Why do so many people look askance at a +$500 22LR revolver?

[carl3989]

Yet these same people would not question a .357 revolver for +$500 or more. Would I be incorrect in assuming that production cost for a 22LR should be the same as any other caliber produced? Certainly performance is not lacking, in that 22lrs certainly are very accurate, yet many think of a 22lr caliber hand gun as "cheaply" made. What's with that?

 

[mtime7]

I haft to admit, I always thought of 22s as cheap guns.. Because of this it took me awhile to get my M18..

 

[RussellD]

Because they are cheap to shoot, make fine training tools for the next generation of shooters, they are an investment in days gone by of hand fitted parts and high polish finish.

Did I mention they are just fun to shoot. If you ever shoot a K22 made 50 plus years ago..they have stood the test of time and still deliver.

Next..

 

[Ga Johnny]

"yet many think of a 22lr caliber hand gun as "cheaply" made"

that's probably because alot of 'em are cheaply made, if they'd slow down long enough to pay attention to what they're looking at they may feel differently about some

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

"yet many think of a 22lr caliber hand gun as "cheaply" made"

that's probably because alot of 'em are cheaply made, if they'd slow down long enough to pay attention to what they're looking at they may feel differently about some

Thats true. There are alot of lets say..inexpensive 22s out there. But when you get into the good stuff, the price is much higher. If i was looking for a high quality 22 I would have no qualms paying the going rate for a nice K-22 because I know what I would be getting for the dollar compared to the cheap stuff out there.

But, you can have alot of fun with the cheap stuff too. For example, my father-in-law gave me an old Herbert Schmidt single action .22 with a 4 inch barrel. Im sure its had tens of thousands of rounds put through it. But i can still knock a soup can around pretty good at 50 feet with it and have a ball doing it. Also, my brother bought one of those Heritage Rough Rider .22 and it is quite accurate and has given him zero issues whatsoever. Only paid $165 for it brand new. On the other hand, a friend bought a brand new Taurus DA .22 revolver and its DA pull is HORRENDOUS! SA not too bad though, and it looks pretty nice. Id say for the $300 he paid he did descent. There is a definately a "get what you pay for" element...

But I must admit, I REALLY like shooting my father's 4" model 63 no-dash! That little beauty makes me jealous of Dad every time i send a few downrange with it...just needs a bigger grip for my paw.

 

[dickttx]

Probably because there have been a lot of them that were relatively cheap, because of lower pressure, etc. My first gun was a $6 (new) single shot bolt action 22 rifle, from Wards.

 

[MG-70]

I don't understand the hesitance, either. The .22LR revolvers use more material and many times require machining for extra chambers as well. Finish and the rest are all the same as the centerfire versions. Supply and demand aside, and that's an impossible thing to do, they shouldn't cost any more or less than the centerfire versions.

 

[Frailer]

Those who think 22s are *supposed* to be cheap just aren't thinking right. My two most expensive guns are both 22s, and seeing as how I shoot my 22s more than any of my other guns that makes perfect sense to me.

 

[yncrogers]

Gave $475 for my 98%ish K-22 last year - don't regret it one bit. It is an awesome shooter and looks great doing it. At 15 yards I can wear out a playing card just about as fast as i can pull the trigger. In SA mode, you think about pulling the trigger and it goes boom!

 

[photoman]

Airweight .38's are less than $400 and Airweight .22's are less than $600. Why pay 50% more for a .22?

 

[yncrogers]

Supply and demand - they made way more 38s than 22s.

 

[Person]

I use to think that way as well. Then I kept reading about the Model 617 and decided I was going to pay the extra bucks for it. I picked up a like new in box 617 no dash with all the paperwork and I paid for it.

Now I do not think that way at all and would throw down the money for a nice pre-lock 617 anyday.

 

[bellevance]

Why do people look askance at an expensive .22?

The short answer is, for the most part, they don't. That is, people with any knowledge of handguns have no trouble recognizing that there is no necessary correlation between caliber and quality.

People who can't (yet) think intelligently about a question like this seem to imagine that a small-bore revolver ought not to cost as much as a .44 mag.

 

[photoman]

Supply and demand - they made way more 38s than 22s.

My guess is... If they charged less than $400 for an Airweight .22, they would sell just as many as the .38's. I would sure buy one.

 

[SWBigBang]

Because some are actually worth it.

 

[okie john]

Jack O'Connor maintained that your 22 should be the best-built (and most expensive) gun in your armory because you shoot it the most.


Okie John

 

[tripledipper]

A 34,63,18,317 and waiting for the 43c. The 18 is the most I ever paid for any gun, new or used but nothing is more fun to shoot. It got me into 22 rifles, lever, pump and bolt. All reasonable to shoot.

 

[gr7070]

Because there are other approximate replacements for far far cheaper. Whereas the approximate replacements for a centerfire handgun are similarly priced.

Many gun buyers are looking at getting handguns as opposed to specifically desiring a wheel or auto. When a .45 auto and wheel are similarly priced, and 38 and comparable 9mm options are similarly priced they would think rimfires would be too.

When one perfectly suitable, similar quality .22 handgun is available for $350 the $700 equivalent is deemed to be way too expensive.

They don't care about cost to make it, nor economy forces, and I don't blame them or think they should know better. If the desire specifically for a revolver isn't there they are overpriced.

 

[fyimo]

My first 22 caliber pistol was a Stainless Ruger Mark II with a bull barrel and it shot lights out and I think I paid $225 for it back in the 80's. That was a fairly high price for a 22 pistol back then but it was well worth it as it was a tack driver and never mal functioned. I gave to my son earlier this year because he loved it and I've moved on to a Model K22,Model 18-3, Model 18-4, Model 17-2, Model 17-4, Model 617 no dash, and (2) S&W Model 41's.

Yes, I love shooting 22 pistols and I don't mind paying top dollar for an S&W revolver in top condition whether it's a 357 magnum or a 22LR. I shoot lots of different caliber S&W revolvers to at the range but the 22's are my favorites. Plus when my Grandkids visit I can let them shoot to their hearts content because the ammo is cheap.

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

When I was looking for a .22 I decided that I would rather pay $300 for a Ruger MKIII than $659 for a new S&W .22 revolver (both guns would have been cheaper used, of course). For some people it is just going to be a matter of economics based on what else is available and what they can afford to spend. While I would have preferred a revolver, I'm not sorry that I bought the Ruger at all, it has been a very good gun.
I definitely understand where people are coming from when they say that a quality .22 revolver is on par with a larger caliber revolver in terms of materials and may require a little extra machining, and the price is therefore justified, but I didn't want to spend that kind of money on a gun that I intended to be an inexpensive shooter/plinker, as opposed to something that I would defend myself with. For a defensive revolver I am willing to shell out the extra cash for a well made and reliable revolver because I am staking my life on it. For a competition revolver I would be willing to shell out the money to get a gun that would be accurate and stand up to the rigors of competition shooting. For something to shoot just for fun, I'll take decent quality and lower price. YMMV.