Which .22 cal pistol/revolver for targets and small game?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Which .22 cal pistol/revolver for targets and small game?

Posted: 7/12/2003 3:37:09 PM EDT

I am thinking about adding a good .22 caliber handgun to my collection in the not so distant future and would just like some input as to what to consider and what isn't worth looking at. My intended uses would be an accurate target pistol or a small game buster. I'll probably add some sort of scope to it as well so feel free to recommend one of these too (something decent but not too expensive). Back to the gun itself, I would prefer something with a stainless finish and should it be a revolver, a 4" barrel would be nice. So far the Ruger Mk. II semi-auto and the Taurus (can't remember the model number) w/ 4" barrel are my two top contenders. Whatta you guys think?

-Charging Handle

Posted: 7/12/2003 3:51:20 PM EDT

[#1]

My personal preference in a small .22 LR caliber handgun is the Ruger New Single Six. The reason: It is accurate, has adjustable sights, is nice to handle, looks great, and can be converted to .22 magnum in a few minutes; it is inexpensive to purchase and operate. If you are planning on using the Ruger MKII to hunt, you need to check state laws in Kentucky as far as hunting with an automatic is concerned. In Pennsylvania it is illegal to use a semi-automatic/automatic gun to hunt with. The MKII (DA) is good for plinking, and target shooting, as is the Single Six ( a single action handgun.
RugerCal480 (Mike)

Posted: 7/12/2003 3:51:55 PM EDT

[#2]

The Ruger MKII in any form seems to be standard fare in any collection and with good reason.
Short of a S&W model 617, I suppose the Taurus would make a good "stand in" at less cost for the revolver choice.
To me, the auto has quicker follow up shots with less sight movement caused by the heavier DA pull of the revolver, holds more and is easier to load/reload.
Aftermarket parts abound for the little Ruger, the Taurus would pretty much left as is, out of your two choices.

Posted: 7/12/2003 3:58:21 PM EDT

[#3]

S&W 617, though I would suggest at least a 6" barrel for hunting. My 8-3/8" (pictured below) will shoot 1" groups at 50 yards, from a rest, with cheap bulk ammo. With Remington Standard Velocity Target (cheap target ammo; I paid $175 for a case of 5K last week) it will shoot 1 hole groups at 25 yards from a rest. And that's with a red dot sight; I plan to switch to a 2x or 4x pistol scope to see if I can get consistent 1" groups at 100 yards.

Posted: 7/12/2003 4:01:03 PM EDT

[#4]

I have a 4" blue S&W Mdl 17 with Herret stocks which is an excellent shooter.

Since all of my carry pistols/revolvers are DAO the smooth DA trigger pull of the Mdl 17 is good, inexpensive ammo reinforcement of sight alignment/trigger control basics.

Posted: 7/12/2003 8:14:53 PM EDT

[#5]

Thanks for the input guys. All things equal, I honestly prefer the Ruger. The only concern I have is the difficulty involved in field stripping those little suckers. A friend of mine who knew I enjoyed cleaning and stripping down guns brought me his 22/45 a couple of years ago. It came apart easy, cleaning and lubing was a snap, but man did I have fits trying to put that little devil back together! I cussed, screamed, kicked, whined and bitched for what must have been an hour. I still don't know what I did that finally worked but somehow I got it together again. I swore then and there that was the last Ruger .22 caliber semi-auto I would attempt to clean.

Posted: 7/12/2003 8:47:47 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Thanks for the input guys. All things equal, I honestly prefer the Ruger. The only concern I have is the difficulty involved in field stripping those little suckers. A friend of mine who knew I enjoyed cleaning and stripping down guns brought me his 22/45 a couple of years ago. It came apart easy, cleaning and lubing was a snap, but man did I have fits trying to put that little devil back together! I cussed, screamed, kicked, whined and bitched for what must have been an hour. I still don't know what I did that finally worked but somehow I got it together again. I swore then and there that was the last Ruger .22 caliber semi-auto I would attempt to clean.

Yeah...I gots myself one of them 22/45's. Major PAIN IN THE @$$ to put back together. That lil piece on the grip but besides that its a sweet gun and CHEAP to shoot. If I were to buy another 22 it would be the same thing even with the pain of puttin it back together.

Posted: 7/12/2003 9:30:32 PM EDT

[#7]

check out Browning's line of Buckmark .22lr pistols. Buckmark

Posted: 7/13/2003 9:57:57 AM EDT

[#8]

This is a tough question to answer as there are so many good choices choices.

-Ruger mkII's are great if you can put them together
-The buckmark has a better feel and trigger than the ruger, but isn't as rugged. I have one and love it
-Ruger single actions are neat for the 22 magnum swap ability
-Smith DA revolves are sweet, smooth and accurate

There are several other revolver and auto options out there too, but those are the ones that I have experience with. If you are looking to hunt, I highly recommend a low magnification scope.

Posted: 7/13/2003 10:42:48 AM EDT

[#9]

The Browning Buckmark will outshoot the Rugers & be worth more money on the used market.

Posted: 7/13/2003 4:18:38 PM EDT

[#10]

Can you get the Browning in a stainless version? I can't recall seeing one before but my interest in it would peak if if I could get it that way. While I have nothing against blue guns, whatever I decide to get is going to be exposed to a great deal of use and lots of wear and tear. It is my opinion that stainless guns look better after lots of use where the blue finish starts to wear off. That's why I want stainless.

Posted: 7/13/2003 8:26:47 PM EDT

[#11]

I really like the Ruger 22/45 with 5.5" bull brl. (even though I hated the Ruger MkII

Just about everyone I let shoot mine has ended up buying one.

Posted: 7/13/2003 9:57:58 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Can you get the Browning in a stainless version?

IIRC, the Buckmark is available in blued or nickel only. Check their web site to be sure though.

Posted: 7/14/2003 7:15:52 AM EDT

[#13]

Last I checked, blue or nickel...unless you like the anodized blue, red or green frames.

Posted: 7/14/2003 7:31:06 AM EDT

[#14]

I like the smith and wesson series of .22 automatics. The bull barreled versions are extremely accurate and much much much easier to clean than a ruger!
both are great guns though

THe buckmarks from browning can get great accuracy too.

Stay away from the walther p-22. it is only good for people who to later add a supressor.
they are not accurate! mine does about 7 inches at 25 yards... of course I am sure with a more professional shooter and from a rest it could do better.
-chuck

Posted: 7/14/2003 8:06:41 AM EDT

[#15]

Hey,

Interesting discussion. I have two 22 pistols and love em both.

One is a S&W Model 41. This is kind of expensive for plinking/varminting. More of a serious target pistol and a bit ammo sensitive.

The other is a Ruger MII slabside. I love it. Accurate, reliable, aftermarket goodies. A wonderful choice. I'm not gonna knock the other choices suggested here, but I do want to say something about the complaints assembling the MarkII. It is tricky, but EASY if you have the directions which any owner should follow this link and print out NOW.

I would have to say for price performance and options the Ruger Mark II line is the best choice.

Here is the link on maintanance of the things:

www.ontargetguns.com/striptip.html

For more data on options upgrades and stuff just go to the mainpage.

www.ontargetguns.com

edited cause I want to show off my Ruger.

Posted: 7/14/2003 9:37:59 AM EDT

[#16]

Jimmybcool.
Man I am drooling. That is a sweet MKII. What kind of rear sight is that? It looks something like an EOtech. Will it fit on the stock Ruger mount? Any info will be appreciated.

Thanks and take care.
A.Pearson

Posted: 7/14/2003 1:43:35 PM EDT

[#17]

Slick

I have the Optima 2000 on it. These are no longer marketed by Tasco. But the same thing can be bought under its new name/distributor. Check the link.

It is a cool optic. I thought it was perfect for my suppressed Mark II.

www.eabco.com/jpoint01.html

Posted: 7/14/2003 2:35:27 PM EDT

[#18]

The last time any one said anything about field stripping the Ruger .22 pistols, some A-hole went on and on about how stupid people were and that no-one with any brains would have trouble with it. I'll sit back and wait for JimDandy to reply.

Posted: 7/15/2003 2:59:45 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Slick

I have the Optima 2000 on it. These are no longer marketed by Tasco. But the same thing can be bought under its new name/distributor. Check the link.

It is a cool optic. I thought it was perfect for my suppressed Mark II.

www.eabco.com/jpoint01.html

Jimmy, that is really a cool looking sight. I have never seen anything like that for a pistol. I love the small size. The MKII alone is no lightweight and with a standard size scope I imagine it would be quite heavy. The only downside I see it is a little on the expensive side. The sight, mount and shipping will run $265.00. One question I have about the mount, does the supplied mount replace the Ruger mount or does it attatch to the stock Ruger mount? It's hard to tell from your pic. I see that they do have a 10 day examination period so I guess I will order one and check it out.
Thanks so much for the information and posting the link, you were really a big help.
Take care.

Posted: 7/15/2003 4:53:05 AM EDT

[#20]

Slick,

It actually replaces the Ruger rear sight. I is tapped into the dovetail on the reciever.

mnblaster,

I make no comment for those who struggle assembling a Mark II. Without the directions above, it would be damn near impossible. I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

But with these directions it shouldn't take more than 2-3 tries to get it. And really, you only disassemble a 22 for cleaning once in a blue moon. So IMO it is a non-issue. Just one of those urban legends that go around. And shouldn't as the Mark II is a fine plinker. This urban legend should NOT dissuade someone from owning a Mark II.

Posted: 7/15/2003 5:18:50 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
The Browning Buckmark will outshoot the Rugers & be worth more money on the used market.

I have no hard data to back me up but in my expirience with approximately equivalent guns in each manufacturers product line you will get about the same level of performance.

In my expirience my Ruger is going to far out last my Buckmark. I'm sure both will reach 100,000 rounds. My Ruger has required zero maintanance with about 50K down the tube while the Buckmark has required a little maintenance with about 25K now down the tube. YMMV

Kent

Posted: 7/15/2003 10:15:42 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

I have no hard data to back me up but in my expirience with approximately equivalent guns in each manufacturers product line you will get about the same level of performance.

In my expirience my Ruger is going to far out last my Buckmark. I'm sure both will reach 100,000 rounds. My Ruger has required zero maintanance with about 50K down the tube while the Buckmark has required a little maintenance with about 25K now down the tube. YMMV

Kent

What did you have done to the Buckmark?

My comparasion on accuracy is based on shooting at the range with the Ruger owners using my Buckmark. They outshot their own guns.

Posted: 7/16/2003 9:11:03 AM EDT

[#23]

Another vote for the Buckmark. I have the 5"bbl version, and you could shoot the tits off a fly at 30yds with this thing (a little Missouri bootheel saying there). Very easy to strip down, clean, and re-assemble. In fact, mine's so reliable that I usually only clean it after the third shooting outing. I will have to admit, though, it's a little finicky about Federal hollowpoints. The Winchester Super-X and Remington Yellowjackets work just fine, and I just haven't tried CCI or anything else. Mine was $230 brand new and I don't lose a wink of sleep over the price I paid.

Posted: 7/16/2003 9:43:28 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

What did you have done to the Buckmark?

My comparasion on accuracy is based on shooting at the range with the Ruger owners using my Buckmark. They outshot their own guns.

I have replaced the "C"-clip that retains the recoil spring. Reglued the safety and slide stop pads to their steel levers. The most frustrating thing is one that can't be fixed. The trunion on the slide stop is enlarging the hole in the aluminum frame in which it rotates. This causes the slide stop to be floppy.

I'll also be replacing the extractor and extractor plunger after I had a KB at the range on my lunch hour. (See my post "first pistol KB".)

Kent

Posted: 7/17/2003 10:43:55 AM EDT

[#25]

I looked at just about all of the pistols and revolvers before I settled on the Buckmark. It just fit my hand better and felt more natural pointing. Any of the guns in the prvious posts would be fine choices if they fit you well.

Posted: 7/17/2003 12:26:28 PM EDT

[#26]

The Browning Buckmark will outshoot the Rugers & be worth more money on the used market.

Totally untrue, Bobbo. Take a look at the IHMSA rimfire results for production classes. It's a near even split between the Ruger and the Browning.

The only concern I have is the difficulty involved in field stripping those little suckers.

As long as you understand the basic mechanics of the design, there's no problem or unforseen difficulties in disassembling and reassembling the MKII variations. Most people make the mistake of trying to force the mainspring assembly into place without first placing the hammer in an "at rest" position.

The last time any one said anything about field stripping the Ruger .22 pistols, some A-hole went on and on about how stupid people were and that no-one with any brains would have trouble with it.

And you thusly proved my point.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Which .22 cal pistol/revolver for targets and small game?

Handguns » Handgun Discussions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us