[308win]

Which do you prefer and why?

[Logan5]

Which Smith & Wesson vs which Ruger? And for what? Miles of difference between a Model 41 and a Model 2213, and the Rugers come in three generations and all sorts of configurations...

[Justin]

The S&W Mod. 41 is about the best domestically-produced .22 pistol.

Brace yourself for a bit of sticker shock, though.

[308win]

Which Smith & Wesson vs which Ruger?
I was thinking 22/45 Mark III (http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=10107&return=Y) $307 retail on ruger site versus the S&W Model 22A (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=14712&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=15710&isFirearm=Y) $340 retail on the S&W site.

[ArchAngelCD]

I own a S&W Model 22A with a 7.5" Heavy fluted barel. I love shooting this gun. I have never shot a Ruger .22 so I can't tell you anything about them. I bought the S&W because I liked the way it felt in my hand over the Ruger and Baretta models.

[borrowedtime69]

i have two Ruger .22 MK II 22/45's and found no other .22 auto pistol that fits and points better. the ruger is over built and will last for generations. avoid the MK III's as they have lawyer modifications on them that make them hard to take down and re-assemble. they will not fire without a mag in the gun. heres my babies:

http://www.hunt101.com/img/344483.jpg

http://www.hunt101.com/img/459353.JPG

[wanderinwalker]

avoid the MK III's as they have lawyer modifications on them that make them hard to take down and re-assemble. they will not fire without a mag in the gun.

Only half-correct friend. The "lawyer modifications" only make the pistol harder to take down and reassemble because of the magazine disconnect. Otherwise, it's identical to the old models. (I actually think my 22/45 MK III is easier to reassemble than my dad's old MK II, which I think is because of the different grip assemblies.) Well, the LCI does get in the way of the dental pick when scraping the carbon off of the breech face.

If you're not a match shooter and just want a .22 pistol for doing the other things the .22 excels at, I highly recommend the 22/45. Either the MK II or III version will suffice. My MK III has the 4" bull barrel and adjustable sights and is one of the most accurate pistols I've shot.

If you get a Ruger, you probably won't regret it!

[308win]

Brought home S&W 22A-1 this afternoon. Had a chance to handle the Ruger and the S&W and the S&W seemed more ergonomic and natural for me.

[Plink]

I've always preferred the Ruger, myself. Mostly because it's superbly accurate in the bull barrel. Also because it has the internal geometry to take a superb trigger job. Of course there's always drop in parts for those who don't want a trigger job, but they don't turn out nearly as well. There's also a big aftermarket for the guns and even the Pac-Lite barrelled receiver which is a real tackdriver! I chose the 22/45 because the grip angle fits my hand better and it's a little lighter.

[El Tejon]

I concur with Justin. The Smith 41 is the epitome of the autoloading .22 IMHO.

However, I can buy three 22/45s for one Smith 41 and a bunch of mags.

I have shot 22/45s since they were released. Started buying them at $200 and the last one I bought at a gun show in Indy (a stainless bull barrel) went to me for $250.

The Ruger is sturdier in high volume shooting that I do IME. I have only broken the Ruger a couple of times (last time the back receiver pin fell out of the weapon when shooting) where my Smiths need continual attention.

Hope you like your new piece.:)