You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S & W 2213
- Thread starter DAKA
- Start date
but the price was right..You may already know this but I'll post it anyway. The 2213 and 2214 came with a stubby 8-round magazine. Those magazines were only ever made for these two models and these models only last somewhere around a decade. These magazines are absolutely scarce and they sell for high prices on the secondary market.
The good news is that Model 41 magazines (and 422/622/2206 magazines) also fit and these are far more plentiful. Most of these are 10-round capacity, although they were offered for about three years with a redesigned follower that upped the capacity to 12 rounds.
These magazines are more affordable and work fine in the 2213/2214, they just aren't flush with the bottom of the compact grip on these smaller pistols.
The good news is that Model 41 magazines (and 422/622/2206 magazines) also fit and these are far more plentiful. Most of these are 10-round capacity, although they were offered for about three years with a redesigned follower that upped the capacity to 12 rounds.
These magazines are more affordable and work fine in the 2213/2214, they just aren't flush with the bottom of the compact grip on these smaller pistols.
Ah yes, the 2213 -- it generates such conflicting thoughts, for me. It has some features that are simply brilliant for a 22 that size, and some that almost ruin the whole experience, for me.
The excellent:
The size is great -- small enough to allow for pocket carry, but large enough for practical shooting and handling. The clever design of the action also means that it is pleasantly thin.
In shrinking it down from the 622, the action was not compromized or re-designed. Exact same action as the full-size target version, which was simply designed in a really size-efficient way.
For that reason, it's going to be able to stand up to a ridiculous amount of shooting. The use of aluminum and steel is really perfect -- the steel slide runs on a solid steel assembly that includes the barrel. The aluminum frame simply holds the steel in place.
The trigger is also like a full-size target gun -- excellent. And it has the best factory sights I've ever seen on a 22 of this size.
The reliability is also first-rate. And so is the mechanical accuracy. The fact that you can pop in a 12-round mag is also a beautiful feature (though expect to pay a lot for these). And it's an ideal setup for a suppressor.
The stainless steel is great, along with overall fit/finish. It doesn't feel like a re-branded Umarex -- it was made by a serious gun company to be true to its own design philosophy from the beginning.
BUT BUT BUT
The irritating:
The most basic field strip requires use of a special-purpose plastic tool, separate from the gun. If it gets lost, a spent .22 shell can be improvized -- hopefully it won't damage the anodized aluminum finish, as it will be under the full tension of the recoil spring, while pressed against the frame. But WHY? It feels like someone just got lazy in the design room, skipped the final step, and said "f*** it, just include a plastic take-down tool in the box."
The long distance between barrel axis and sights induces parallax. No big deal if you're target shooting at 20 yards. But for me, one of the most practical uses of the gun involves being able to dispatch rattlesnakes. This typically involves a head shot at ~10 feet. Rattlesnake heads are not a large target. The amount of parallax inherent to this design can convert an easy, perfect hit to a miss, at that range. I practiced on spent shotgun shells at close range, aiming for the brass section -- it's surprisingly easy to over or under-correct, depending on the exact distance to the target. Of course you can do it with enough practice, but "learning to correct for major parallax" is not high on the list of things I want to be doing with my shooting time.
The grip angle is unusual, meaning the gun does not point naturally, for me. It feels like someone deleted the backstrap. When the gun is properly aiming at the target, it feels like there is a gap between my hand and a section of the grip.
The gun is not dryfire-friendly. The firing pin is notoriously easy to break. Get a spare, while you still can. And get some snap caps. Is there an excuse for this, in a quality 1990's-vintage pistol made for high-volume shooting?
All of these issues are just shy of being complete deal-breakers, but serious enough to add some real friction to the relationship.
The excellent:
The size is great -- small enough to allow for pocket carry, but large enough for practical shooting and handling. The clever design of the action also means that it is pleasantly thin.
In shrinking it down from the 622, the action was not compromized or re-designed. Exact same action as the full-size target version, which was simply designed in a really size-efficient way.
For that reason, it's going to be able to stand up to a ridiculous amount of shooting. The use of aluminum and steel is really perfect -- the steel slide runs on a solid steel assembly that includes the barrel. The aluminum frame simply holds the steel in place.
The trigger is also like a full-size target gun -- excellent. And it has the best factory sights I've ever seen on a 22 of this size.
The reliability is also first-rate. And so is the mechanical accuracy. The fact that you can pop in a 12-round mag is also a beautiful feature (though expect to pay a lot for these). And it's an ideal setup for a suppressor.
The stainless steel is great, along with overall fit/finish. It doesn't feel like a re-branded Umarex -- it was made by a serious gun company to be true to its own design philosophy from the beginning.
BUT BUT BUT
The irritating:
The most basic field strip requires use of a special-purpose plastic tool, separate from the gun. If it gets lost, a spent .22 shell can be improvized -- hopefully it won't damage the anodized aluminum finish, as it will be under the full tension of the recoil spring, while pressed against the frame. But WHY? It feels like someone just got lazy in the design room, skipped the final step, and said "f*** it, just include a plastic take-down tool in the box."
The long distance between barrel axis and sights induces parallax. No big deal if you're target shooting at 20 yards. But for me, one of the most practical uses of the gun involves being able to dispatch rattlesnakes. This typically involves a head shot at ~10 feet. Rattlesnake heads are not a large target. The amount of parallax inherent to this design can convert an easy, perfect hit to a miss, at that range. I practiced on spent shotgun shells at close range, aiming for the brass section -- it's surprisingly easy to over or under-correct, depending on the exact distance to the target. Of course you can do it with enough practice, but "learning to correct for major parallax" is not high on the list of things I want to be doing with my shooting time.
The grip angle is unusual, meaning the gun does not point naturally, for me. It feels like someone deleted the backstrap. When the gun is properly aiming at the target, it feels like there is a gap between my hand and a section of the grip.
The gun is not dryfire-friendly. The firing pin is notoriously easy to break. Get a spare, while you still can. And get some snap caps. Is there an excuse for this, in a quality 1990's-vintage pistol made for high-volume shooting?
All of these issues are just shy of being complete deal-breakers, but serious enough to add some real friction to the relationship.