the 5 1/2 barrell and then the Ruger. That being said the Ruger is not finicky about what you feed it and although much harder to field strip than either of the others. It will shoot forever with minimal maintainance.

Beretta Neos Rocks!!!

Originally Posted By PBIR: No love for the old High Standards?

Excellent guns but can be extremely magazine finicky.

BUckmark! Well, it's the closest we can get to owning a UK legal semi auto pistol.

I have a Ruger MKII 22/45 that has never malfunctioned, ever. I put around 20,000rds thru it with the stock upper with variety of .22lr ammo.

This past year I put a Tac-Sol upper on it to run with a Tactical-Innovations Stratus suppressor, again zero malfuctions with about 2000rds thru it.