Help deciding on a .22 pistol

G

GermanShep

New member
Hello all,

I am trying to make up my mind on a purchase I am about to make. I am wanting a .22 pistol that will be used for practice, fun, and to use for Steel Challenge matches. I recently sold my ruger sr22 because it didn't really fit well in the role I am looking to fill. I am thinking of going one of two directions:

1) M&P 22 Full size - I like this option because I shoot a M&P9 Pro in USPSA and would like to get it set up with similar dawson sights that I have on my 9 Pro. One downside is that I shoot the 9 with the smallest backstrap and after holding the 22 version with a fixed backstrap it seems that the grip on it is similar to the 9 with the medium backstrap. Therefore, it wouldn't have the exact same feel to it. Does anyone have experience in shaving down or recontouring the grip on the M&P 22? This would make it better for my wife's smaller hands as well. I have heard that some pistols are hit and miss with reliability with bulk ammo...

2) Ruger Mk III or 22/45 - many people that I shoot steel challenge with shoot variations of these models. They are well known as accurate and reliable but they are ergonomically different than my M&P 9 Pro. If I were to go this direction I would probably set it up specifically for steel challenge and plinking and not as a trainer to my centerfire pistols. I really like the grip angles of the 22/45s but I know the Mk IIIs are very popular as well I just don't like the looks as much (not a deal breaker but still, I like to have guns that are pleasing to the eye).

Any recommendations from people who have experience with either of these pistols or additional things to consider would be welcome. Thank you!
 
Always judge handguns by the way they feel in your hand

"Looks" don't really mean anything when it comes to accuracy

You won't find a gun better than a Ruger for what you want, without spending a lot more money
 
My mistake! My SR22 is just the one I usually recommend out of habit. The MK3 would be my second choice as I've shot my father's at the range plenty of times, no issues to date. However the 22/45s do look quite appealing, I believe they are much lighter as well.
 
The two best 22 pistols I have ever shot were a Ruger Mark II target model and a Browning Buck Mark. I would highly recommend either one.
 
The Ruger Mark III is a terrific pistol. I like the button-style magazine release much better than the heel release on the Mark II.

Mark IIIs are a hoot to shoot. :cool:



 
Have you looked at the Ruger SR22? Very solid little pistol with different grips and eats everything.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is a pretty nice little pistol. I just typically don't care for DA/SA pistols and the safety on it is backwards from any other guns with safeties that I have. I also had trouble with the barrel working its way loose from the frame. No amount of blue locktite seemed to fix this. It would become loose and start causing feeding problems every 400-500 rounds it seemed.

At this point I am leaning towards the Ruger 22/45 with the 5.5" bbl and wooden removable 1911 style grips. I think there are some of the base models of the 22/45 that are cheaper but come with molded grips that are not replaceable. I would like the option to switch out grips. I have found this model for sale in the $325 range online and if I can't find it at one of the local shops, I will probably just order it.

I would be looking to replace the front sight with a fiberoptic one, anybody have experience with the ones on shopruger.com or is there another place that has better offerings?
 
I am happy with the STI fiber optic front sights. The STI provides a small sharp FO dot in the middle of the black square-edged front post.
I have STI FO front sight on 5 pistols (2 Browning Buckmarks, 1 Ruger MKII, 1 1911, 1 Glock ).

Oops! I meant Dawson Precision sights; not STI.
 
Last edited:
Why is there a question?

While I am partial to the Ruger Mk II or Mk III set up with good sights, since you already have the M&P in centerfire and like it, it seems to me that the matching pistol in 22 rimfire is the obvious choice.

Practice wit the 22 reinforces skills with the centerfire gun. That would clinch it for me.

Unless you just like variety.:D

Good luck, good shooting

Lost Sheep
 
I've been working with, and on, Ruger Mark pistols since 1971. Once these Rugers are smoothed and tuned, the stand up very well alongside Colts, High Standards and even Smith & Wesson Model 41's. Here's a winter project I did between other work over winter a few years ago.

 
Handle a 22/45 first before you buy.

I had two, years ago when the Mk3 first came out. One was the 5.5" bull barrel version and I soon realized how top heavy and 'unbalanced' it felt, especially with a red dot installed.

My vote is for the M&P as you are already familiar with the platform and ergonomics.
 
This has been discussed here many times. This is how is going to end up.
1. Ruger. Either the Hunter or 22/45
2. Buckmark
3. S&W

Personally, I own 2 Rugers. And unlike you, I wouldn't mind adding a SR22. A Buckmark too. But, that's in the future if .22 rounds become plentiful again.
 
PITA

The Ruger Mark whatevers are a pain to reassemble, but I'll be the first to admire how well they work, especially the Mark II 5" bull barrel model models.

Never owned one but admired a friend's gun. Awesome! Owned a Ruger Mark II with a tapered 7+" barrel many years ago, but it was to muzzle-light for me.

Accurate as hell but not user friendly compared to the 5" bull barrel.
 
My regular shooting buddy has the Ruger stainless Mark III Hunter. I have shot it a fair amount and it's a very good shooter. It compares in performance fairly well with my 1953 vintage Colt Woodsman. And that's pretty high praise because the Woodsman is a great pistol. If you must have a new pistol, I don't think you can go wrong with one of the Ruger Mark series pistols. They probably are the reason the Woodsman is no longer made; not because they are better, but because they perform very well while costing less to manufacture than the Woodsman. Much like the Remington 870 eclipsing the more-costly-to-build Winchester model 12.
If you want to go vintage, consider the Colt Woodsman. They will usually, however, cost well more than a new Ruger Mark III. In either case, you will need lots of ammo, as they are more fun to shoot than to look at.
 
Lately, I haven't been able to keep any Ruger SR22 pistols in stock. It seems as soon as the word is out that I have a couple, they don't last long. I finally got one that I'm gonna keep.



I'm in the testing phase of a Burris Fast Fire III base that I make for the SR22, and so far, it's held up with the slide travel very well. I got this idea from a base of this type, for the FF3, I seen on a Glock 17, so I figure if it holds up on a 9mm slide it should hold up on a .22 rimfire caliber slide. When it decides to go from "white" to "green" out back around my range, I need to check to see if impact is disturbed from the sight base moving, if at all.

 
Decision

After holding the 22/45 and the M&P 22 I decided on the ruger mk III 22/45 with 5.5" bull barrel with removable 1911 grips. The M&Ps grip was bigger than the 9 pro I have with the small palm swell installed and it felt unnaturally light. The ruger seemed to have the right amount of weight and I appreciate the slimmer 1911 style grip. Should be in to my LGS on monday. Now I've got my eyes on a FO sight set and the volquartsen accurizing kit from midway... :) Anybody have experience with those items?
 
Great decision! The Mk III is a far better gun that will likely outlast you. The M&P22 isn't even a real S&W -- it's cheaply-made junk from Umarex, a company whose expertise is making airsoft toys.

It's true that the Mk III is a royal pain to reassemble. I know some people who never take theirs apart, though, opting instead to just blast some Gunscrubber (aerosol solvent) through it when it gets too dirty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top