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

[Nnobby45]

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?

Don't understand? Quit being silly. It's a philosophy so wide spread it's impossible to miss. So many consider cost their first priority---quality second. Whether it's SD ammo, carry gun, or with re: to other aspects of their lives.

They'll endlessly argue the point that Walmart WB JHP's work as well as the best premium SD ammo. They'll start threads asking what the best gun "for the money" is that they'll trust their lives to.

There's a fine line between being thrifty and cheap, or between being prudent and putting a price tag on one's life. It's hard for me to judge because I've never been in that position.

I've always had a good job and never had to pinch pennies or shop for deals to make ends meet. I guess it's better to get the cheap plinking gun and always be looking for deals on ammo than to use that philosophy for one's carry gun. Glocks and Rugers are about as economical as I'd get (yes there are a few others) without sacraficing reliability.

 

[Coltman 77]

Cheapshooter:

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.

I think this response gets to the heart of the matter and answers the OP's question very well.

 

[Doyle]

What makes me upset is that manufacturers can easily turn out a high quality .22 auto loading rifle that sells for less than $150. There are several brands that fit that description. However, when they go to turn out a .22 auto handgun, the price suddenly doubles.

The expense of manufacturing that .22 handgun can't be any more than the rifle. In fact, if they engineered it right, they would even use most of the same parts.

 

[L_Killkenny]

Then why doesn't this sentiment hold true for firearms of other calibers?

As stated by AZAK it does. Why would anyone buy an SKS vs. a AR (and they aren't even comparable in quality)? Savage/Stevens vs. Remington? Ruger vs. Smith? Etc Etc.

In almost any case I can find a $350 and under gun that will shoot as well for all my hunting, plinkin, mild target, HD and SD needs and be just as reliable as guns costing substantially more. Doesn't matter if it's a rifle, handgun, shotgun, centerfire, rimfire. I don't have one gun that has cost me over $350 and I can hold my own in most circles. Full bore target and competition circles being an exception which I have never tried. But I wouldn't fear em either. I'm not alone judging by the success that Ruger and Savage are having.

I'm not a fan of junk or ill conceived pot metal wonders but I refuse to pay for a name.

And it doesn't end at guns with most folks. Look at cars, motorcycles and trucks. You tell we how a Hummer H2 is $10,000 better than a Suburban? Heck it's worse. To many examples to list but you get the drift.

LK

 

[Big Shrek]

The absolute best pistol in .22lr is the Calico M110...there is simply nothing out there equal to it.
100 rounds of .22lr trumps everything else out there...not to mention the way it handles recoil.

But its price tag puts most folks off...around $700 for a regular model.

But you have to ask yourself...do you want 100 rounds per mag, or do you want something lesser???

 

[EdInk]

Yeah those are pretty cool. I've heard those "coiled" mags or whatever they use tend to jam up. (Strictly, what I've heard on the reliable Internet.) Anyone evr use one of them?

Doesn't somebody make 50rd drum mags for a couple rifles?
I would LOVE a "beta-mag" set-up for my gsg! I guess that the hi-cap 22rd mags will suffice.

 

[SigP6Carry]

I'm not willing to spend more than a couple hundred on a .22 because... well... the only thing I would use it for would be practice shooting, plinking and fun. I don't do target shooting and the only reason I own pistols (though right now my 9mm is the only viable pistol) is for home defense use. So, when (if, until I get more money, at least) I get a new .22, I'll be picking up one of the cheaper GSG, SP22s or Sig Mosquito type guns. Preferably a Ruger MKII Bull Barrel, though. If the gun were more a more important fixture in my life (such as something I'd carry day in and day out, use for sport or home defense), then I'm willing to spend more than a couple of bills on it.

Just my opinion on them, based on my life style.

 

[dsteward001]

I agree with most of what has been said concerning the purpose of a .22 justifying a smaller expenditure. Ill add one thing though. I have a couple of nice .22's on my "list". A CZ Kadet, Kimber, and Beretta 87 are definitely in my sights.

However, anytime I free up 700$ I spend it on something else on my list. It has just been easier to justify another HD gun or a smaller carry piece, or something for competition, etc... than it is to justify an expensive plinker. That doesn't mean I don't want one or wont get one or dont recognize the quality difference.

Maybe once my collection gets where I want. But so far that sickness shows no sign of being curable.

 

[BillCA]

In my view, I think it is because the .22 LR is not deemed a "powerful" round and because it's been around since before 1890, it's a well understood cartridge.

You can go purchase a Marlin .22 rifle for under $200 and have a decently made little game rifle and plinker. In fact, I think if you look at most of the .2LR rifles they are probably well over-engineered for the cartridge in terms of the amount of steel used.

It's precisely because of it's low power rating that most people think it should be cheap to produce. In some cases, they are. H&R, Mossberg and Marlin all make models priced below $180. These no-frills little rifles sort of set the expectations that the .22 LR is cheap to produce.

For handguns, the semi-autos are easier to make than revolvers. But handguns still have a lot more parts and more complexity to build. But most 22's are built on some existing frame size or chassis. I think an extra-inexpensive, mostly polymer .22 pistol could be made for under $215 MSRP and still be a decent value.

But gun companies make little profit on these "cheap" .22's. The cost to produce a .22 pistol depends on the amount and type of materials and labor intensity, not the caliber. That's why the S&W M14 (.38) and M17 (.22) are similar in price. Aside from caliber, the firing pin and counterbored chambers for the .22, they're the same gun.

I see several distinct "camps" of .22 owners/uses.
- The outdoors handy gun
- The range/target practice gun
- The woods/hunting/camp gun
- The match shooter.

The match shooter will pay big bucks for an accurate firearm to be competitive or comply with the rules. Being competitive trumps price. Hammerli, Beretta's 87 Target and others fit here.

At the other end is the outdoors handy gun. It has to work and be reasonably accurate. This is for the rancher/rural resident who needs a handy .22 to deal with varmints, pests and to have some fun. For others, it's simply something inexpensive with which to knock down tin cans. The old H&R breaktop .22's filled this niche at one time. Or their Sentinnel line.

The range/target practice gun is usually of higher quality than the handy gun. It's used to practice good shooting habits, trigger control, etc. It also serves as a good "fun gun" because it's moderately priced. The Ruger Mk-III, S&W 22A, Buckmark all fit here.

The woods/hunting/camping gun may overlap the range/target practice guns, but will typically be a little more expensive or have embellishments like longer barrels, better sights, etc. Small game hunters will pay over $350 for a very accurate .22 to take game. If one hikes in to back country, one takes a good quality firearm in the event it must be relied upon.

For me, the .22 falls into two categories. The handy gun that is a working tool outdoors. It could be for small critters, popping a large fish or just some tin can kickin'. I didn't want to spend much money so I bought a used S&W 2214 "Sportsman" pistol that replaces the typical "kit gun".

It's like owning the Model 61 Escort's bigger brother (but this one works)

The 2214 has a cast alloy frame, steel barrel liner, steel slide and is reasonably simple. It won't win any match tournaments, but it's handy should a racoon wander into camp or I need to rid an area of tree rats.

But I did spend bigger bucks on the 617. Here the desire was to have a range/target revolver that emulated the S&W K-frames I own and allow me to practice with cheap ammunition.

S&W 617 10-round .22 LR

This gun can be a tack driver, though I would have been satisifed with 3" at 25 yards. With careful work, I can halve that which makes it suitable as a game/hunting revolver. It's worth every penny I spent on it because it helps me improve my centerfire shooting at low cost.

 

[MrBorland]

+1 BillCA.

My go-to CF is an L-frame S&W 686 revolver, and I had no issues with paying essentially the same price for my "understudy" 617. It's a terrific piece and accurate to boot. It's the most-shot gun in my safe. By that criteria, it's easily the wisest gun purchase I've made, despite the cost.

OTOH, when looking for a target pistol, with very little deliberation, I bought a Ruger MkIII instead of the more expensive S&W M41. The M41 is a fine pistol, no doubt, but I don't see myself getting into formal bullseye just yet, so the M41 was a luxury I couldn't justify. Ironically, though, the Ruger doesn't get shot often enough to justify its purchase, despite the price.

In the end, then, the expensive 617 and the less-expensive MkIII was simply a matter of 2 questions: 1) Is it the right tool for the job for me? and 2) How much lead will it be sending downrange?

 

[stevieboy]

I picked up a 617 4" 6 shot revolver a few years ago for what was then top dollar. I bought it because I had developed a wicked flinch firing my 686 which I just could not seem to cure. My theory was that I could fire a gun that was essentially identical to the 686 although at a lower caliber much more cheaply and iron out the kinks in my shooting that way. My plan worked brilliantly. I eliminated my flinch and, to boot, learned how to shoot double action accurately, after shooting hundreds upon hundreds of rounds with the 617.

My 617 is still my "go to" gun any time I believe that bad habits are beginning to reemerge. If I have a bad range day with one of my larger caliber revolvers I'll always take the 617 to the range on the next trip and put a couple of hundred rounds through it, eliminating the glitches that caused me to shoot poorly. It invariably works, my shooting improves, and my followup sessions with larger caliber guns are much more successful.

So, for me, my 617 is primarily a training tool. Could I get the same benefit from something cheaper? I highly doubt it. The whole point of acquiring a 617 was to replicate as closely as possible my larger caliber Smiths.

Besides, it's a totally cool gun.

 

[LarryFlew]

Don't want to spin this off into new directions but isn't it a lot like what car do you drive and why don't more people spend more on their going to work car?

Lots of reasons for different preferences.

Lots of Hi-Points, Kel-Tecs, Taurus, Charter Arms, etc... out there. They work, they go "Bang" (most of the time, OK for a lot of them, some of the time, OK sometimes back to the factory we go...) Most of the owners of these are quite happy with them, and for the most part they do fulfill their purpose.

Brings up another question for me. Why is it those guys tolerate a certain amount of failure while those with more expensive guns do not. And, if you do tolerate any failure can you still trust your gun for SD and carry?

 

[Evyl Robot]

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

That is a really darned good question! I've always been of the mindset that I should get a 'cheap .22' for target practice. Why? Because I'd like to have the thing to save myself some money. It's kind of a twisted mentality, actually. I bought my M29 for no reason other than to have fun shooting it at inert targets. I didn't mind paying some money for it, and it is utterly a range queen. The thing will never see holster wear, it has its own little case, and it goes to the range and then goes home. But, factory ammunition costs $.70/round if I'm lucky. That means that it gets a little less range time than I'd like. Yes, I like the big boom. Yes, I like the snap of recoil. Are they necessary to have fun? No way!

My mom has a couple of old .22 lr rifles. I borrowed her Winchester 69A for quite some time. Since I started shooting it, I've referred to the Winchester as 'a man's .22'. The stock is adult-sized, the fitment of all the parts is top-notch, it has the Lyman micrometer peep sight and a heavy 26-inch barrel. It is a serious little rimfire bolt-action. I like shooting it as much as any other rifle I've spent time with. It will shoot mouse-fart shorts all the way up to the highest-velocity lr's and remains accurate to a shocking distance across the spectrum of ammunition between. Because of this rifle, I now feel that it is completely reasonable to spend $1000.00 on the right rimfire rifle to just shoot at targets with.

I would say that centerfire hand guns are simply more useful than rimfires because of the added firepower but I've already belied that excuse with the way I use my M29. Clearly a high-quality rimfire rifle is worth the money, so why not a handgun? Frankly, if I spent a grand on a really nice .22 hand gun, it would quickly pay for itself in ammo! If I had one that I really liked to shoot, I'd shoot it more and wouldn't feel like I was making a sacrifice by not shooting my 'good' guns. Pardon my French but, ***?

Alright. You've convinced me. I'm going to start saving up for a good .22. I notice that S&W doesn't offer any .22's in their Performance Center line. I wonder if one could special order something. A 6-inch 617 with a tuned action, chamfered charge holes, and a gold bead front sight would be sweet! Maybe I should look for an older model and send it to a custom shop if need be. Did they ever make such an animal with a partial lug instead of the full lug?

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

It comes down to how you measure money and where you are in life, in my opinion.

I bought my Ruger MKII in 1988 for about $180.00, I was in high school at the time and that was a large amount of money to me at the time.

I was out of the shooting scene for many years, making good money and married, and spent more than that playing golf on many an occasion. If I had been into guns, the $350.00 the OP suggests would have been no problem, if I wanted it, I would have bought it.

Fast forward a few years, I'm single and making considerably less money these days, and don't have a second wage earner in the house. I'm being back to $180.00 being a large amount of money.

So my answer is, I don't mind spending the money, I just don't have it.

 

[seeker_two]

It all depends on purpose....you'll spend more money on a .22lr with which you compete for cash and prizes than one with which you just plink cans and dirt clods....

....and you can find a LOT of excellent .22lr firearms out there for less than $350...esp. if you shop used.....

 

[aarondhgraham]

Is there a cheap DA .22 plinker?

I guess it all depends on how you define cheap,,,
I put cheap in the $100 to $200 at the most.

There aren't any "cheap" DA .22 revolvers out there,,,
Except for old used saturday night specials.

I mean how many companies make Double Action .22 revolvers anyways?,,,
S&W, Taurus, and Charter Arms are all that I can think of.

Smith & Wesson revolvers are way expensive at $750 plus for new ones,,,
Used model 34's, Model 17's, or Model 18's go for $400 to $600,,,
Taurus runs about $400 to $500 for new ones,,,
Charter's are around $450 as well.

So if you are someone who wouldn't own a Taurus or Charter Arms,,,
And we all know who you are because you tell us so,,,
You are stuck with a S&W or nothing at all.

Several other companies make Single Action .22 revolvers,,,
Anywhere from $150 to $500 or more,,,
Ruger being the most popular.

Heritage Arms makes .22 SA revolvers that start around $175,,,
Then it jumps up to $400 and more for a good Ruger,,,
Other imports are in the $250 to $400 range.

There are very darned few "cheap" .22 plinker revolvers out there,,,
That's the point I am trying to make here.

One school of thought says you might as well spend a bit more and get the highest quality,,,
Another says that if it's "just a range toy" why spend a fortune on it.

I personally have some of both,,,
I have three very fine S&W DA revolvers,,,
I also have two Taurus revolvers that are nice shooters.

And I have two semi-auto's that are what I call "inexpensive range toys",,,
Both of these pistols were well under $300 brand new,,,
A Ruger 22/45 and a Beretta NEOS.

There is a couple I see at the range quite often,,,
They are in that category that uses the cheap .22 plinker,,,
The only guns they own are a pair of $175 Plinkerton revolvers from Cimarron.

They don't compete or take shooting very serious at all,,,
They just make a picnic and terrorize tin cans,,,
And have a riotous fun time doing it.

Would they have any more fun if they were shooting $750 model 617's?,,,
I doubt it very much.

The moral of this story is,,,
There are guns for everyone out there,,,
Spend what you can or what you are comfy with.

There is no advantage to spending a ton of bucks,,,
If it doesn't fit the style of your shooting.

.

 

[kozak6]

It's pretty simple, really. I don't have the money. Other posters don't either.

There's nothing complicated or hard to understand about that.

 

[44 AMP]

I had one of those...

The absolute best pistol in .22lr is the Calico M110...there is simply nothing out there equal to it.

Yes, and no. Yes, there is nothing that equals 100rnd mag capacity. No, it is not the absolute best .22LR pistol.

And I bought mine back when they were around $200 (maybe 250, I don't remember the exact price anymore.)

The helical mag does work. Takes some practice to understand how to load it so it will work, but once you do, it does work pretty well.

However, the pistol has crude sights, a heavy stiff trigger pull, awkward balance (makes it difficult to use the sights), and I found out that its nearly impossible not to shoot it empty each time you load it!

As a blaster, shooting from the hip, its a lot of fun. If you want to hit a small target with a single round, its real tough. NOT the best .22 pistol, not by a long shot. Lot of fun, for a while, but of very limited utility. You actually get tired, and get finger cramps when shooting it. Now, maybe the new ones fixed the horrid trigger, but the one I had took three men and a boy to pull the trigger. Worse than a Browning High Power!

As for paying $700 for a new one? NO. Freakin'. WAY!
Even with today's nearly worthless dollars, they aren't worth that. The artificially hyper inflated market for anything with a large magazine capacity is the only reason anyone other than a complete idiot would pay anything even remotely close to that much. Thank you Mr Clinton! Even though the 94 AWB sunset nationally the price on autoloaders of nearly all types stayed ridiculously high for so long, we just came to accept it as normal. It turned $450 AR-15s into $900 AR-15s as well. And then this latest scare about what our current POTUS administration would (and still might) do.

Not only did the price jack up yet again, demand was so high you couldn't get one if you wanted to. And nearly as bad with ammo! Things are just now starting to come back to sanity, and we are still a long way from where they ought to be, pricewise, and likely never will be again.

Guys & gals just getting into shooting now think that what they ask for many guns today is actually what they are worth, and that, sadly isn't so, much of the time. Its the shooting version of the "bubble" ecomony.

There's lots of guns I'd pay $700 for, in a heartbeat. But they aren't .22LR, and they certainly aren't a Calico. Don't get me wrong, I support the free market, and as long as they can get that much, more power to them. I actually like the guns, as plinkers (I had the 9mm also), I just don't see them as worth that much.

Of course, if you can afford to drop $100+ on a dinner (not a night out, just food) then to you, they probably don't seem very expensive.

Same thing with other high dollar .22s. Most of the .22 buying public are not extremely well off. Those that are, don't make up a big share of the market. And gun fanciers focused on .22s are mostly still after "best for price guns". They may have a S&W 41, but they also often have several less expensive .22s as well.

 

[Ralph Allen]

The most expensive 22lr pistol I have purchased is a Ruger MK III stainless with a Tactical Solutions 10in upper reciever. Just shy of a $600 dollar bill about 5 years ago. Nice gun. Shoots VERY well.
Ralph

 

[Ichiro]

I don't like shooting .22LR, so $350 is too much.

If I liked shooting .22LR, $800 wouldn't be too much because the ammo is cheap.