i am looking for a semi 22 target pistol. i have been looking at a sig trailside six inch with adjustable sights. is the browning or ruger any better?

I have a S&W 22A-1 with a 5.5" barrel and integrated weaver rail which is my first 22LR handgun.  The accuracy of the gun is better than I can do for now and is a good gun to practice with.  If you look around you can pick up a new one for @185 to 200.

I can't comment on the SIG trailside but I just bought a SIG Misquito and if the trail side is designed nad built to the same standard stay away from it. The Misquito failed to fire 10% of the time. the decocking lever is loose and ties up the action if it slips and the decocking lever tied up the action once. SIG should hang their heads in shame on this one. If I were looking for a good 22 auto I would look at Ruger or a used Colt Woodsman or High Standard, all three are accurate and reliable.

I have both a Ruger 22/45 and a Buckmark.  The Ruger is OK, but the Buckmark is an outstanding handgun.  It has literally never jammed, and is very accurate.  If you go with the Buckmark, stay away from the "Camper" which has plastic sights.

I have a ruger gov't but like the browning better.
I stick with the ruger because my work gun is a glock and has roughly the same grip angle.

I don't know anyone who complains about the Browning .22s

I have a Ruger mkII and Beretta Neos and I have to say the Neos is better in function and accuracy is about equal.
The Neos hasn't ever jammed on me and the action is very similar to the Buckmark. The Neos is also very easy to field strip.

I have a Buckmark, my stepson has a Ruger.  Theyre both fine guns and very accurate,  The Trailside is supposed to be a tack driver with the right ammo.  I put 10 rounds through a borrowed Trailside at a range.  It had a good trigger & ergonomics but 10 rounds isnt enough to really eval the gun.  Id say go with the one that fits your hand and your budget best.

I've got two Rugers (6 7/8" "Slabside", and a KMK512....5.5" bull barrel stainless) and a Buckmark Target 5.5.  The Rugers are very nice and solid, BUT the Buckmark just about outclasses it in every way.  

R

If you plan to actually Target shoot with it competitively, the best out of the box for the $ would be the Trailside Target Model.

The Ruger would be next but unless you buy the high end target version expect to put some more money into standard heavy barrel or Gov Model to get the most out of them ( grips & trigger) but it isn't much more $.

S&W 22A is a Pile-O-Crap and will not hold up to hard use . Same for the NEO.

Buckmark. Well made but not as durable as an all steel 22, I Rarely see anyone using them for serious Bullseye shooting.

If you wan't to spend more or have bigger 22 budget, Highstandard's and S&W 41's are excellent proven shooters

My current stable of target 22's

Browning Buckmark or a Ruger. In my opinion two of the best semi auto .22 pistols ever made.

ETA: The ONLY downside to the Browning, is there is no easy way to strip it. I will admit it is a pain in the ass to clean it.

Quoted: Browning Buckmark or a Ruger. In my opinion two of the best semi auto .22 pistols ever made. ETA: The ONLY downside to the Browning, is there is no easy way to strip it. I will admit it is a pain in the ass to clean it.

First, I concur.  The MKII and the BuckMark are both fine 22's.  what the MKII lacks in grace, it makes up for in reliability.  As a general, shooter, though the Buckmark is a very genteel, smooth handling gun.

Second: MANIACRAT: love your sigline.......though I haven't chewed in many years, there's nothin' like a good pouch of Levi Garret in your back pocket.

I own a Hammerli 208s, among others, every bullet is in the same hole, every time.  Pretty much every other gun is a pile of crap.


I have had a selection if High Standards, Rugers, S&W 41's and Walthers over the years.  Ruger loses a little on ergonomics but has the best accuracy for the buck.  Try and find a MKII if you can, they have less "child safety" crap than the new MKIII.  Buckmarks have aluminum frames and seem to break extractors and firing pins, they are not that common in the competitive world.  The Trailside is the most popular entry level gun these days, Ruger's normally need a little trigger work and a better grip.  Other than the S&W 41, every .22 made by S&W is crap.  If you had to spend money, I would look for something other than a Browning.

Quoted: Quoted: Browning Buckmark or a Ruger. In my opinion two of the best semi auto .22 pistols ever made. ETA: The ONLY downside to the Browning, is there is no easy way to strip it. I will admit it is a pain in the ass to clean it. First, I concur.  The MKII and the BuckMark are both fine 22's.  what the MKII lacks in grace, it makes up for in reliability.  As a general, shooter, though the Buckmark is a very genteel, smooth handling gun. Second: MANIACRAT: love your sigline.......though I haven't chewed in many years, there's nothin' like a good pouch of Levi Garret in your back pocket.

For a while I just chewed when I hunted. Did not wanna start a marsh fire ya know so I chewed. Last couple of months I quit smoking completely and started chewing. But, you're right Levi Garrett is great chew. Sorry about heisting the thread by the way.......I'll go back in my little hole now.

Quoted: ... S&W 22A is a Pile-O-Crap and will not hold up to hard use...

Quoted: ... Other than the S&W 41, every .22 made by S&W is crap...

I'm sure you two must have had bad experiences with them to be saying that, but I must respectfully disagree with you.  

I have a 22S that has been an excellent pistol - not on a par with a 41 (apples & oranges IMHO), but every bit as accurate & reliable as either of my Rugers, either of my Colts, my Buckmark, my P22, etc. (I love affordable .22 pistols, BTW ).



I didn't have a picture of it by itself & had to crop this from a group shot, thus the poor resolution - sorry!

Quoted: ...Other than the S&W 41, every .22 made by S&W is crap.

I would hardly consider the K-22 "crap".

Although I know what you mean, I'm no fan of the NEW S&W's


R

Quoted: I have both a Ruger 22/45 and a Buckmark.  The Ruger is OK, but the Buckmark is an outstanding handgun.  It has literally never jammed, and is very accurate.  If you go with the Buckmark, stay away from the "Camper" which has plastic sights.

I don't know about your camper, but mine came with the same steel sights as the 5.5 Target. They just don't have the hood, and they are most definately not plastic.  I love my camper, and much more reasonable in price.  Gave $219 for mine nib.

But it is a pain in the a** to clean.

I consider the Colt Woodsman Match Target the Cadillac of .22 pistols.  The stadard woodsman/huntsman is the king of plinkers.  Unfortunately, they aren't being made anymore but they can be found on the used market.

Rugers are built like tanks, easily affordable, and pretty accurate.  There are tons of aftermarket parts to fix the weak spot...  The trigger.  And enough custom parts are available to modify it to your hearts content.

Browning are well made, have better triggers than the rugers (in my experience) and have a moderate aftermarket support.  

The Sig Trailside is a very good target gun, and in the standard trim makes a great plinker, The triggers are good out of the box.  It was my understanding that they are rebadged hammerlis.  

The smith and wesson 41 is another fantastic .22, with an outstanding trigger and excellent reputation.  A little pricey but worth every penny.

I doubt you'd have regrets with any of these.  But they all have there strengths.  I wouldn't shoot really hot .22's (stingers, velocitors, yellowjackets, etc.) out of the Colt, S&W 41, or the Sig/Hammerli.  They are target guns.  I believe the ruger would be the best choice for the hot stuff.  However, if you are looking for a gun that will get ooohs and aaahs at the range, find a Colt Match Target or a S&W41.  If target competition is a possibility then look to one of the target guns.  

I must have gotten some thing different then.  Sight base and sights on mine are steel.

Has anyone had experience with Kimbers Rimfire? It comes at a very hefty pricetag of $669 but it appears to be a very solid semi .22

Quoted: Has anyone had experience with Kimbers Rimfire? It comes at a very hefty pricetag of $669 but it appears to be a very solid semi .22

Got to shoot one, and it was nice.  I can't give you any long term info, but I've heard good things.  As far as accuracy goes, it is my understanding that the Marvel Precision units that mate to your .45 frame are top of the heap.  

You can't go wrong with a Ruger MK I or MK II.  

I keep looking at the Rugers, but keep ending up with Browning Buckmarks.  Had my latest on threaded and the front sight moved back by KKF.  Now if only my damn suppressor would come in....

Oh, and you would be hard to beat one of the Benelli pistols.....


Woody

My favorite, super reliable, and it eats anything.  







Digital