Best shooting .22 pistol
- Thread starter postmaster
- Start date
American Eagle
New member
Most of the other options people are suggesting will cost you $850-1,100 USD. A Ruger MKIII will cost you a fraction of that and still leave you plenty of money.....and will give you just as good, if not better performance than any of the other options suggested.
I don't know about you, but in such a bad economy, why spend tons of money when you can get quality and reliability for a lot less.
I don't know about you, but in such a bad economy, why spend tons of money when you can get quality and reliability for a lot less.
You have excellent choices in a .22 for $800. The S&W mod 41 or an original Hi-Std Victor, Supermatic (even a Trophy), or mod 107 can be had for less. There is a Walther KSP200 and the Baikal IZH-35M if you look for them.
If you don't want a target gun try a Walther PP, PPK, or TPH in .22.
Except for the KSP and IZM, I own all that I have mentioned and they are all great guns and fun to shoot.
If you don't want a target gun try a Walther PP, PPK, or TPH in .22.
Except for the KSP and IZM, I own all that I have mentioned and they are all great guns and fun to shoot.
I had a SIG P220 with .22LR conversion kit.
On the plus side, the conversion kit was ridiculously accurate.
On the minus side, it had a lot of failures to fire in SA mode, and often required a second strike in DA mode. I'm not sure if there was an issue with firing pin throw, or what else might have caused the problem. But, based on my experience, and based on the price of the conversion kit, I can't personally recommend it. ($370 or so, IIRC, which could almost have bought a good .22 pistol...)
On the plus side, the conversion kit was ridiculously accurate.
On the minus side, it had a lot of failures to fire in SA mode, and often required a second strike in DA mode. I'm not sure if there was an issue with firing pin throw, or what else might have caused the problem. But, based on my experience, and based on the price of the conversion kit, I can't personally recommend it. ($370 or so, IIRC, which could almost have bought a good .22 pistol...)
best
Anything else is junk? Joking? Otherwise.....
That is somewhat of an overstatement. I own a Ruger Mk.II and have for many years - it is arguably the best value dollar for dollar as a target pistol. But....
The grip angle is less than optimal and they all need trigger jobs to even come close to the high end target guns.
It is hard for me to consider the Hammerli 208s or the FWB AW93 or the Smith 41, the many fine versions of the old High Standards still available, or Walther's GSP and SSP as Junk. Any of those guns will take you to the Olympics. The Rugers, nice pistols that they are, have yet to make that trip.
Perhaps you have used all these guns and still find the Ruger preferable. That would make you a very dedicated Ruger fan indeed.
Pete
Anything else is junk? Joking? Otherwise.....
That is somewhat of an overstatement. I own a Ruger Mk.II and have for many years - it is arguably the best value dollar for dollar as a target pistol. But....
The grip angle is less than optimal and they all need trigger jobs to even come close to the high end target guns.
It is hard for me to consider the Hammerli 208s or the FWB AW93 or the Smith 41, the many fine versions of the old High Standards still available, or Walther's GSP and SSP as Junk. Any of those guns will take you to the Olympics. The Rugers, nice pistols that they are, have yet to make that trip.
Perhaps you have used all these guns and still find the Ruger preferable. That would make you a very dedicated Ruger fan indeed.
Pete
Peter M. Eick
New member
For that price range I would move into a S&W 41 target pistol, but then again, I did. I have two of them.
I have the same question others have asked: what do you mean by getting the "best shooting" .22 pistol for "target shooting?" Because, again, as others have noted, if you mean to be a serious contender at Bullseye matches, the herd of realistic candidates will be thinned out pretty quickly, leaving only ones like the Smith Model 41, the Ruger, the Walther and Hammerli target specific models, some older High Standards and a few others to choose from. And, though there may have been a couple or so on the line, in the years I've attended Camp Perry pistol shoots, I've never seen a .22 "conversion" kit (the type that ride atop CZs, SIGs, 1911s, etc.) used by a serious contender.
On the other hand, if "target" shooting to you means nothing much more than shooting at targets, then almost any quality .22 handgun will work just fine. My only advice for deciding on which pistol to buy for even "casual" target shooting is to get one having adjustable sights.
On the other hand, if "target" shooting to you means nothing much more than shooting at targets, then almost any quality .22 handgun will work just fine. My only advice for deciding on which pistol to buy for even "casual" target shooting is to get one having adjustable sights.
SteelChickenShooter
New member
For all you guys that post about S&W and Rugers, if you can, take a look at the Gun-Tests.com magazine website. If not a subscriber, the info you can access is limited. But in the current August, 2011 edition, they did a pretty nice comparison of some of the popular guns you guys mentioned here. I always wanted a S&W model 41 until I saw this test against the present Ruger Competition model Mark III. This article would at least sway me towards taking a look at this present Ruger.
shawn .223
Inactive
Cant beat the Ruger MKII or MKIII
Stanless with a bull barrel is my medicine. Reliable, acurate, and tough as nails. I also have a Ruger sigle six in stainless, although I have it mostly for fun, it is also tough as nails! and both are very afortable.
Stanless with a bull barrel is my medicine. Reliable, acurate, and tough as nails. I also have a Ruger sigle six in stainless, although I have it mostly for fun, it is also tough as nails! and both are very afortable.
Concerning the accuracy of Gun Tests magazine, it's interesting to note that in the above cited article/test they repeatedly described the Model 617 as being an "L-framed" Smith. Last I checked, the Model 617 is a K-frame revolver. Gun Test magazine, like everybody else on the planet, have been wrong before and, doubtless, they'll be wrong again.
Their comparison between the Ruger MKIII and the Smith Model 41 (I have-and like-both brands and models) left the bottom line open to a lot of interpretation due to the inherent subjectivity involved when these kinds of comparisons are made. When it came to an objective measurement (accuracy), the two pistols were rated equal.
Don't get me wrong. Though their criteria for test conclusions rankles me sometimes (for instance, I've never understood how the price of a gun should enter in to the compilations of a final test score when determining the worth of a gun. A "Best Buy" if the gun is cheaper than its competitor and still compares well, yes. That's how the testers do it at the magazine Gun Tests tries to emulate-Consumers Report), I still find plenty of good information (I am a long time subscriber) that is lacking in other gun rags-mainly, I think, due to their admirable "no advertising" stance. The downside to no advertising is that the subscription to the magazine is on the very pricey side.
zombieslayer
New member
Hard to beat a S&W 41.
But my favorite is the MkII govt target.
But my favorite is the MkII govt target.
SteelChickenShooter
New member
Funny thing about some 22 pistols and target shooting or plinking. And I've touched on this before in a different thread. You buy some of these guns with factory rails and top them off with some good optics and you might be hard pressed to see much difference in accuracy. By all means if you test 20 different ammo brand samples, you will find a few standouts that might not have been used in articles found in magazine test reports. Now you remove those optics in favor of the factory sights, and some differences become apparent. I've said this before: my BuckMark and 22A run neck to neck using optics. Remove those and the Browning pulls away. It would be interesting to get the Competition Ruger Mark III. I never had any use for a Ruger Mark II or Mark III in the past because I smoked anybody at the range that ever had one going up against me. If this present model is better.....well.....maybe I might take a look at one. I don't have a beef with the Gun Test magazine I've cited. To the contrary of some members, I seem to be in much agreement regarding a good number of firearm experiences
equal
Equal. What did they mean by that? Accuracy? OK. Shootability?
If you give both guns to a shooter, will that shooter do as well with one as the other? My Ruger is wonderfully accurate. It is definitely harder to shoot than my High Standard which is also wonderfully accurate.
Pete
Now you have me curious.
Equal. What did they mean by that? Accuracy? OK. Shootability?
If you give both guns to a shooter, will that shooter do as well with one as the other? My Ruger is wonderfully accurate. It is definitely harder to shoot than my High Standard which is also wonderfully accurate.
Pete
Well, accuracy is pretty easy to quantify in an objective sense. Remove as much human interaction with the shooting of a gun as possible if you're trying to determine the intrinsic accuracy of any given firearm. The Ransom Rest or its ilk come to mind.
"Shootability" (as I understand the meaning of the word) is another matter altogether and is subjective in nature. The inherent accuracy of any given firearm is potentially compromised and held somewhat hostage to the ability and/or whims of the individual shooter. These factors are much more difficult to quantify and will always be subject to personal interpretation as to what matters most to any one person in terms of "shootability".
"Shootability" (as I understand the meaning of the word) is another matter altogether and is subjective in nature. The inherent accuracy of any given firearm is potentially compromised and held somewhat hostage to the ability and/or whims of the individual shooter. These factors are much more difficult to quantify and will always be subject to personal interpretation as to what matters most to any one person in terms of "shootability".
OK
Agreed. So....I infer from that that the article stayed pretty much to the mechanical and reproducible aspects of the guns and away from the, let's say, affective aspects involved in a shooter's choice.
I suppose that is the only way a test can go.
I see Rugers on the line at matches only occasionally - or maybe better said, I see them regularly but I don't see many of them. One of them, every now and then, is mine. It seems that the "big guys", the Masters, opt for other brands more often than not (don't know that that is true nationally).
Just thinking.
Pete
Agreed. So....I infer from that that the article stayed pretty much to the mechanical and reproducible aspects of the guns and away from the, let's say, affective aspects involved in a shooter's choice.
I suppose that is the only way a test can go.
I see Rugers on the line at matches only occasionally - or maybe better said, I see them regularly but I don't see many of them. One of them, every now and then, is mine. It seems that the "big guys", the Masters, opt for other brands more often than not (don't know that that is true nationally).
Just thinking.
Pete
Really liked my Ruger 22/45. Pinpoint accurate and alot of fun to shoot. Got rid of it because reassembling the gun after cleaning was a total pain in the butt! Even had to take it to a gunsmith once to get the darn thing back together again. He told me he never wanted to see the gun again! Didn't have the patience for it. Apparently the gunsmith didn't either.