Which automatic .22 do you like best?

I have all of those and a couple of others. For hunting I grab my Dan Wesson, for target it's usually a High Standard Trophy, but any on you list would work well as an all around gun. Personally I'd go with my 22/45 but you need to hold each and find what fits you best. My wife loves her Neos, I can't stand it. She hates my 22A and I take it to almost every range trip.
 
Ruger MKII with a bull barrel. You can't loose
Click to expand...

I can easily agree with this as mine with the 5.5" barrel is really very accurate ( or should I say I shoot it best of all? including my S&W 17). I imagine if it had a good trigger job, it would make me sell the 17-3
 
i've had all on your list and then some. i currently own two ruger 22/45 lite's. one for me, and one for the wife.
 
It's really hard to beat the SR22..it always works & is very accurate.I'd tell y'all about the tiny groups I get with old Chinese target ammo,but you'd think I was BSin'.

I totally luv this gun. :cool:

4k6v68.jpg
 
I own a Ruger MkIII and a Browning Buckmark.

The Buckmark came with a 5.5" barrel.

The Ruger is a Hunter model with a 7" (about) barrel.

I feel like I can shoot the Ruger almost as accurately as I can shoot a rifle with open sights. I don't feel as confident with the 5.5" Buckmark. It's not so much a matter of the gun, but rather that the extra 1.5" of sight radius on the hunter seems to make aiming much easier for me, so if I were to pick a gun specifically for small game, I'd go for a long barrel. Otherwise, mounting some type of optical sight eliminates the sighting plane issue.
 
Any of the Rugers listed (Mk. I-III) are fine for what you're looking to do with it.

I wouldn't do with the SR22, P22, or Mosquito unless you were really into some type of "tactical" trainer. The Ruger's are just so much more rock solid and accurate.
 
...it always works ...
Click to expand...

the next .22rf that "always works" will be the first .22rf that always works, in history.

"always worked for me"...yep, no problem, I buy that. "always works"? nope.

.22LR ammo ranges from the best made to cheap crap, and 5 decades experience with more than a few different guns taught me that semi auto .22s can be total omnivores, or very picky eaters without apparent cause or identifiable reason. And, its not just this model generally works and that one doesn't, it can be the individual guns, as well. #12345 works great, #12346 jams a lot..etc.

"mine has never jammed!" is a bold statement. If you add the word "yet" at the end, it could be a true statement. ;)
 
You would have to get lucky to find one, but a good used S&W 2206 is a sweet handling pistol. I've got one with the four inch barrel, and always looking for a six. The 2206 is almost as accurate as my sixties model 41, but not as picky. The only downside is your index finger will get dirty next to your knuckle if you have big hands (barrel is below the recoil spring).
 
Find a five inch, bull barrel Mark II Target model, and call it a day. If you want, throw in some Volquartsen parts (trigger, sear) and you will be amazed.
 
I love my Ruger MKII target model. Shoots like a champ, easy to handle. Recoil is simply not a word that applies to it. I usually shoot the same group as my Glock 19... and 4X the distance. I'm serious too, what I can do with a G19 at 10 yards I can replicate with the Ruger at 40.

I did a review of my Mark II about a year after getting it (which was a few years ago). You may find it helpful; i was really coming at it then from complete inexperience.

7368242_f1024.jpg


IMG_3166.jpg


7368482_f520.jpg
 
If you up your budget another 150, you can buy an EAA witness for 300 shipped, and then drop in a 200 conversion kit and have 2 pistols.
 
If you want a .22 handgun to hunt with why not a revolver, a single six is a better holster gun than any auto. You can even shoot shorts or shot loads in the revolver.
 
Find a five inch, bull barrel Mark II Target model, and call it a day. If you want, throw in some Volquartsen parts (trigger, sear) and you will be amazed.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more! Though I have yet to add anything more than simple grips, even after nearly 30 years.

100_0490.jpg
 
S&W 22 was too fat for my medium-smallish hands.

No Neos experience.

Ruger MKII vs 22/45: a toss up. I like the grip angle of the 22/45 better, but they are about equally reliable. Whichever fits your hand better and points more accurately is what I would get.

BUCKMARKs are underrated!

Trigger out of box on Buckmark puts the Rugers to shame. I had to throw in a Volquartsen Sear and a Clark hammer bushing to get the Ruger as smooth as the Buckmark was out of the box.

I have a buckmark with a spring modification and a Browning adjustable trigger [$35 in parts] and it is decidedly crisper, lighter and smoother than any of my Rugers. HOWEVER, it now requires so little trigger motion that I wouldn't holster-carry it. This is now one for the shooting range only, and people more experienced with firearms.

For field use, don't change the trigger on the Browning Buckmark Camper, just change out the spring, and you will have a gun that is on a par with the Rugers accuracy and reliability, but with a better trigger. Plus, the basic cleaning is simpler, as it has a slide that locks back and allows a nylon brush across the face of the chamber and bolt, with gasses and debris escaping on both sides, instead of the single opening on the Ruger. Also, the trigger bar that activates the sear runs outside the frame [like High Standards, Walther P-38, Beretta 92, and (I think) colt woodsman]. This means the Buckmarks trigger doesn't 'gunk up' like my Rugers do.

I am NOT saying that the Buckmark is a completely superior pistol to the Ruger. I like the Ruger enough that I have more of them than Buckmarks. However, The buckmark has some great characteristics that deserve your attention.

I wouldn't turn my nose up at another Buckmark [or Ruger MK II].

MK III basically is a MK II with takedown complications and potential jamming points due to LCI and mag disconnect [the last two of which can be bypassed].

Stick to bull-barrels.

Good luck!
 
I'll throw in a vote for the Ruger "Mark x" series. Mine is so old that it predates the "Mark" nomenclature. I think it was called the Ruger "Standard", but don't hold me to that. When I do my part, it groups well. I bought it used around 40 to 45 years ago, and it still does the job.
 
I'll throw in a vote for the Ruger "Mark x" series. Mine is so old that it predates the "Mark" nomenclature. I think it was called the Ruger "Standard", but don't hold me to that. When I do my part, it groups well. I bought it used around 40 to 45 years ago, and it still does the job.
Click to expand...
It was. Actual designation was RST-4 and RST-6, for Ruger Standard 4 and 6 inch barrel. I liked my RST-6, which was my first pistol ever, so much that I bought the Mark II (KMK-512) many years later. The Marks were the target models, (adjustable sights) of the standards.
 
Sold Beretta Bobcat years ago. Wanted another .22 plinker later for a replacement. LGS had a cheap little Phoenix .22. Bought one of the long barreled target versions because Beretta did not offer the Bobcat with a long barrel. (A shame,BTW)

I have no complaints. It was my only .22 plinker for like 15 years until I noticed the slide cracked during a rare cleaning. :) . It came with a lifetime warranty, so I called Phoenix. They said "No problem." Sent me a shipping label in a few days. I sent it in. A brand new one arrived in about ten days. That was last year. It runs like the first one on a toxic diet of Thunderbolts. :)

I like it. It is small, more accurate than I am, is made in the US and that company is a thorn in the side of gun grabbers. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top