i will be getting a .22lr pistol soon. I have never been in the market for this type of thing before, and am wondering what to do. I am looking at the beretta .22lr neos with a 7.5 inch barrel. I know it looks spacey and anyone holding it will look like a spacecadet,, but i hear its very accurate and doesnt jam much. I am also wondering whether or not to put a red dot on it. I will be using it for plinking and hunting (small game obviously) and want a good setup for under or around 350-400 dollars. Please dont recommend a 1000 dollar pistol as i cant afford it and if i could i would buy my first AR. I am just wondering what if any red dot to put on it, what i will need to buy, and also is there a huge difference in accuracy between the barrel lengths?

i just bought my first .22lr pistol--ruger mkiii.  i haven't had time to wring it out yet.  i looked at the neos, s&w22, buckmark, and walther p22.  while the p22 won't work for your needs, all of the others would.  the buckmark needs tools to break down and the ruger needs a little help from a paper clip and a mallet sometimes.  i can't remember the exact reason why i didn't like the neos but i think it had something to do with cost.  the rugers are cheaper than the others though.  the s&w22 was not comfortable at all for me--felt like holding a brick.  but ruger doesn't make a mkiii with a 7.5" barrel--the longest is 6 7/8".

I'd prefer one of the BuckMark variations.  You can get them with a 7.5 inch barrel if you want and the target models are set up to take a red dot.  My BuckMark (standad model) is the most reliable .22 I've ever shot--by FAR.  It is also more accurate than I am.

ETA: I don't like dot scopes on pistols, but that's more of a personal preference thing.

I have shot the S&W model 38? 22 and the Colt Woodsman, and both of them I really liked.  I think the accuracy edge might go to S&W for a better trigger maybe.  Both were very reliable.  Offhand at 25yds I was shooting groups around 1.5inches at 25yds with the S&W.  The woodsman was only slightly worse.

I have a Ruger MKII on order and want to convert the magazine to MKIII specs [fingers crossed and hoping the mill will work magic there] and do all kinds of rediculous bull shit to it like the Majestic speed strip kit, volquartsen trigger, an extended safety and Crimson trace laser grips.  

Thats the reason to buy a MKII (customization) IMO.   Want something for a Colt Woodsman? Better make it yourself.  

I think the other guns that are interesting are the Mitchell High standards (for price and value) They always looked nice but they are harder to find now.  

The Beretta NEOS looks cool I'll give you that.  

The Ruger MKIII or 22 45 look like good guns but I don't like the idea of the loaded chamber indicator.  If I got one I would be drilling the roll pin out and welding that slot closed and turning it flush.  

Quoted: The Ruger MKIII or 22 45 look like good guns but I don't like the idea of the loaded chamber indicator.  If I got one I would be drilling the roll pin out and welding that slot closed and turning it flush.

first of all i don't understand why people don't like a loaded chamber indicator.  i am not saying they are great but just that they ahve been around for a century.  the p-08 luger had one.  the cz75 has one.  the sig p232 i used to have had one.  

secondly i think it is important to note the difference between the mkii, mkiii, and the 22/45 version of each.  the only real difference between the 22/45 and its associated mk breathren is that the grip angle is more similar to that of a 1911 and that the grip panels are not removable/changable.  it is really better to call it a mkii 22/45 or a mkiii 22/45.  

A short barrel is as inherently accurate as a longer one (if not a smidgen more so, at least in theory).

However, if you’re using iron sights, a longer barrel increases your sight radius (distance between the front and rear sight).  Plus a longer barrel (esp. a heavier one) will probably help you hold the pistol steadier.

Ultimately then, a longer barrel will most likely be easier to shoot accurately than a shorter barrel.  It’ll also give you a little more velocity.

If you’re looking to hunt with this thing, I’d suggest a longer bull barrel.

Don’t know anything about the Neos.  I personally much prefer a 1911 shaped grip, as opposed to a sharply angled one such as the Neos has.

Either the Ruger or the Buckmark are fine pistols for the price.

I prefer the Buckmark primarily because it sets better in my hand.  Also, my personal view is that the stock trigger in the Buckmark is a bit better than the Ruger’s.  Granted, I dislike the fact that the Buckmark needs an allen wrench to be disassembled.

If you’re considering a red dot, obviously you’ll want a model that makes installation easy.  However, a decent red dot is probably going to push you over budget.

Tack - driving is a nice term. Accuracy and shootability sometimes do not go so much hand in hand.  Most quality .22 pistols are capable of an accuracy few shooters will be able to achieve off hand.
What you need to look for, is that the barrel is fixed to the frame and that it is a good quality gun. Rugers, Brownings, Neons, even S&W M22A,  they all will give you enough accuracy.

My personal favorite is an old S&W K-22, unlike a Haemmerli or Walther GSp it still resembles a gun and shoots well even with cheap bulk ammo. I am a revolver shooter and learned shooting on an old Colt .22 Officer's Match, hence my love for the wheel gun.

Just bought a NEOS 4.5" and am very happy with it.  Used a BSA $30 Red-Dot and Mini Mags my first time out and was very pleased.  I didn't even clean it before use and went through hundred of rounds.  My main concern was reliability, which I had with the Mini Mags. Zero problems.  I still need to see how cheaper ammo does, though.  I'm going to try that new Federal Auto Match from China Mart.  Its VERY easy to take down.  Its inexpensive.  Has great fit and finish.  I enjoyed it so much I rewarded it with an Eotech 512.A65 and 2 more magazines.  It doesn't look as "spacey" in person.  Its also as accurate as you can be.  I havent tried the others (Ruger 22/45, Browning, etc.) so I can't compare, but you wont be dissapointed with the Beretta.  This is my first Beretta, and now it won't be my last.  CX4, PX4????

does the red dot hold its zero?

i just ran 300 rounds through my ruger mkiii.  some of the brands were better than others but that is to be expected.  it was as accurate as i could shoot it.  but for $260 out the door i am happy with it.  i haven't tried the federal brick at wally world yet.  that is for this week.

The Ruger MkII and MKIII have more stuff available for them and more good gunsmiths working on them than any other budget .22. The MkII has been accurized for bullseye shooting and there are tons of spare parts for Rugers out there.

Quoted: I'd prefer one of the BuckMark variations.  You can get them with a 7.5 inch barrel if you want and the target models are set up to take a red dot.  My BuckMark (standad model) is the most reliable .22 I've ever shot--by FAR.

+1


The only .22 I've seen out-shoot my (or any) Buckmark is a S&W Model 41, a $700-800 .22 gun.

"first of all i don't understand why people don't like a loaded chamber indicator. i am not saying they are great but just that they ahve been around for a century. the p-08 luger had one. the cz75 has one. the sig p232 i used to have had one. "

The .22lr has enough trouble not feeding and functioning properly without an extra part in the system.  Also a bump to the Ruger loaded chamber indicator can make the round fire in extremely unusual cases as the Ruger loaded chamber indicator indexes on the cartrige rim of a rim-fired cartrige.  Another point is they ruined the clean lines of the reciever with that giant slot and indicator.  

I think that's plenty of reason to shy away from the part on a .22lr.  

You do get a 1911 style mag release on the MKIII.  I am going to try to integrate a MKIII release into my MKII when it [and the parts from Ruger] come in.  <That will take a mill and crossed fingers.  I don't even have a MKIII to look at so I'll have to imagine the correct orientation of the parts.