.22 autos have changed...should I?

[sipowicz]

Seems like everyone makes a scaled down copy of a more tactical model like the 1911. Smith now makes a .22 version of their M&P. I'm tempted by the design but I still lean more towards the classic type like the new Smith Victory. Your thoughts? Is the Victory more reliable? More accurate? A better buy?

 

[Drm50]

I had a Victory , used mint a month ago, I didn't like it, to
clubby. I was lucky and broke even on the deal. I also just
recently was lucky enough to off a 22a , which I have been trying
to off for a year. The one I kept was a 422. I don't look at 22a
& Victor as traditional. I think S&W sold market a mid price
traditional 22, that doesn't look like something off Star Trek. They
can expand MP-22 models to cover plinker niche. I have been
looking for perfect carry 22 for years. Not for CCW, but every day
carry while going about my business in rural Ohio. Have tried them all and ended up back with a 34. I got the 422 to carry
while fishing, not a bad little pistol, and better than any of the
Mini 1911s I have tried. Most of these type guns are range toys.

 

[Rpg]

Find a Colt Woodsman. A shooter grade pistol can be found quite reasonably.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Do WANT a .22lr pistol pistol that is similar to a particliar centerfire pistol on purpose ? Either as a training understudy, or just because ? If so great. If not , compare them in an equal basis with frestanding designs.

Some .22lr clones are sufficently reliable and accurate to serve as a general purpose .22 pistol ( fwiw, my general purpose .22lr autoloader is a 1911 style).

 

[steamloco76]

I've owned and sold or traded in a wide variety of .22 LR pistols over the past decade including S&W 422, Sig 522, GSG 1911 22, Ruger SR 22, Kimber 1911 22 Conversion, Browning Buckmark and Several Ruger Mark II and IIIs. The only ones still in my collection are the Mark II and IIIs. They reliably fire just about any ammo with good to excellent accuracy. I do miss the GSG 1911, should have kept that one as it made a decent trainer.

 

[bm51]

Had an opportunity to shot the new Victory a few weeks ago. I have a Buckmark and think it is a good .22. This victory impressed me so much i bought one yesterday at a local gun show. Nice sights, good trigger. It is a bit on the heavy side buy not terribly so.

 

[alwslate]

I'm not familar with the S&W Victory but as to it being "classic"?, I
don't know but.... I have owned a lot of 22 LR handguns over the
years and still have many, too many probably. Even so I have bought
three more on GB in the last two years. A very nice Colt Challenger
from 1951 and two very nice Ruger Single Sixes from 1959. I consider
these to be classic. If you want classic there are many out there to
choose from.

 

[BB57]

I'm not sure I'd call the new Victory a "classic either, but it looks less like the current crop of polymer pistols than average.

My impression is that the market they are appealing to are the shooters who like guns like the Ruger 10/22 and want a pistol that is more or less a Lego set for men, with plenty of easily interchangeable third party accessories, barrels, etc.

In that regard, it might be a step above the Ruger Mk III,or .22/45, but for $400 you've got a lot of other options.

----

If you want a small pistol the Israeli surplus Beretta Model 71s are really hard to beat at the moment - and they'll dry up fast - at prices around $300 for a very well made and very reliable .22 LR that are usually found in very good to excellent condition with more storage wear than actual use.

The recently discontinued Umarex/Walther PPK/S .22LR offended a lot of people with it's Zamak frame and slide, but I found that mine shot as well as my Walther made British service L66A1 PP in .22 LR, with the advantage of affordable magazines with true 1 shot capacity (as opposed to 8 for the PP). They are great buys at the moment in the $300 range and they are great shooters, despite the negative comments - mostly from people who never owned or shot one.

The FEG AP series pistols in .22 LR are also a very undervalued pistols. They are, like the AP9S, APK9S, AP7S and APK7S, a PP series clone that shoots very well, and magazines are much more available and more affordable than for a PP .22 LR. These also sell in the $300-$350 range in excellent condition.

----

If you're looking for a target pistol, the Ruger Mk I, Mk II and MK III are all within reach of a $400 budget, and IMHO, a used Mk II Target would be the best choice by far. The design peaked with the Mk II and the MK III wasn't an improvement. It also offers a great deal of aftermarket support and a Volquartzen drop in hammer and trigger kit makes it a viable bullseye pistol that will shoot almost as well as a S&W 41.

----

If you want a sub caliber pistol that is similar to a 9mm of .45 ACP pistol you may own, there is also the conversion kit option.

The CZ Kadet conversion is the best one I've seen if you have a CZ 75. It is very accurate, very reliable and very nice to shoot - but it'll suck up your entire $400 budget just for the conversion kit.

I also like the Kimber Target model conversion kit. The qualifier here is that you may need to buy a dedicated slide stop for it, as some fitting may be required to get maximum accuracy and reliability with some 1911s. I put mine on a dedicated 1911 frame from a retired 1911 I used to shoot in .400 Corbon. Properly fitted, they are accurate and very reliable. It'll cost you $300-$350.

 

[Rick_A]

Mine's a Ruger 22/45. It's a familiar grip with a target style top end.

The latest ones look better.

The newfangled guns like the SR-22, P-22, and M&P 22 shoot well and emulate a full size gun in operation but aren't nearly as accurate as those with a fixed receiver like the MK Series, Buckmark, or Victory guns.

Ones more of a plinker and the other a target gun.

 

[steamloco76]

----
The recently discontinued Umarex/Walther PPK/S .22LR offended a lot of people with it's Zamak frame and slide, but I found that mine shot as well as my Walther made British service L66A1 PP in .22 LR, with the advantage of affordable magazines with true 1 shot capacity (as opposed to 8 for the PP). They are great buys at the moment in the $300 range and they are great shooters, despite the negative comments - mostly from people who never owned or shot one.

If you're looking for a target pistol, the Ruger Mk I, Mk II and MK III are all within reach of a $400 budget, and IMHO, a used Mk II Target would be the best choice by far. The design peaked with the Mk II and the MK III wasn't an improvement. It also offers a great deal of aftermarket support and a Volquartzen drop in hammer and trigger kit makes it a viable bullseye pistol that will shoot almost as well as a S&W 41.

I couldn't say it better myself. The Walther/Umarex PPK/s .22 is a pretty cool little pistol. My wife has one and it is a fun can-popper. The nickel finish is very well done and the mags feed well.

The Mark II Target can shoot with the best of them. I have a well used example with a Volquartsen trigger kit installed. I truly wish I could shoot the gun to its potential!

Out of the new-style 22 semi-auto pistols I once owned, only the Ruger SR 22 was reliable with a wide range of ammo. If I had to own a plastic/metal 22, that would be my pick.

 

[PatriotX]

I replaced my Rugers with a Victory, much less cursing during cleaning.

 

[Targets Guy]

I have both the Victory and the M&P 22 Compact. The Victory is a better shooter (easier to hold on target and bring back to target). Both breakdown nicely and clean up easily unless you use Remington Thunderbolts. If I had to turn one in it would be the Compact but I enjoy both of these pistols very much. Unfortunately the wife has fallen in love with the Victory so I may have two of them soon. On second thought that might not be a bad idea.

 

[30-30remchester]

RPG speaks volumes. If you want a classic 22 auto handgun, none, nada, zero match the older Colt Woodsmans. Made of milled steel, you wont find any plastic or pot metal castings. Beautifully built by master craftsmen. Designed by none other than John Browning. Built by Colt. Used by so many famous outdoorsmen. With a 6" target barrel it weights just 27 ounces, IIRC. I have carried and drug a pre war model all over the west for 40 years now. It is ugly in many peoples eyes because of the dents, scars and rubs. Little bluing is left. the grips checkering are beaten flat. And it is so beautiful to me as I am the one that wore most of the bluing off. It is the very last handgun I will ever get rid of and it is with me every day under the seat of my truck.

 

[HARDWARE]

I shot my MKII bull barrel last Friday for the first time in years and had forgotten what a nice shooter it is.

I was effortlessly shooting clay pigeon fragments that had fallen on the bank on the other side of a creek.

as far as .22 autos go... its tough to beat the S&W model 41.

heres an older one from the 70's

 

[44wheelman]

An M41, a ruger MK2, and a Browning International Medalist are all I need.

I have no plans to use a .22 for anything tactical, or concealed.

While ammo cost may save you a little to train with a similar gun you plan to need, you still have the cost of the gun (or conversion), and that would buy you alot of the ammo you're trying to save on.....but .22 ammo ain't that cheap any more....and does training with a caliber that has 1/3 or less recoil really prepare you?

I use a .22 for target shooting, plinking, and occasional rodent termination. I like target sights with a good length sight radius, and a descent trigger. A solid metal frame is a plus too.

Funny.... as I was typing the above post/pic showed up.

 

[Grayfox]

Seems like everyone makes a scaled down copy of a more tactical model like the 1911

I traded into a Browning 1911-22. Its a nice little fun gun, but accuracy ain't nothing to get excited about. I wouldn't have spent money for it, but I'm not looking to get rid of it either.

 

[H Richard]

All of the scaled down 22's tactical guns are lightweight and plastic framed. They are not target guns, and will barely hold angle of beer-can accuracy. They are fun for plinking at good sized targets, but if you are interested in "groups" that will hold at least the 10 ring at appropriate distances you need a "target gun". The least expensive but capable is the Ruger MKII of III and replacement triggers are available. The S&W Mod 41 is top of the heap, but expensive, the Browning Buckmark and MKII or III are seen on many bullseye lines, holding their own against the Mod 41 and High Standard Victor. The new S&W Victor has the same style interchangeable barrels as the High Standard. It is a steel gun and may just make a good target gun.

 

[BUFF]

Unless you are looking for a sub-caliber for training for a centerfire gun, all the new guns do differently is be cheaper to make.

 

[Wee Hooker]

I've owned and sold or traded in a wide variety of .22 LR pistols over the past decade including S&W 422, Sig 522, GSG 1911 22, Ruger SR 22, Kimber 1911 22 Conversion, Browning Buckmark and Several Ruger Mark II and IIIs. The only ones still in my collection are the Mark II and IIIs. They reliably fire just about any ammo with good to excellent accuracy. I do miss the GSG 1911, should have kept that one as it made a decent trainer.

Same here. Of the 20 or so, .22 handguns I've settled on as "keepers", 7 are some flavor of the venerable Ruger MK II/III series, 5 are S&W K framed revolvers and 3 full sized 1911's. (The remainder are very specialized "one purpose" .) IMHO, There is no need to look further than the tried and true designs that have blessed us for decades. New isn't always better.

 

[chud333]

Find a Colt Woodsman. A shooter grade pistol can be found quite reasonably.

Or a High Standard.....
I don't trust the new semi-auto .22 pistols.
But that's just me.

Chuck