SW22 Victory Issues?

M

Malcolm Reynolds

New member
I was really interested in getting the new SW22 Victory but saw this video and now I'm having second thoughts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-qwuhGnMxs

It looks like the screw that holds the barrel and receiver to the frame works itself loose pretty quickly. I REALLY want to like this pistol. I think it looks great and it would be cool to have a "target" .22 that was easy to take down. But this might be a show stopper for me.

Does anyone have any experience with these pistols? I'd like to hear your reviews.
 
That receiver looks like it is made of stamped sheet steel. Neat; the Germans have done things like that, but I think it's the first time for a US company.

Jim
 
Given the late 22A and 22S pistols, I would think long and hard about buying anything like that from Smith & Wesson.

They had a pretty decent winner with the 422, 644 and 2206 series of guns, but they chose to discontinue them. They were accurate and very reliable .22 autos.

Everyone's' experience is different, but the only new production .22 auto I would recommended is the Ruger.

A lot of folks like the Browning Buckmark, but I prefer not to have an aluminum frame, and my experience with them when the first came out in the 80s was not positive.
 
I'm not sure about the Victory line, but I had issues with a 22A that I shot two months ago at a friend's house. Pulled the trigger and released, nothing happened. Checked the gun out, tried it again and it would fire after releasing the trigger occasionally (once my finger was completely out of the guard). Safety was disengaged, and the gun seemed to have a mind of its' own. I didn't even put a magazine through it after the issues, but it could have just been that one. The .22 Ruger LCR he had fired each time without issue (but I didn't care for the trigger.

I'd wait a bit with all of the other proven options out there for .22, but that's me.
 
The older Ruger designs have the grip frame made of stamped sheet metal; the receiver is heavy wall steel tubing.

Jim
 
I bought one but haven't received it yet. I like the option of the custom barrels you can already get for it. I have seen some other reviews and there wasn't any mention of the barrel screw working loose but even if it does I should think there could be a simple remedy. For the price I think it has a lot going for it.
 
I think it looks great and it would be cool to have a "target" .22 that was easy to take down.
Click to expand...

The Ruger Mark III easy to take down, provided you ditch the worthless mag disconnect and actually read the owner's manual.

No need to deal with a silly screw either.
 
In my opinion The 422, 622 and 2206 were much better 22 pistols.
I have a 22S with 2 barrels it's not a bad gun but heavier then the models I listed above.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
 
James K said:
That receiver looks like it is made of stamped sheet steel.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, does anyone know whether the stamped receiver is full stainless steel or regular mild steel with a finish? The S&W specs and press releases seem to dance around this point by talking about the frame, barrel, and bolt, but never specifically the receiver.
Straitshot said:
I have seen some other reviews and there wasn't any mention of the barrel screw working loose but even if it does I should think there could be a simple remedy.
Click to expand...
I'm categorically less than enthused about any field-stripping procedure that requires tools or involves screws that can work loose or strip out. This has been a major factor holding me back from buying a Buckmark.
Fishbed77 said:
The Ruger Mark III easy to take down...
Click to expand...
I think this requires an important disclaimer for any Standard or Mk-series pistol: "...if you don't separate the frame from the barreled receiver."
 
I was not able to watch the video, but I've got nothing for love for my 22a. It's been a great gun for me. I've had it for probably four years. If only I could find .22lr to feed it and not have to dig into my meager stockpile.

Edit to add, only thing I don't like about the 22a is the silly plastic thing goes on the recoil spring.
 
Several people have reported that screw coming loose.

Several people have reported that screw coming loose,,,
In this forum as well as others I visit.

I think this pistol might be one I'll wait on for a while,,,
The dang thing looks real good and all,,,
But so did the Remington R51. :p

Aarond

.
 
In my opinion The 422, 622 and 2206 were much better 22 pistols.
Click to expand...
I know many like 422 series but never understand why! I have a 422 and a 22A, actually like 22A much better. Easy to scope and tear down and better looking! Mag cheaper too! Victory? I will give it some time, hopefully it worth it. They must have a reason to come up with a new gun!
 
HankC1 said:
I know many like 422 series but never understand why!
Click to expand...
The x22/22xx series a very unique design with a really low bore axis. It's one of the few .22 pistols that takes >10rd mags, the grip panels are replaceable, it's fairly easy to field strip (although you have to carefully control the recoil spring), and it's easier to suppress that virtually any other older .22 pistol due to the factory threaded barrel and high sight plane. The factory threads are different than those used on most modern suppressors, but this is easily addressed with a ~$10 adapter.

The design does, however, make scope mounting and barrel changes inherently difficult. The long top-mounted slide mandates a clumsy cantilevered over-the-top scope mount unless the shooter can tolerate a really muzzle-heavy balance.

It's also a very "old school" all-metal design with lots of intricate parts. This is likely a major reason why S&W discontinued it, as it was probably relatively expensive to manufacture, but this IMHO gives it a solid and substantial "real gun" feel compared to the IMHO relatively plasticky and chintzy-feeling 22A.

Another issue is the 22A's infamous plastic recoil buffer / spacer; many folks simply don't like the idea of having to replace a part of a .22 pistol on a fairly frequent basis, even if that part is cheap, readily available, and easy to replace.
 
Last edited:
I think this requires an important disclaimer for any Standard or Mk-series pistol: "...if you don't separate the frame from the barreled receiver.
Click to expand...

Huh?

I separate the frame from the barreled receiver every time I clean my Mark III. There's nothing to it.

It may be tight the first few times you field strip, but will loosen up.
 
I have no issues with my new Victory. I ran a bunch of CCI through it (so, no I can't say it will eat any 22 ammo) but it ran 100% with the CCI.

I ordered an Aimpoint scope and VQ barrel which of course is backordered. I like it better than the Ruger MKIII.

Obviously YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top