thoughts on a long-term, high-round count .22 pistol?

M

Metric

New member
It seems like I'm perpetually in a state of annoyance about the market in new .22 pistols. The entire market for high-quality, compact(ish), SA .22's seems to have been displaced by Umarex and similar not-too-serious pistols that are basically designed to look cool. But that's my very old gripe -- I've figured out how to get what I want in that category.

What I'm looking for right now is a .22 that is likely to function for a century, over hundreds of thousands of rounds, without shooting horribly loose or rusting in sub-optimal conditions (basically imagine a lot of years tent-camping in damp conditions). I need a reasonably good SA trigger (or at least be able to make it so), solid reliability, and I want to stay away from unnecessary bulk (e.g. no excessive bull barrels). Sub 5" barrels only.

Now, I've been waiting a while for Ruger to release a MK IV that fits the bill. They refuse to. Nothing at SHOT this year, that I'm aware of. The "standard" is in blued finish only, and the frame is aluminum alloy. Al frames are fine for some purposes, but not for what I have in mind.

Right now I'm thinking of an older, used MK II or possibly a S&W Victory -- any opinions on those two for my use concept? Anything else on the market I could be overlooking? I already have a Buckmark and while it does alright for many tasks, it has a combination of bulky dimensions and alloy frame that make me want something else, specifically for the long-term. Any ideas?
 
Haha, the alloy frame is never going to rust in your century-long tent camping escapade and a rimfire doesn't really NEED the durability of a steel frame.

The long-discontinued Smith & Wesson 2206 may fit the bill, especially the 4-inch version, but the all stainless make-up is going to be heavier than you'll expect.

The new S&W Victory? No. It's of typical new production quality. Expect to do all of the QC yourself, S&W doesn't do that job until you ship it back to them, maybe more than once.
 
I have a lot of rimfire handguns, ranging in prices from $125 to $6,500. In my personal experience a Ruger MkII can easily go 100k rounds without any problems. I have a S&W 22A that I paid $125 plus tax for and it is my cheapest handgun by far but my sons learnt shooting with it and we fired over 110,000 rounds through it. It went through several firing pins and small parts, at 65,000 rounds the frame broke but S&W took care of all problems with their fantastic warranty.

When you buy .22 l.r. s high velocity 325 bulk pack it costs you about $18, let's call it $20 with shipping or tax.

For 110,000 rounds you'd pay $6,769. Would it really make such a big difference if you'd replace the gun then?
 
I think the cost breakdown of shooting 100,000 rds of 22LR and the comments about the durability of aluminum for shooting 22LR are spot on.
 
Gentlemen,

Thank you for the comments about the Victory and MK II -- that is quite helpful.

On the issue of .22's not needing durable construction, I understand it is quite possible to wear .22 pistols well beyond the point of desirability, because I've seen these things in used gun racks, and one will encounter numerous stories of metal fatigue and parts breakage at high round counts.

Let's say this happens to a typical pistol after 30 years of reasonably heavy use. That means one can expect more minor signs of this process accumulating after far fewer than 30 years of reasonably heavy use.

The issue is not extracting maximum dollar value -- the issue is simply that I am obsessive about wear, and would really like a pistol that reduces this source of anxiety to the lowest possible level, over multiple decades of shooting and reasonably hard use. My understanding is that a Ruger MKII (in stainless) is probably a top choice in this regard.

I'm not trashing aluminum, by the way. Some of my favorites have an aluminum frame. But I don't feel quite as warm and fuzzy as I could be, when I put a couple bricks through them in a weekend. I'd like to have a specific pistol for that purpose.
 
Metric,

the Ruger MkII is a very solid, time proven platform. The stainless models are easy to maintain and those guns will maintain accuracy.

I want to add, that the tired old S&W 22A still can get all rounds into the black at 25 yards offhand when my sons take it to the range - which I find impressive but I also want to add that a stainless bull barreled MkII is preferred by them now, mostly because of the better sights.
 
22

Do you have a specific budget?

I have been competng for 20+ years with a Ruger MK I with Volquartsen upper.

Deadly accurate and have yet to experience FTF or FTE.

If looking for high end check Volquartsen's website.
 
I have been competng for 20+ years with a Ruger MK I with Volquartsen upper.

Deadly accurate and have yet to experience FTF or FTE.
Click to expand...
I let a lot of claims slide, but really? Twenty years firing rimfire without a FTF? Unless a low round count negating the twenty year, then I can't believe.

My MKII is the best of mine that fits OP description. Stainless and it is a good corrosion resistant stainless. Not all are that resistant.
 
The issue is not extracting maximum dollar value -- the issue is simply that I am obsessive about wear, and would really like a pistol that reduces this source of anxiety to the lowest possible level, over multiple decades of shooting and reasonably hard use. My understanding is that a Ruger MKII (in stainless) is probably a top choice in this regard.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would have anxiety about wear on a 22LR. As pointed out, by the time you wear one out you'll have spent over ten times its original cost in ammo (likely closer to twenty times). As far as wear in general, if you shoot the thing you'll get wear. Even if the frame is steel you'll still have wear on internal parts that may eventually need to be replaced. I'll take a guess that the internal parts on those aluminum framed pistols are steel too.
 
Last edited:
Ruger made the MkIII in a Standard Model Stainless. Not sure it was ever on the
website, may have been a distributor gun only. Catalog number was 10116. There
is a group of 22's that just say "trail gun". High Standard Sport King and Duramatic,
Colt Woodsman, Buckmark and Ruger Standard model. Personally I like old iron. I've
got a small pile of newer Rugers, but if I take a walk in the woods it's one of these. Note
that the newest of the bunch is 60 yrs old, and the oldest is 106. None of them has broken yet.

1912 S&W Third model single shot
1941 High Standard Model B
1947 S&W K-22 Masterpiece
1948 High Standard HD Military
1952 High Standard Sport King
1958 S&W Model 34 kit gun
 
I have a Walther PP made by Manurin that I bought used in about 1994 and have used it for what you describe. They are available from Simpson LTD for from $650 to over $1000. Mine has the best single action trigger I have ever shot.
 
The round count doesn't matter with a .22. The barrels will last until long after we're all pushing daisies. Most .22 ammo uses lead bullets. Lead will never wear a bore. Had 20 No.7 Lee-Enfields on my MIU 35 plus years ago, made in the late 40's that would drive tacks all day with low end ammo. Cleaned 'em once a year.
Don't like any of the Rugers myself, but nobody can argue with their longevity. There are hordes of .22 pistols that fit your idea though. Pick one.
 
I can kind of understand where the op is coming from. I own 3 pistols in .22 rf, a S&W model 18, a Colt Officers Model Target and a High Standard HD Military.

Have no idea what's out there now but I doubt most will hold up with lots of use. For what you want you'll have to start looking at something used.
 
TunnelRat said:
I don't know why you would have anxiety about wear on a 22LR. As pointed out, by the time you wear one out you'll have spent over ten times its original cost in ammo. As far as wear in general, if you shoot the thing you'll get wear. Even if the frame is steel you'll still have wear on internal parts that may eventually need to be replaced. I'll take a guess that the internal parts on those aluminum framed pistols are steel too.
Click to expand...

As pointed out, it's not the money. Given a hypothetical choice of a $50 handgun that I have to replace after every $500 of ammo fired, I will pass.

It's not that I get bothered on the day a gun falls apart -- it's the knowledge of the approximate length of time before that happens.

It's not going to be an issue for some people. I suppose that's why Umarex is making so much money. But it is an issue for me, personally.
 
The round count doesn't matter with a .22. The barrels will last until long after we're all pushing daisies.
Click to expand...

I fully understand that the barrel is not the limiting factor in .22 or essentially any handgun. It's very possible to find .22's that have been shot to death, but the bore is completely fine.
 
The S&W Victory is a nice pistol. All stainless, but I wouldn't really consider it compact. I wouldn't call it any less reliable than the other mainstream offerings. Can't speak for it's longevity. It hasn't been around that long. Seems sturdy though.
 
When you are talking about all the Umerax clones and similar (Ruger SR22, M&P22, Victory etc. etc. ) I totally get where you are coming from. None of them feel particularly well made/durable. I know the Victory is more on par with the below but it doesn’t inspire confindence in me. YMMV.

But when you are talking about Ruger Mark pistols, 22/45, buck marks, GP100/SP101/Smith617 and others both still made or old school then .22 wear and tear is basically nothing to these pistols. They will shoot gazillions of rounds and be passed on.

That being said all of them will wear. Honestly you want them to wear, as they wear they get better triggers, slicker actions etc.

Again I go back to if you want a currently produced .22 pistol that is likely as durable long term as a length of railroad track I would go......

Ruger Mark IV.....or III......or II or I. But the IV is current production
Ruger 22/45 if you want polymer
Browning Buckmark
Ruger GP100 or Smith 617 if you want a revolver
Ruger Single Six if you want a cowboy gun.

The Ruger Marks and Browning BuckMarks come in a bewildering array of trims so there should be a setup that works for you.

Any of those should last basically forever with a modicum of care.
 
Every firearm will need parts replacement eventually. Given that’s the case and I have yet to hear of someone wearing out an aluminum frame on a 22LR pistol I still believe your concerns are moot, as has been pointed by others too. The only way to never wear out a pistol is to never shoot it, which then defeats the point.

If it bothers you that much then buy a Ruger Mk series pistol to ease your concern. But I stand by the notion that it’s unnecessary and a construct of your own beliefs more than reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top