Semi or wheelgun .22 more rugged
- Thread starter jproaster
- Start date
I personally think a revolver is a little easier to care for with one caveat. In spite of what first appearances might tell you, revolvers are inherantly more complex than autos. If you ever have to see into the internals of a revolver you'll see what I mean. Fortunately, a high-quality revolver that is properly cared for and not abused can go its whole life without being opened up.
That being said, a good auto would also serve your purposes. Go with what feels comfortable to you. I've had a .22 auto plinker (a Ruger MkII) and I didn't really care for it. I sold it an went with a S&W 617 and now I'm totally happy. Others will prefer the feel of an auto.
See if you can spend some range time with a few of each type and see what feels good to you.
That being said, a good auto would also serve your purposes. Go with what feels comfortable to you. I've had a .22 auto plinker (a Ruger MkII) and I didn't really care for it. I sold it an went with a S&W 617 and now I'm totally happy. Others will prefer the feel of an auto.
See if you can spend some range time with a few of each type and see what feels good to you.
pythagorean
Moderator
I could go either way,
Between the two I'd pick the 41 because I can shoot it beyond 100 yards with accuracy.
Between the two I'd pick the 41 because I can shoot it beyond 100 yards with accuracy.
For reliability and ruggedness, you are not likely to be disappointed in a product from any of the major brands. I personally find it tedious to clean all the chambers in a revolver cylinder, but that is just me. Among the semis, the Beretta Neos is considered an also-ran but I have one and it is very comfortable and easy to shoot accurately. Beginners love the little gun, as does my 85-year-old father. (It is about the only handgun he has any accuracy with at this point, so I make a point of having it along whenever I take him to the range. The guys at the pistol range also let him bring his old .22 bolt rifle with him, and he runs the target out to the 25-yard max and plinks with it, too.)
Thanks for the replys.
I had the MkIII at one point and it is a good gun; great accuracy.
WHat I am gathering so far is that there is no advantage for ruggedness in the semi vs the wheelgun.
So as I look to add a .22, is it wiser to ask what are good guns or guns to avoid?
Thanks.
John
I had the MkIII at one point and it is a good gun; great accuracy.
WHat I am gathering so far is that there is no advantage for ruggedness in the semi vs the wheelgun.
So as I look to add a .22, is it wiser to ask what are good guns or guns to avoid?
Thanks.
John
Stevie-Ray
New member
Well, if I didn't have my 2 Ruger autos, I'd probably opt for a Browning Buckmark. I consider either one of those the best of the less expensive .22 autos, just a matter of preference. Of course, if money is no object, then S&W 41 with no question.
Shadi Khalil
New member
When speaking in terms of ruggedness you have to consider the make and model of the pistol. You could go with any of the Ruger options, whether semi or revolver and have a solid, well made pistol. If you are looking for something that will take a beating and stand up to abuse, steer clear of your P22's and Misquitos. They are great training tools and allot of fun at the range but not something that will withstand double duty. The revolver would probably be the easiest to care for but it's hard to find a good one now a days. Do you own any semis that you could slap a converstion kit on?
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I can't imagine either of my Rugers having a catastrophic failure under reasonable circumstances.
SS and Mk II, So I would make the choice on other considerations.
I personally prefer shooting my single six a little bit more, but I have participated in afew leagues that required ten shots rapid fire.
SS and Mk II, So I would make the choice on other considerations.
I personally prefer shooting my single six a little bit more, but I have participated in afew leagues that required ten shots rapid fire.
Thanks again. I will be looking for some of these options in used condition.
What I'm doing is creating a list of guns to obtain in hopes that I can buy some rural property and be more self sufficient. I have a Remington 870 and a Ruger P95; and I wish that I had kept hold of the MkIII.
John
What I'm doing is creating a list of guns to obtain in hopes that I can buy some rural property and be more self sufficient. I have a Remington 870 and a Ruger P95; and I wish that I had kept hold of the MkIII.
John
Most of the time, a .22 revolver that will function year after year will set you back substantially more than a Ruger or Browning Buckmark.
There are some revolvers in the Buckmark price range, . . . but I have seen them go belly up too many times.
If you are determined on a revolver, . . . take your big check book, . . . the little one won't do the job
. But having said that, . . . a quality, full size .22 revolver is one fun toy.
May God bless,
Dwight
There are some revolvers in the Buckmark price range, . . . but I have seen them go belly up too many times.
If you are determined on a revolver, . . . take your big check book, . . . the little one won't do the job
. But having said that, . . . a quality, full size .22 revolver is one fun toy.May God bless,
Dwight
carguychris
New member
+1. I don't think I can answer OP's question authoritatively as written, but high-quality .22 automatics can certainly be had for less money than equivalent-quality revolvers. You can get a basic Ruger, Buckmark, Beretta Neos, or S&W .22 for well under $300, while the cheapest high-quality revolvers cost a hundred or two more.
Another point, revolvers will function exactly the same with any and all the ammo you can stuff in them. Autos will not.
Shorts, CB caps, Hivel LR, shotshells, the revolver cares not. All that changes is the report and the point of impact (ok, recoil will change a little, but in a .22, it doesn't matter).
Feed an autoloader something it doesn't like, and it doesn't work. And while most of the better quality autos are fairly omnivorous, they are not totally, and some are downright finicky. Was at the range one time with a friend, shooting a S&W Model 41. This is a high dollar gun, considered the Cadillac of .22 autos. And it was superbly accurate. However, it was misfiring often with the cheap CCI Blazers he was shooting.
I finished the box for him, shooting them all (including his misfires) in a Ruger Single Six, Ruger Mk I, Browning Challenger, and Stoeger Luger. No misfires at all. This is not a slam on the S&W, just an observation that his individual gun was picky.
Revolvers may seem more complicated inside compared to autos, but they really aren't, just different. Neither gun requires the amount of maintenance some people seem to think they do. Unlike military type pistols, they do not need, and are not designed to be detail stripped regularly. Even field stripping is seldom necessary to ensure reliable functioning. They can run fine for decades (hundreds of thousands of rounds, potentially) if you only clean what you can easily reach. Some lube is needed, but not much of that either.
IF you want the most rugged (abuse/neglect tolerant) .22 you can get, I would say a Ruger Single Six, in stainless steel. Fewer parts than a DA gun, and rugged as a granite block.
As an alternate idea, if you don't need a rapid follow up shot, you might consider a T/C Contender with a .22LR barrel. Simplest mechanism, (least to go wrong), and can be finished very corrosion resistant if you wish. Also gives you the option of many different calibers with just a barrel change.
And they scope pretty easily too.
Shorts, CB caps, Hivel LR, shotshells, the revolver cares not. All that changes is the report and the point of impact (ok, recoil will change a little, but in a .22, it doesn't matter).
Feed an autoloader something it doesn't like, and it doesn't work. And while most of the better quality autos are fairly omnivorous, they are not totally, and some are downright finicky. Was at the range one time with a friend, shooting a S&W Model 41. This is a high dollar gun, considered the Cadillac of .22 autos. And it was superbly accurate. However, it was misfiring often with the cheap CCI Blazers he was shooting.
I finished the box for him, shooting them all (including his misfires) in a Ruger Single Six, Ruger Mk I, Browning Challenger, and Stoeger Luger. No misfires at all. This is not a slam on the S&W, just an observation that his individual gun was picky.
Revolvers may seem more complicated inside compared to autos, but they really aren't, just different. Neither gun requires the amount of maintenance some people seem to think they do. Unlike military type pistols, they do not need, and are not designed to be detail stripped regularly. Even field stripping is seldom necessary to ensure reliable functioning. They can run fine for decades (hundreds of thousands of rounds, potentially) if you only clean what you can easily reach. Some lube is needed, but not much of that either.
IF you want the most rugged (abuse/neglect tolerant) .22 you can get, I would say a Ruger Single Six, in stainless steel. Fewer parts than a DA gun, and rugged as a granite block.
As an alternate idea, if you don't need a rapid follow up shot, you might consider a T/C Contender with a .22LR barrel. Simplest mechanism, (least to go wrong), and can be finished very corrosion resistant if you wish. Also gives you the option of many different calibers with just a barrel change.
And they scope pretty easily too.
For a first 22 handgun, I recommend a Ruger Single Six convertable (22LR and 22 MAG). Buy one and then add a Browning Buckmark to your collection, when you can afford to. This is the fifth Ruger single six convertable I've owned over the years. I keep gifting them to my kids.
Here's mine...
Here's mine...
pythagorean
Moderator
Absolutely true. The mission for anyone owning a 41 is to find a few brands (or one brand) of .22LR standard or match ammunition and stick with that.
The results are superior to any other .22 handgun:
CCI Standard Velocity and Federal Gold Match do the same reliable thing in my 41.
I've got both and as far as "ruggedness" goes there really isn't any difference in the guns I buy, BUT I only buy known quality guns. Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc. There might be some others, but I don't have any first hand knowledge of them.
As for revolvers costing more that semi-auto's that's true, but you can close the gap by looking for used, especially Ruger Single-Sixs. The last two I bought I paid $250.00 for which is right in the price range of most semi-auto's. Harrington & Richardson is another manufacturer to keep an eye out for. I paid $130.00 for the D/A, H&R 999 Sportsman break top I bought a few weeks ago.
As for revolvers costing more that semi-auto's that's true, but you can close the gap by looking for used, especially Ruger Single-Sixs. The last two I bought I paid $250.00 for which is right in the price range of most semi-auto's. Harrington & Richardson is another manufacturer to keep an eye out for. I paid $130.00 for the D/A, H&R 999 Sportsman break top I bought a few weeks ago.
S&W 41 is nice and smooth. I seldom shoot mine. SV ammo is more expensive than HV and I get similar results with my Buck and MKII using less expensive ammo as with my 41 using SV ammo.
===================================
Ruger MKII - feels more durable compared to Buckmark and S&W 41.
===================================
Ruger MKII - feels more durable compared to Buckmark and S&W 41.