S&W 22s for sale: Deal or No Deal??

[Redcoat3340]

LGS has 22s for sale. Asking $325 but there's usually some room to negotiate and I may do a trade-in as well.

Not real familiar with this....all stainless, clearly big fat old target grips; bore is good and it looks in decent shape. Nice trigger the one time I dry fired (I hate dry-firing .22s)

Anyone familiar with these? I was also considering a Ruger MK IV ($425 asking at LGS); M&P 22 for $250 or new Victory for $390....all plus tax.

I'm real partial to Smiths...and I'd like to add this to the "collection" unless it has some fatal flaw I haven't found in a brief online search or the price is way outta line.

Here's a few pics.

 

[Redcoat3340]

Oh, I'm using this for range and lite target work...nothing serious, just a fun, dedicated .22 to go along with 617 and a Sig 226 with a .22 conversion.

 

[824tsv]

I believe the 22S was prone to frames cracking. $325 sounds high to me.

 

[mattallamerican]

get the ruger no brainer

 

[GeoJelly]

^ ^ ^ What matt says - I'm still stuck with one. The slide is difficult to rack on that version. Also way too heavy for a .22. You can't go wrong with a Ruger MkIV...

 

[g-dad]

I have a 22A. To quote the Standard Catalogue "Introduced in Jan 1997 as a stainless steel companion to the 22A, this model is identical except for materials of stainless steel frame and slide and stainless satin finish."

It's a pretty nice gun. I don't think you'd have a problem with the frame cracking.

The MKIV is a great improvement over the MKIII I have when it comes to breaking it down for cleaning. Get em both!!

Oh, negotiate the price on the 22S, $275-300 out the door??

 

[Fishinfool]

I am not really up on model 22 prices, but $325 seems high to me. I briefly owned one back about 10 years ago, and it was not as accurate or reliable as my proven Ruger MK ll bull barrel, or my Victor. Not a bad gun, just not a keeper for me.

I would really take a hard look at the various target versions of the Ruger, both new and used. Best bang for your buck.

If you really must go S&W, the Victory has a lot of reports on the net about it being a very accurate pistol, along with a few teething problems. Lots of owners really like them.

Wanted to add, IF I remember right, my 22s had a stainless steel slide, and an aluminum frame, left in the natural silver finish. I don't think any model 22's had actual steel / stainless steel frames?

Larry

 

[wproct]

You would not have a frame cracking problem on that pistol, it has a stainless steel frame and I think it was the alloy frames that had some cracking issues. I had one just like it, traded it off and wish I had kept it. I don't think the price is that bad either. Certainly the Rugers are more popular and are good handguns. Just comes down to what feels better to you.

 

[Wee Hooker]

The Ruger MK series are the .22 pistols that all others in the price range get compared too. Rugged, accurate and full supported by tons of aftermarket accessories and upgrades. The MK IV brings in nearly 70 years of production lessons and customer feedback. If you want a lifetime .22 that can grow with you, get the Ruger.

 

[k22fan]

I own a 22S with a longer but smaller diameter barrel and a Ruger MK I and MK II. Trying to get shooters who tout their Ruger .22s to be objective about competing guns is as futile as telling Jeff Copper that other pistols might be as good as a 1911 would have been. If you like the Rugers that's fine. I like my 5 1/2" heavy barrel MK I and my MK II Competition but I also like my 22S. As they leave the factory neither equal a Model 41 or an old High Standard for bullseye competition. Admittedly there are more after market parts to upgrade a Ruger but in the end you'd wind up with a pistol that is a lot more expensive than a 22S. While I got the hang of reassembling old Rugers pretty quick it does not hurt that a 22S is as easy to disassemble and reassemble as a Model 41 or a High Standard. When comparing prices remember the 22S with the oversize wood stocks you are asking about was more expensive that the regular 22S with rubber stocks. The different length and weight 22S/22A barrels were intended to be a quick change drop in part so you could buy a lighter barrel later to carry in a belt holster.

The only excuse for owning a .22 M&P is as a trainer for a self defense gun that has a similar trigger pull. You could start out at bullseye with a 22S then upgrade to a more expensive pistol if and when you start getting good. The .22 M&P is too hard to hit anything with to even start practicing for Bullseye.

 

[kraynky]

Amen on the Ruger line of 22's. I haven't moved up to the "improved takedown" model yet, as I'm very happy with my MKII bull barrel version. Browning Buckmark is another great little 22, if you're staying in the $300-$400 price range.

I'm a huge S&W fan, however their 22 semi autos have not impressed me (unlees we're talking the 41 model). I'd happily try one with a positve forum consensus of a model I may be overlooking. It's a great caliber, just as a plinker for me though. I do have a model 17 that will give my Ruger a run for the money, but the price range & operating systems are far apart.

 

[Redcoat3340]

Many thanks for the lightning-like replies, it's much appreciated.

Think I'm gonna go with the 22s. It's a hundred bucks cheaper than the Mk IV, I'm not going to invest any more in aftermarket parts no matter which gun I get and the trigger on the S&W was good enough. Plus it has a rail already in place and I have a red dot that ain't got a home.

I don't need a "trainer" for my M&Ps as I carry either a CS9, .45 Shield, or 642PC.

Finally, I used to be a much better shot, but as my eyes enter their 7th decade, I'm probably not going to get so much better I need a customized .22 for target work.

Again thanks for the help. 10 years ago it would have been the Ruger in a heartbeat....but today I think I'll settle for good enough.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

For 15 years my only 22 handgun has been a S&W 22S. My 22S handgun does not have the "heavy duty" barrel, but has made every range trip in that time and performed flawlessly. It is probably the only 22 semi-auto that I will ever own. If it is in good mechanical shape, buy it. I paid $199, but that was 15 years ago in Texas. Good luck with whatever you choose.

 

[Wee Hooker]

Many thanks for the lightning-like replies, it's much appreciated.

Think I'm gonna go with the 22s. It's a hundred bucks cheaper than the Mk IV, I'm not going to invest any more in aftermarket parts no matter which gun I get and the trigger on the S&W was good enough. Plus it has a rail already in place and I have a red dot that ain't got a home.

I don't need a "trainer" for my M&Ps as I carry either a CS9, .45 Shield, or 642PC.

Finally, I used to be a much better shot, but as my eyes enter their 7th decade, I'm probably not going to get so much better I need a customized .22 for target work.

Again thanks for the help. 10 years ago it would have been the Ruger in a heartbeat....but today I think I'll settle for good enough.

Be sure to come back and give us a range report!

 

[misswired]

I see rugers new and used in almost every LGS.... I'd have to have that Smith..... you can always pick up a ruger next month, next year or next decade.