.22 Automatic Recommendations?

L

LBussy

New member
I don't own a .22 auto ... shocker I know!

I've been looking at what I consider the "standards":
  • Ruger Mark IV
  • Smith and Wesson SW22
  • Browning Buck Mark
Comparing these they all seem very similar in fit, finish, capability, form factor, usability, etc. Can anyone help me narrow this down? I've fired them all recently and honestly, not one stands out over the other for me. Maybe I need to listen to some owners of these to help narrow it down. Or maybe there's another one I've failed to consider.
 
I'm sure they are the most popular pics , but being I have and Love the 1911. I choose the Sig 1911 .22lr, feels like my 1911's and a little cheaper to shoot..
 
Last edited:
Ruger

Nix the Mk. 4 and find a nice used Mk. 2 or 3.

The difficult takedown and assembly is overblown completely. The internet amplifier at work. Read and exactly follow the directions supplied by Ruger. It's actually a very cool design, and works very very well. It's also really quick and easy once you master it.

And it's a .22 my .22s get a once a year cleaning, whether they need it or not. Actually since I have a lot of .22's only the ones that have been fired that year get the "deep" clean.

Tough to beat a good Mk. 2 or 3. I'm rather fond of my HS Supermatic too, it's more accurate than the Mk. 3 Hunter I have. A real tackdriver.
 
glockman55 said:
I'm sure they are the most popular pics , but being I have and Love the 1911. I chose the Sig 1911 .22lr, feels like my 1911's and a little cheaper to shoot..
Click to expand...
I love a 1911 as well, I have quite a number of them. I was really looking for one of the more "classic" form factors of the .22.

Ricklin said:
Nix the Mk. 4 and find a nice used Mk. 2 or 3.

The difficult takedown and assembly is overblown completely. The internet amplifier at work. Read and exactly follow the directions supplied by Ruger. It's actually a very cool design, and works very very well. It's also really quick and easy once you master it.

And it's a .22 my .22s get a once a year cleaning, whether they need it or not. Actually since I have a lot of .22's only the ones that have been fired that year get the "deep" clean.
Click to expand...
I don't think the takedown/assembly issues are overblown actually. I've had hands-on the MK III and done the disassembly/assembly and I don't want to own that. IS there a reason, other than price, you suggest to avoid the Mk IV?

I clean my weapons after every range trip, fully understanding that there are a lot of people who do not, Maybe it's just the Army doctrine beat into me at a young age but it's something I do.
 
All of those are entry level target pistols. A great deal depends on what you want the thing for though. As entry level play thing pistols any of 'em will do, but if serious target shooting is your plan go with a Smith M41. Mind you, there's no pistol that's as finicky about ammo as a 41. And no 2 of 'em will shoot and cycle with the same ammo.
"...difficult takedown and assembly is overblown completely..." Nope. Ruger are a nightmare. Primarily due to the barrels being press fit on, but more that Ruger doesn't want you doing it for liability reasons. The triggers are poor as well. Fixing that is problematic.
"...after every range trip..." Isn't necessary or desirable with a .22. Isn't done by the military either.
 
I'd recommend the Buckmark...I like the grip angle better than the others/its
solid gun...and I do think breaking it down is easier than the other options you listed.
 
Yeh, there is nothing overblown about what a pain in the rear the dissassembly/assembly of the Mark II’s and III’s is in my experience.
The Mark IV is an absolute gem with regards to that.
 
I own the browning buckmark. When I was buying it I was comparing it to the ruger side by side. My decision was purely based on how it felt in my hands. I liked the buckmark better. I have shot both and to me they are both equal in reliability and accuracy. I have no experience with the smith and Wesson but from I have read they are just as accurate or more than the other two. Field stripping is pretty easy as well.
 
T. O'Heir said:
All of those are entry level target pistols. A great deal depends on what you want the thing for though. As entry level play thing pistols any of 'em will do, but if serious target shooting is your plan go with a Smith M41. Mind you, there's no pistol that's as finicky about ammo as a 41. And no 2 of 'em will shoot and cycle with the same ammo.
Click to expand...
It strikes me that sharing the intended use would be appropriate here. I just want it for casual plinking. A non-finicky eater and reasonable accuracy is what I'd like. That's why I was looking at these entry level pistols. I'm not really in the market for a $1,200 pistol for plinking (although it's capabilities are impressive).
T. O'Heir said:
"...after every range trip..." Isn't necessary or desirable with a .22. Isn't done by the military either.
Click to expand...
It was certainly done by the military I was in. No weapon ever went back in the arms room without a white glove (and q-tip) inspection. Now if it's detrimental in some way to clean a pistol that often, I'd like to hear that argument.

The pistol that has really impressed me so far is the S&W. When I took my CC class that's what they had at the range. I asked the man how often he cleaned them and he said "so far, never." These were in constant use for almost a year. That's not to say the others are not as capable of such extreme (ab)use, just that this was the only such experience I've had so far. I'm leaning S&W because of that and simply because I have high regards for the brand. I wanted to get some more input however because they are all at the same price point more or less so should have similarities.

I did own the Buck Mark far in my past and it was a great shooter. I sold it when circumstances conspired against me however. Thus, my rule never to sell another gun.
 
Before the Mk-IV and S&W Victory,,,

Before the Ruger Mk-IV and S&W Victory
The five guns to choose from were:
  • Ruger Mk-III
  • Ruger 22/45 Mk-III
  • S&W 22-A
  • Browning Buckmark (lots of models)
  • Beretta U-22 NEOS

Some people say one is "better" than the others,,,
But a reasonable person will surmise that's personal preference talking.

It would take bench trials to determine if there is any difference in inherent accuracy,,,
I own all five of the above guns and while I do have my favorite,,,
They all seem to put the bullet where it's pointed at..

Find the gun that fits your hand,,,
Pick it up and aim it.

If it makes you smile when holding it in your hand,,,
That's the one you should consider buying.

That's assuming you want a single-action target style pistol though,,,
If you want something more in line with a duty pistol,,,
Then the options to choose from are different.

The difficulty in disassembling/assembling the Rugers is there,,,
But it can be overcome by diligently following the manual.

It's a complicated process for certain,,,
But if you just follow the written instructions,,,
You will be able to do it and it gets easier with repetition.

These five (or update the Rugers and S&W) are all very nice guns,,,
Buy the one that makes you smile and enjoy it.

Aarond

P.S. Of my five, I tend to like shooting the Beretta the most.

.
 
I've owned both Ruger MKIIs and Browning Buck Marks. No experience with the S&W or more recent Rugers. I consider both the Ruger MKII and Buck Mark to be very good guns and would recommend either (both).

A couple of things that might matter to some... The earlier Rugers (especially the MK III) can be difficult to reassemble. However, I believe it can be mastered fairly easily. Takedown of the Buck Mark requires the removal of screws, and a few parts are held in place by the grip panels. That may be the reason Browning no longer provides any disassembly instructions in the Buck Mark Owners Manual. The frame of the Buck Mark is aluminum alloy. The Ruger frames on previous models were either stamped steel or composite (22/45). Some of the MK IVs now feature aluminum alloy frames as well. I believe it's OK to dry fire the Ruger, but doing so with the Buck Mark will hammer away at the barrel chamber.

Both seem to be durable and relatively trouble free. Accuracy is comparable and I would hesitate to say one is routinely more accurate than the other. I do find the Buck Mark trigger a little cleaner and crisper than the Ruger.

Fit and finish seems to always be very good on Browning products. I've always felt that many other manufacturers, including Ruger, were below Browning in fit and finish.

Twenty years ago I would have recommended the Ruger over the Browning. But Ruger's parts availability isn't what it use to be. So I no longer recommend one over the other.

I've never shot a high number of rounds through my semi-auto 22 pistols like many competitors would do. Such competitors would have more experience to judge the long term durability of the pistols when subjected to firing of a high number of rounds.
 
So ... you've ADDED a weapon to the list rather than narrowing it. Thanks Aarond! :p

That Beretta does look nice, although the "reversed" safety might mess me up. How is it in practice? I'd be worried my 1911 muscle memory would take over.
 
My friend has the S&W Victory and I've gotten to shoot it a good bit. I like it alot. I haven't shot the others to compare. But the victory feels substantial in hand and is quite accurate. The one thing I didn't like was there was no red mark to show ready to fire when the safety is disengaged. Includes 2 mags, adjustable sights, a separate rail with a sight notch, and Allen wrench for disassembly.

I've been considering the M&P 22 compact myself, but the victory is more of a target pistol.
 
As other have already mentioned, the following are all excellent choices:

Ruger Mark Whatever
Buckmark
S&W Victory

If you want to go cheaper but still have a quality gun:
S&W 22A.

If you want to go top drawer target S&W Model 41.

If you want a little, handy knockin' around gun Ruger SR22.

BUT!!!

Since you say you like 1911 pistols please consider the following:
http://www.browning.com/products/firearms/pistols/1911-22.html

The 85% size 1911 from Browning. I got a chance to fire it once and was totally gob smacked at how well it handled and how accurate I was with it. YMMV.

(And let's be realistic here, just because you choose one NOW, doesn't mean another won't follow you home in the future.)
 
I might see if they have one of the 1911-22's at the range and try it out. Pretty sure I want a .22 in a "target" format, but another 1911 is not a bad thing.
 
My wife has the SW Victory that she picked over the Ruger because the was more comfortable for her. I don’t have anything to complain about for it. It works well and it’s accurate if you do your part. The take down method may not be preferred by everyone, but I have no qualms about that either. I actually prefer it compared to most of the other pistols I’ve taken down.

Something to consider is if you are wanting to customize it at all. The Ruger wins that game for quantity of options. The Victory has some good choices out there, easier in some ways but more limited options. Not sure on the Browning or Beretta.

That all said, I wouldn’t run out and buy for myself. Nor would I buy the Ruger, Browning or Beretta. All of them are solid performers and great choices, but I prefer my SW 422. The 422 just fits like a glove and so far has been happy with all of the same ammo the Victory likes (neither of them like Rem Golden Bullets). I wouldn’t say it’s “better” than the newer options, but the other don’t fit quite as well.

As long as you are looking at the quality brand options, it’s hard to go wrong with any of the options.
 
Standards? Well, here's mine:

-S&W Victory. Quality in every sense and just better than the Ruger Mk IV.

-Ruger Mark II and III's.

-Ruger SR22. For a more modern .22 auto pistol, I don't think anyone beats the SR22.

-Ruger Charger. Yeah, it's big for a .22 pistol, but put a Sig brace on it and you have yourself an amazingly small rifle without having to pay $200 to Uncle Sam.
 
I appreciate everyone's thoughts so far. I believe, based on my research and what I have learned here, that I am leaning towards either the Ruger MK IV (I just hate how the earlier models take down) or the Smith and Wesson Victory. I will be purchasing new because ... well, because I like new. :)

For takedown ease the MK IV seems hard to beat, where the Victory does allow a user to more fully disassemble the weapon. Both are available in SS frames (might be something I'd like to have). The Victory needs tools (an included Allen wrench) for basic takedown. Decisions, decisions.

"They" say Smith and Wesson are jewels and Rugers are tools. That's probably no longer as true now as it was in the past.
 
I had the Victory. It was highly accurate, but I found the green fiber optic sights to be extremely distracting. I'm sure with a red dot optic it would be pretty killer. I put electrical tape over the rear dots and did better with it.

Mine had a problem in which it would sometimes not return fully to battery. Tapping the back of the bolt (is that what you'd call it? It's not really a "slide...") fixed the issue, but it was annoying. Cleaning, lubing, etc. didn't fix it. It may have been an ammo issue, but I tried several brands.

I ended up selling it because I didn't shoot with it that often. It was too different from my semi-autos to be of use as a training surrogate. These target pistols really are their own class of gun.

Later I got a Walther PPQ M2 .22LR just to plink with. I love that gun! I'm not as surgically accurate with it as I was the Victory, and it's not a dedicated customizable target pistol like those are, but it has an adjustable rear sight and it's plenty accurate out to the 60 feet at the back of my local range :)

If you want something with a reciprocating slide that functions like a normal semi-auto, I'd highly suggest the Walther.

OTHERWISE...

Of the three you've mentioned, I "liked" the Ruger MK IV the best, and probably would have bought it, except that I already had the Victory! I can't really say why...it fit me best, somehow. You probably won't go wrong with any of them.
 
Since Ruger realized there are southpaws out there who appreciate an ambi safety, the Mark IV won me over. No regrets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top