Ruger Mark III vs Charger .22lr vs Beretta NEOS

Which of these three rimfires?

  • Ruger Charger

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Ruger Mark III

    Votes: 24 82.8%

  • Beretta NEOS

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
E

Elliottsdad

New member
So here's the deal: I have the queen's blessing to pick up a .22 pistol. I can't look a gift horse in the mouth, so I should keep it relatively cheap (for example, I like the Bearcat a lot, but it's waaay overbudget). I like Rugers as a rule, but have read a few things turning me off of their SR22 (and mostly that I handled one and it felt downright chintzy). That leaves these three:

I already have a 10/22 Carbine, so the commonality of magazines/actions with the 10/22 Charger is cool. However, it still seems like more of a short barreled rifle than a pistol. Does anyone else feel that way?

The Mark III is on the table, too, but how is it with different types/qualities of ammo? Also I've read it's a bear to field strip, which isn't a deal-breaker, but a consideration nonetheless.

Which action is better/more reliable? Am I missing anything here that I should be thinking about these two?

Also, and God I hate to say it, but the Beretta U22 NEOS has caught my eye too. It is one of the ugliest MOFOS I've ever seen, but I like Beretta's quality. Do the U22s compare with the two Rugers in your eyes? Why/why not?

Thanks!
 
So far 3 to 0 in favor of the Mk III.

MkIIIs are not that hard to field strip if you follow the directions. Also, the magazine can be removed and there is an aftermarket drop in insert to take the place of the mag disconnect mechanism. Removing the disconnect improves magazine insertion/removal 1000%.

Your gut feeling about the Charger is absolutely correct. It is, in essence, a short barreled rifle. Not really in the legal sense, but a big clumsy thing to drag around and shoot. If you already have a 10/22, why bother with another one?

Beretta Neos? Besides the parts availability and cost factors, it is a revival of the failed Colt Cadet, which, in turn, was a revival of the old Hi-Standard Duramatic (also known as "problematic). For more info on the Neos, Google "Beretta Neos problems."

My vote, obviously, is for the Ruger Mk III. My Ruger is not a Mk III, but I have had it for over 50 years.
 
The Ruger MK series are solid guns. I've owned a Mk !! for many years and it's more accurate than I am.

The NEOS reportedly had some teething problems, but from what I've heard is they've been taken care of.
My problem with it is weight. it's very light.

I've no experience with the Charger.
 
If you already have a 10/22, why bother with another one?
Click to expand...
Ah, because tyey are waaaay cool! Just picked up a new Charger Takedown Friday to complement my 10-22 Takkedawn. Even waaaaay cooler!
However, for a general use, plinking, and informal target handgun, I would suggest the OP stick with the Ruher MkIII. The waaaay cool Charger is kind of a niche gun.
Neos if you must. They are accurate, but they look like something I had as a kid in the 50's that squirted water out the end when you pull the trigger.:eek:
 
While the reassembly procedure for a Ruger Mk I/II/III isn't intuitive, you can easily follow along by reading the booklet or watching a video. Or, you can spend a few dollars and get a 'quick take-down' kit from a big catalog store.

That said, I was shooting my MkII for a decade and a half before I did a deep-cleaning on it. A yearly dunk and swish in kerosene kept it quite clean.
 
What do you want in a pistol?

You ever see a Charger in person? It's huge, and not designed for offhand shooting. If you want to shoot it from a bench, though, it's the way to go.

There's nothing wrong the the Neos, and there's even a carbine kit for it.

Ruger's MK series pistols set the standard for .22 pistols, and would be a fine choice.
 
There's nothing wrong the the Neos, and there's even a carbine kit for it.
Click to expand...

There's plenty wrong with the Neos: It is the third incarnation of the old Hi-Standard Duramatic (aka "Problematic"), which morphed into the Colt Cadet, another prize that's no longer being made, and has inherited all the faults of its ancestors.
 
I'd have to recommend the Ruger Mark iii. Own two and use them a lot, almost always have one of them with me on a range visit. If not, I have a 10-22, or an Aschutz rifle.
 
I have all 4. The Charger isnt a pistol. Ok... yeah technically, it is, but doesnt really fit the group "pistol" Try shooting it one handed, and you will see.

I like my 2 Neos pistols. They are great for someone on a budget. The trigger however, is very creepy and there aren't any aftermarket parts to improve it.

The Buckmark is a good pistol, but I think the Ruger is a tougher pistol. I bought both my Buckmarks used, and both had the plastic recoil buffer beat out of them, and both the recoil rods were bent. One of the pistols had been shot in this condition for so long, the rear recoil post has damage. This is part of the aluminum frame, and cant be replaced. Its still decent enough that its not a concern, but if the Ruger suffers damage from the bolt beating the recoil pin, that part IS replaceable.

IMHO, the Ruger pistol is best. I have 4 of them, and all 4 are excellent shooters. I dont have any problem with dis/reassembly, but it can be a challenge for some. IF you buy the Ruger, and simply can not figure out how to tear it down, buy the Majestic Arms 3.2 Speed Strip kit from MidwayUSA. It offers a new hammer for better trigger pull, the replacement bushing for removal of the magazine disconnect, AND offers the benefit of the Speed Strip. MidwayUSA has it for $60.
 
gyvel said:
There's plenty wrong with the Neos: It is the third incarnation of the old Hi-Standard Duramatic (aka "Problematic"), which morphed into the Colt Cadet, another prize that's no longer being made, and has inherited all the faults of its ancestors.
Click to expand...

Other than a creepy trigger, tell us what specifically is wrong with the Neos...? I have had two of them for years, including the carbine kit. They are accurate, and perfectly reliable. In fact, I dont think I have ever had a malfunction with either of my Neos pistols. I have around 12,000 rounds through the one I keep configured as a pistol, and I see no damage, or unusual wear. For a pistol that shoots straight, goes bang every time, and costs $250, I sure dont see that as having all the faults of its ancestors.
 
I would stick with a pistol (Ruger MKIII, Ruger 22/45, Browning Buckmark).
5.5" barrel balances best for most user.
Pick the one that fits you best. Do not worry about durability or assembly/disassembly issues -- they are overblown on the internet. Accuracy are equal.
--- Ruger MKxxx is built tougher than buckmark but both will last many many many rounds.

I voted Ruger MKIII from your list.
 
Another vote for the Ruger MKIII

I voted Ruger MKIII from your list.
Click to expand...
Yep and you did not mention a specific model. These are all over the place and of these, the 22/45 would be the least desirable. The top of the line is the Hunters, target or competition models.. .... :)

The Charger is one of those firearms that is a bit confused as to what it should be. If you already have a rifle, you will find that you won't shoot the Charger, all that much. The Charger is a hoot to shoot but the feeling won't last long ... :rolleyes:

Be Safe !!!!
 
The Charger and NEOS are jokes, or, at best, niche pistols. I'd opt for a Browning Buckmark over a Ruger Mark III -- better quality.
 
Yep and you did not mention a specific model. These are all over the place and of these, the 22/45 would be the least desirable. The top of the line is the Hunters, target or competition models.. ....
Click to expand...

And I bought a 22/45 because it has the feel and angle of a 1911 in case I ever wanted one. The only problem is that I then just had to have a 1911 in 9mm. They do feel, aim and shoot very much the same.
 
Despite the naysayers,,,

Despite the naysayers,,,
I have three NEOS pistols,,,
And they are accurate performers.

The thing about the NEOS is,,,
You either love them or hate them,,,
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

I own one version of all of the Big-Five pistols,,,
As far as overall quality and performance,,,
I would probably give the nod to Ruger.

I personally like the 22/45 version better than the MK version,,,
But some people hate the polymer frame of the 22/45.

My Buckmark hunter is a fantastic shooter,,,
It's longer barrel give it an easy-to-hit-with sight radius.

My S&W 22A is a very nice pistol,,,
But it just doesn't ring my chimes at all.

Now back to the Beretta NEOS,,,
You really need to hold one before you buy.

Actually you should hold/heft/fondle any pistol you consider,,,
Buying a handgun by specs alone is a very "iffy" thing.

NEOS' have an extremely slender grip,,,
With an angle of grip that is extremely raked,,,
In ten seconds you will know whether you like it or not.

All three of my NEOS (4.5" - 6" - Carbine) eat bulk ammo like crazy,,,
Shooting at 25 yards (from a pistol rest) they group just as tightly as my other pistols.

So don't take the NEOS bashing as gospel,,,
I often wonder if the bashers have ever fired one.

Aarond

.
 
First, for the OP, as I said, MK III, or Neos. Maybe look at a Buckmark as well.
Now, to the Charger. I'm sure mine will be shot a lot, and fill it's role well.
Walther P22--- SD practice, and target busting @10 yds
Buckmark Camper---reactive target, and can bouncing@25 yds.
Charger--- Bullseye, reactive targets, can bouncing, and an occasional squirrel&gravy dinner out to 5O yds.
T/C Contender 14" 22 Long Rifle Match----Bullseye, and reactive targets out to 100 yds.
So you see Elliotsdad, like potato chips, one 22 handgun just isn't enough!
 
I voted for the Mark III because I've had great success using Ruger .22 semi-auto pistols over the past fifty years or so. Very accurate and reliable from the box. Their triggers can sometimes benefit from a little help and the take-down/reassemble field-strip is a little more involved than some other pistols. My favorite Mark iteration is actually the Mark II variant.

Admittedly, a totally subjective opinion here but I can't bear the pretentious, over-wrought looks of the Neo. For those who can get past the looks (or even like them :eek:), I'm sure the futuristic, Wolverine-wannabe looking Beretta is a fine pistol for all the things that really count (accuracy, reliability, durability, etc.).
 
Well, I guess that's that. I'll be checking out the Mark III next chance I get! I'll let you know what I end up with either way. Thanks for your opinions!
 
I have all three but if i had to pick one id would be a Mk2 its better then a mk3 but you can take out and replace most of what makes the mk3 worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top