Why Won't you Spend More $$$ on a .22 LR?

P

predecessor

New member
It's not uncommon to find a body looking for a .22 LR handgun. For instance, when looking for a combat style plinker, the Walther P-22 or Sig Mosquito are often the subject of interest.

Then the question gets asked: "So how's the quality on these guns? I've heard some bad things from other owners..."

To that I answer: "The quality is equal to their price tag. You roll the dice and sometimes you'll get one that works great and sometimes, you'll get a lemon. They will more often then not be ammo finicky when it comes to bulk ammunition but should run nicely on mid-grade or better."

Then the seeker says, "well, I want an excellent quality pistol that can feed everything." Alrighty then, 'can't say as I blame ya. Try the CZ Kadet or Beretta 87 then. And when they hear the price they practically choke on it and defiantly exclaim, "What, are you kidding? I'm not going to spend that much on a .22!"

I've never understood this sentiment. If I want a high quality firearm, I'm willing to spend the money on one. It takes the same parts and manufacturing to make a high quality .22 LR as it does to make a high quality .45 ACP.

If you are one who won't spend more than $350 on a .22, help me understand why?

But if you don't mind spending $$$ on a high quality .22, show us the product of your riches!
 
22LR

S&W 17 and I'd really like to get the S&W 41 (I think) for a 22LR auto. I'm getting leery about shooting my old 107 SuperMatic Citation. I wish I could find a Hammerli or similar type target 22LR auto.
But last year I spent $600 at the CMP for a Kimber so I'm not adverse to spending for quality
 
I'm not adverse to paying good money for a good firearm. In fact the only one I have that I didn't spend 'a lot' of money on was my P-22. Here's why:

1) At the time I had a revolver designed in 1862, and a pistol and rifle both made in 1944. I wanted something modern. The P-22 fit that bill

2) Related to the wanting something modern, I wanted a pistol that had some features that may become very common on firearms in the future, and I wanted to become familiar with those features. The P-22 fit that bill

3) I was seriously considering a P99 purchase at the time. The P-22 is similar in controls in many ways, so it fit the bill

4) Being a relatively small handgun with a short barrel and short sight distance, it's not easy to shoot well. I wanted something that could help me by exaggerating my shooting errors. The P-22 fit that bill

5) I didn't have a lot of money, so I was looking at used pistols. I got a good deal on the P-22, used, and I had several to inspect and choose from. It was used but showed very little wear. For the 325 I paid, I was willing to take a chance on getting a poor pistol. That 325 covered a P-22 with both barrels, factory box, factory test case, all tools, manual, and warranty card

6) The P-22 looks friendly. It's not a psychologically 'difficult' pistol to hold and shoot, like a large frame revolver or a .45 might be, because of their reputations. I think this has made it easier to introduce a couple people to pistol shooting- the P-22 looks like no big deal to handle

7) Related to number six, DA/SA is nice to show people new to shooting. The P-22 fit that bill

On all seven points, my P-22 has accomplished the goals I had in mind (plus the added bonus that it's a fun pistol to shoot), and mine has done it reliably- less than two dozen total malfunctions in over 10K rounds on a used 22 auto-loader is pretty good in my opinion, especially with the P-22's rep. I still am not sure why somebody unloaded my P-22. It's been an all-star.

Anyway, those are the reasons I didn't buy a high quality 22 pistol. I'd love a Ruger MKIII with fluted barrel and fiber optic sights in stainless steel, though :D
 
I think for most people it is the fact that they are not buying the gun for serious competition, or self defense. It is hard for some to justify the cost of say a S&W 617 at $750 to $800 over a Taurus Tracker Rimfire for 1/2 that price. The fact that the Smith is of unquestionable superior quality, and built to be handed down from generation to generation is not as important as just having a "plinker" that gets shot a couple times a year.
Why do people buy 10 year old used cars to get arouind in while others have new Cadillacs or a Mercedes.
As my username implies, I am sometimes of that opinion. I have a mixture of top brand S&W, Ruger, Colt, etc firearms, and P22's, Heritage Rough Riders, and many "cheap" C&R Millsurps.
I enjoy shooting them all, and have had minimal trouble with my "cheapshooters".
 
I understand your question completely. In fact, I find myself (sometimes) trying to justify a high 22lr price. This is coming from someone who owns a hammerli and am currently on the market for a GOOD 22lr rifle!

I have come up with 2 schools of thought. One, I think that the 22 is largely looked at as being very much entry level. Entry level shooting should have entry level prices? Maybe. However, I do not view it as entry level myself. Sure, some may start with a 22 (and rightfully so), but the 22 goes beyond entry level. I have been shooting for many years, and I still love my 22's.

Second, as far as pistols are concerned, the vast majority of the 22 caliber versions are in fact cheaper than the centerfire versions. Even the rifles. Look at a rifle that can be chambered for 22 and another one of the same model in 30-06. All else being the same, the 22 is cheaper.

Now, since there are so many 22 out there for cheap prices, I can see how a big dollar 22 will throw some people off. I am willing to bet that the expensive ones are being sold to those who shoot alot and appreciate the quality differences. Most new shooters or shooters that dont practice much probably only care about it going bang when you pull the trigger and not much more.

-George
 
I can perfectly understand not wanting to spend a lot of money on a .22. More in the vein of thinking that the handguns I do spend good money on serve multiple purposes. Besides plinking or target practice, the most important among them being the attempt to halt crime and/or save mine or other's lives. A 22 really doesn't fit that bill. So it's limited in it's duties.

I'm NOT saying you can't use a .22. It's better than your fists. But when it comes to relying on something to stop a threat, I wouldn't rely on a .22.

So I don't own a .22 pistol yet. As there are still other handguns out there that I want, and they fit the bill of ones I could carry and/or use to defend my house much better. I would one day like to own a .22 revolver, preferably mid-frame (6" barrel or something). But if the price tag on it is kind of ridiculous, I can't justify it. This is just something for me to kill some time as well as some paper, pop bottles, etc. I want something that's both cheap to shoot (.22 ammo) as well as buy.
 
I think most simply see the .22lr as a novice cartridge. Notice now most all newcomers to the sport "need" a 9mm or .45? I think it's mostly out of the "coolness" factor or simply not wanting to give up whatever man-points they think they'll lose by getting one to start out on. Same folks will then go and spend $1000+ on the big .223 though (AR) :rolleyes:
Some may not have the funds to afford the higher priced stuff and that's fine. Just sad that many discount the .22lr though.
 
I would but out here in Mass we can only buy certain semi-autos. As far as the .22 semi autos were limited to the rugers, browning buckmarks, smith wesson 22a, sig mosquito, and walther p22. Literally thats it.
 
A 22 pistol (for me) serves no purpose except punching holes in paper.... ok, frogs too.

I won't pay big money for that purpose.

My other guns all have a purpose that "matters". Therefor, they are worth more money.
 
Peetza kinda summed it up. If you have an important need for a 22lr handgun or you are someone who likes quality then spending big bucks on a firearm that will be little more than a hole puncher is justifiable. If you don't you say "What, are you kidding? I'm not going to spend that much on a .22!" LOL.

Personally I love quality 22 pistols. I own a pair of S&W 41's as well as others.
 
I don't own any "cheap" .22 pistols, although I do own a few less expensive rifles.

My .22 pistol is a series 1 Colt Woodsman from 1941, and it still runs flawlessly and shoots accurately.

IMO, one of the best semi-auto .22 pistols ever made.

For me, it's far from useless. I hunt small game with it, and use it for various varmint control in addition to inexpensive plinking and target practice.

Lots of uses for handguns other than SD. Most of mine are used for hunting, while only a couple are really well designed for SD.

Daryl
 
Last edited:
Wow, I'm thinking most of you would have your heart skip a beat were you to see what the GOOD ones cost. Benelli, Toz, Hammerlli, Pardini, the upper end Walthers. (think four digit price tag)
 
Wow, I'm thinking most of you would have your heart skip a beat were you to see what the GOOD ones cost. Benelli, Toz, Hammerlli, Pardini, the upper end Walthers. (think four digit price tag)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. Have you priced something as simple as a S&W 317?

Daryl
 
I don't spend more money for a quality .22 because I don't have to.

A little less than a year ago my father bought a Browning Buckmark Camper model. It has a stainless barrel, adjustable sights with a fiber optic front, and a set of rubber finger grove grips. If I remember correctly it cost just a tick under $300. This little gun is super accurate, well made, and hasn't hiccuped yet even with the cheap and dirty bulk packs of .22lr we feed it.

As Peetzakilla said, .22's are for punching paper on the cheap, or for training people new to guns how to shoot. As such, they shouldn't cost you an arm and a leg. Both the Browning Buckmark and the Ruger Mark series are wonderful semi-autos. They are all I would ever need or want, and the fact that they are inexpensive is a huge bonus.
 
I own two Ruger MKIIs; one blue, one stainless.
Both shoot very well...better yet, they digest the Federal 550 Bulk Packs sold at Wal-Mart.

ETA: oops, almost forgot the S&W M-18, made in 1972. :)
 
Last edited:
Like all of our guns it depends on what we WANT not what we think we need. Have had 40's Colt Woodsman, then SW 70's model 41's (one scoped one not) then 2 CZ Kadet kits (also one scoped one not). Yes I could have gotten by a LOT cheaper but didn't have to and didn't want to. Same with Kimber 45's, Volquartsen 17HMR etc

It's a fact you can't take it with you so, Get what you want and Let the kids sell em when you die :D

Larry

You do have to grow old you do NOT have to grow up!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top