ruger 22s: semi-auto vs revolver

They're both great guns. I would personally prefer the Single Six because a single action revolver is just a lot of fun for me.

But I have a friend who would much rather have a semi-auto because it's tactically better. Even though he'll never use it tactically... :rolleyes:

So basically, you have to figure out if your friend is a revolver guy, or a semi guy.
 
I admit I've been shooting my MKIIs a heck of a lot more these days than my Single Six, but if I had to have only one .22lr, it would be hard pressed for me to give up the SS. Personality is everything (and the mag cylinder is nice too).
 
Between the two, the semi-auto will probably be slightly more inherently accurate because the chamber is integral to the barrel. Revolvers get their reputation for being more accurate from locked breech autos which require the barrel to move somewhat, but the Ruger .22 semi-autos are unlocked blowback actions which means that the barrel is fixed to the frame.

The revolver will probably have a slight edge in reliability and will be able to use a wider variety of ammunition than the auto will. The semi-auto requires cartridges within tighter dimensional specs and of a certain power to operate reliably. The semi-auto likely would not cycle reliably with .22 Short, .22 Long, .22 shotshells, or Aguila Colbris while the revolver would not be sensitive to these ammo types. Also, the Single Six is available as a .22 LR/WMR convertible (comes with two cylinders) while no such option exists in a semi-auto.
 
MK or 22/45 hands down and that comes from a SA fan. Here's why:

- The semi is a better plinker, more fun. (Don't believe me see the following 2 items.
- .22LR revolvers with a loading gate are a pain in the behind to reload. Small holes in cylinder, small cartridges, etc. Centerfires it's fine, not .22's.
- The semi will be more accurate for reasons already stated in this thread.
- The .22M cylinder is not much, if any, of an adder. Why? Most of em get tossed in the bottom of the drawer and left there. Expensive ammo and not sufficient power for hunting anything larger than a .22LR is capable of taking. It may be better for squirrels, rabbits and the like but it doesn't move you into a different class of game. Still just a small game round.
- The ability to fire different rounds like shorts, longs and shot shells is also a none factor. The shorts and longs are expensive, accuracy will more than likely be worse and they offer no advantages in a handgun. .22 shot shells are below weak. If your close enough to use em on a snake or something your close enough to pop it's head off with a bullet with your eyes closed.

LK
 
Last edited:
But L. Kinkenney overlooks that the Single Six can also handle the CB Caps and Colibris with no issues, whereas a semi-auto will choke on them.

I own a Single Six combo with target sights, and I own a Mark II 22/45 with bull barrel and target sights. The range where I shoot only goes to 75 feet, and I don't notice either being more or less accurate than the other. I really enjoy shooting the Single Six.

I'm probably going to sell the 22/45. I don't enjoy shooting it -- I also have a .22LR conversion on a cheap 1911 receiver, and I much prefer that to the Ruger even though it's a tad less accurate.
 
But L. Kinkenney overlooks that the Single Six can also handle the CB Caps and Colibris with no issues, whereas a semi-auto will choke on them.

I own a Single Six combo with target sights, and I own a Mark II 22/45 with bull barrel and target sights. The range where I shoot only goes to 75 feet, and I don't notice either being more or less accurate than the other. I really enjoy shooting the Single Six.
Click to expand...

Didn't overlook them, just don't give a pile of dung about em. Neither do most shooters by their lack luster to almost nonexistent sales. I'd guess that 90-95% of shooters have never even though about shooting them let alone done it. If they see 1/4 of a percent of rimfire sales I'd be shocked. Plus, a semi can shoot em just fine, you just have to manually cycle the action which is far from being a big deal.

As for accuracy you may not be able to shoot the 22/45 better than the Single Six but big odds are it will be more accurate. Sometimes the difference will be extreme, sometimes only by the tiniest of a fraction. But on average the MK will out shoot the Single Six. Most shooters, me included, may not be able to take advantage of the difference though.

Don't take what I say as bashing on the Single Six. They are a very well built, classy six gun. But it has disadvantages compared to the MK series where as the only disadvantage the MK series is in the looks/style department and that is completely subjective and varies from person to person. Me? I like the looks of a SS 2 to 1 over the the nicest of MK series but that's not enough for me to not notice it's disadvantages when it comes to hunting and plinkin.



LK
 
I have a Ruger mkII competition target ss slabsided bull barrel.It's the most accurate 22lr pistol I have ever shot,the mkII out shoots most of my 22lr rifles
 
Ran across this thread today, as I am presently engaged in making the same decision. (I already own a Mark I, circa 1965. Long story; I'm not that old.) I really like the Mark III with the thick "bull barrel." It is a great pistol. Someday I will, in fact, buy one.

Right now I am going to go with the Single Six. It is just a plain blast to shoot, and is one of the most beautiful guns you could ever want. I love the way it absorbs the recoil. My son shot one last weekend and I could hardly pry it away from him.

The other thing is the ease of cleaning. The Ruger Mark I-IIIs are great pistols, but they are notoriously difficult to field strip and reassemble. Not that hard to do once you have the hang of it, but not easy either. By contrast, the Single Six, like almost all revolvers, is simplicity itself to break down and clean.

I have read a few threads here and there from guys who claim you never need to field strip the Mark I-IIIs. Don't believe it. All automatics require field-stripping and cleaning, more or less every time you take them to the range. At least that is my opinion, derived from what the Army taught us.

My $.02.
 
I have read a few threads here and there from guys who claim you never need to field strip the Mark I-IIIs. Don't believe it. All automatics require field-stripping and cleaning, more or less every time you take them to the range. At least that is my opinion, derived from what the Army taught us.
Click to expand...

6,674 rounds through my new 22/45 without field stripping. I won't say never, but ...
 
I hear you, Ichiro. Probably the odds of firearms failure due to non-field stripping is very low for some of these pistols. But I think that most experts will agree that field stripping and cleaning lowers the risk of firearms failure, even for a Ruger Mark I-III. Since a weapon can save one's life, I am sticking to my guns (no pun intended).

I always field strip and clean any weapon after firing. To me, that is just basic to the sport. YMMV, grin.
 
I too have the Mark III 22/45 Hunter fluted barrel and it is a joy to shoot. I have never heard anyone complain that the gun was not comfortable. I am partial to the single six because I had a stainless steel version as my first handgun. It actually fits my hands but it is a smaller grip and takes a while to get use to it. Still have a blue version that is NIB. As far as shooting, you can have a blast with semi auto that you can't have with the single six. You can't go wrong with either by my choice would be the semi auto.
 
Hey, Huskerguy, maybe you can explain something to me. Is the point of the fluted barrel simply that it makes the barrel lighter, or is there some other point to it? The fluted barrel looks nice, that is for sure.
 
[QUOTEAll automatics require field-stripping and cleaning, more or less every time you take them to the range. At least that is my opinion, derived from what the Army taught us.

][/QUOTE]

The Army taught me a lot of things too. Not all of them were true, either.

Cleaning is important, but the Ruger pistol can be kept clean and running without field stripping for decades of shooting. And I think detail stripping that gun is never needed, unless it takes a bath in salt water, and maybe not even then. Service pistols are designed to be taken apart and cleaned, regularly. Sport pistols are not. Field stripping can be done, and isn't impossible, but does take some practice, and some instruction until its learned. My Ruger Mk I came home in a grocery bag, in pieces, 6 months after my son-in -law borrowed it, and after he was specifically told NOT to take the gun apart! Apparently he didn't listen to my daughter any better, and I am in the market for a new son-in-law.;)

IF you don't have to take a Ruger Mk series auto apart, you're better off if you don't. And you don't have to take one apart to keep it running and shooting for decades.
 
plus one 44.

A person can argue about whether or not it needs to be stripped to clean but the every trip to the range thing is a bunch of bunk. My MKII 22/45 will easily do a 1000 rounds before cleaning with zero effects on reliability and nothing noticable in my hands in regards to accuracy.

As for stipping the MK I do. I tell myself I don't need to and try not to but when cleanin time comes I find myself going whole hog anyway. One of the biggest myths going is that a Ruger MK is hard to disassemble and assemble. But I'll agree that you don't need to do it very often if ever.

As for easy of cleaning as compared with a revolver a MK is easier by far. Go drop a MK and a single six in a muddy, sandy river and come back and see me if you don't believe it.

LK
 
I have both and they are both very good weapons. My Single Six is accurate but the MKII is more accurate. I very rarely use the Magnum cylinder so that is a non-issue for me. I vote for the MK series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top