Wow! Anybody looking for a .22 auto?

For once (actually twice, I have a Walther P22 as well), Im not one of the ones who has had troubles with mine.

Ive had both since they first came out, and were "new", and have never had any issues with them that isnt normal with other .22's. Other than the initial couple of hundred rounds, which I used Stingers and Mini Mags, most of what I shoot out of them is Winchester Super X, and simply because its what Ive had a lot of on hand.

I still have both, and shoot them a couple of times a year.

About the only thing I could complain about with the Mosquito is, the DA trigger is "different", especially compared to the full size SIG's, and takes some getting used to.
 
A quality .22 LR will cost more than 90% of the center fire pistols out there. If you go cheap you will be reminded anytime you shoot against good 22s. I do acknowledge that the Ruger MK series is a sort of exception to the rule as they provide a solid foundation for a good pistol for a low price. YMMV
 
A quality .22 LR will cost more than 90% of the center fire pistols out there. If you go cheap you will be reminded anytime you shoot against good 22s. I do acknowledge that the Ruger MK series is a sort of exception to the rule as they provide a solid foundation for a good pistol for a low price. YMMV
So the Buckmark is more expensive than most centerfires, or poor quality?:confused:

This was once a very common type of relatively inexpensive pistol - Woodsmen, Cadet, High Standard, Neos, Extractor, 422, Nomad, etc. Many of those guns would perform right along with Beretta 87 Targets, Hammerlis, S&W 41, etc. So I really don't follow the distinction you're making.
 
The Buckmark is fine but it is no Browning Medalist. If you want something to just plink with, you can go cheaper. If you want a performance level .22, that costs more......

PistolsinRack.jpg
 
RX, I think we can read the implication as the Mosquito is not a quality handgun.

My experience with the Mosquito supports the notion it is not a quality gun.

As for the disappearance of affordable rimfire handguns, let's gander at some old advertisements...

In 1952 a New Ruger Mark I cost $57.50. Adjusted for inflation today that's $517.16.

In 1955, a Colt Sport Model (entry level Woodsman), was $69.40 and their .22 Officer Model Match revolver was $79.75. Adjusted for inflation that is $617.20 and $709.27.

In 1968 a Browning Nomad was $64.50. Today, adjusted for inflation, that's $441.76

To find a vintage ad of a .22 handgun of the quality level of the Mosquito, we need look no further than the Rohm RG-10. It cost $12.95 in 1960. In today's dollars that's $104.28.

If we take the same purchasing power over to Buda's instant on line gun warehouse and peruse their ads there appears to be quite an assortment of choices from makers like S&W, Browning, Ruger, etc...

The conclusions we can draw are 1. The Mosquito is overpriced. 2 The affordable 'quality' rimfire handguns continue to be a great value.

:rolleyes:
 
In 1952 a New Ruger Mark I cost $57.50. Adjusted for inflation today that's $517.16

Actually the "Standard" model was $37.50 and stayed there until into the 60s, after which it went up to $42.50.

The Mk I model was a low-end "target" gun.
 
SIG obviously eyeballed the supposed success of the flap caused by the introduction of other big name pot metal Zamak guns, and decided to get on the bandwagon of low production costs and big reliance on their "name" to make the big bucks.

Only it backfired.

And hopefully, the current trend of pot metal guns will fade into history as more people learn the hard way that die cast Zamak guns do not stand up to a lot of use in light of the facts that Zamak corrodes, both externally and internally, cracks and wears out quickly.
 
How much is a "lot of use" and how "quickly" is quickly?

Ive had my P22 and Mosquito for about 10 years now, and while wouldnt say they have had a lot of use, they have had a good bit of use, roughly two cases between them in that time, and they havent broken or worn out as of yet, and seem to still function fine.
 
Thanks DA/SA Fan: expect I will clear $200 profit

Thanks DA/SA Fan for the heads up on this.

When I first went to the site, I though $225 with $5.99 shipping was bogus, or a mistake, even as it let me fill the shopping cart &etc.

I bought two, and expect I will clear $200 profit even after the transfer fees, reselling NIB. (!)

Got the confirmation on the sales!
 
You can get an SR22 for about the same price that'll reliably shoot just everything from standard velocity CCI to thunderbolts.
 
How much is a "lot of use...?"

No exact figure, but substantially less than a comparable steel gun, or even an aluminum one. Zamak items are made for one reason: They can be cast cheaply and give a reasonable service life to such things as window cranks, power tool and fan frames, etc.

"...and how "quickly" is quickly?"

Again, it depends; If you have impurities in the castings, pretty quickly. Likewise, if constant battering causes work hardening of, for example, your slide, it's also gonna crack pretty quickly.

Bottom line: Manufacturers are using Zamak because it is cheap and quick to work with. They make the big bucks (as I stated), and you get something to play with for a while, but it is still a matter of when, not if, something "bad" is gonna happen to it. I've seen it more than once in my career, including a Zamak gun that was so badly corroded, it literally crumbled to pieces when the barrel was tapped on a carpeted sales counter in the shop where I did my repair work. If the poor old woman who owned that gun had fired it, it would have been a hand grenade. Another pot metal special came in the shop that was corroded shut with a live round in the chamber. Like a monumental dumbass, another one of the gunsmiths tried to fire it to dislodge the slide, and succeeded in having it come apart like a grenade and ended up with fragments of zinc in his hand. Luckily, no one else was hurt in the incident.

Another pot metal scam has been perpetrated for years by Marlin. The feed ramp on the Marlin/Glenfield Model 60s is Zamak and would wear out in short order. They were easy to fix, but the catch was that Marlin was constantly making "engineering" changes, so you had to buy a new bolt assembly to go with the "upgraded" Zamak feed block.

To you and anyone else who wants to buy a cheap toy to play with, go ahead, but don't delude yourself into thinking that your gun is going to last a lifetime. If you're lucky, it will wear out much more quickly and become unusable and economically unfeasible to fix without doing any harm to you, as opposed to a comparable steel/aluminum (and now, much to my disgust, plastic) gun.

What floors me about the current craze for Zamak guns is that even steel firearms have "blown up." Guns are, by design, machines that employ principles that operate on the edge of physics and metallurgy. Why would anyone want a gun made out an inferior metal?

All the above are just my opinion of Zamak guns, and my mind has yet to be changed about them based on what I have seen in the past.

As always: YMMV
 
DonR wrote:

Thanks DA/SA Fan for the heads up on this.

When I first went to the site, I though $225 with $5.99 shipping was bogus, or a mistake, even as it let me fill the shopping cart &etc.

I bought two, and expect I will clear $200 profit even after the transfer fees, reselling NIB. (!)

Got the confirmation on the sales!
12e5d4d6-f28c-4d62-8859-db181f64fa55_zpsf53950b8.jpg
 
Back
Top