Trying to decide on .22 target pistol


PDA






klover
March 31, 2007, 12:01 AM
What is best value in the Range of $300-$600? (used is ok)
Is a Ruger Mark 2 really better than a Mark 3? Is a bull barrel really worth the extra weight?
Does a stainless barrel make any diff?
So many .22's, so little time.....:p

If you enjoyed reading about "Trying to decide on .22 target pistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Shadan7
March 31, 2007, 12:10 AM
..about the Mark II over the Mark III, but my 27 year old Mark I is sure sweet with the long bull barrel. Gun shoots a lot better than I do these days, but back when my eyesight was better, it was good to 100 yards with iron sights for tin cans (when using a rest). :what:

The bull barrel makes the gun more stable, in my opinion. If nothing else, takes less time to recover target after a shot. :evil:

7

jakk55
March 31, 2007, 12:13 AM
Many people bash the MarkIII for its "safety" features.
These include:
1. A lock.
2. magazine disconnect safety.
3 Loaded Chamber Indicator.

I find that as this isn't a self defense pistol I don't care if it has a lock or not.
The same is true for the disconnect safety, my life is NOT dependent on my MarkIII, so if that one in a trillion chance that the gun fails to fire(more likely the problem would be a bad primer...) it doesn't bother me to know that the Paper can live for another few seconds.
I actually kind of like the loaded chamber indicator. It does NOT present a safety issue as many will have you believe, the problem was only with some of the very, very early MarkIIIs and I don't think a problem ever actually occurred, you would have to work hard to find one of these older ones that hasn't been fixed.

I have the Competition Target model and really like the bull barrel, the little muzzle climb there is with a 22 is almost entirely negligible with the bull barrel.

And yes the stainless steel barrel does make a difference, it is stronger and, IMHO, looks much better than the blued version(then again i think that only revolvers should be blued:neener:)

sfmittels
March 31, 2007, 12:40 AM
Since your upper limit is $600 and you're OK with used, look for a S&W Model 41. If you can find one that's in your price range and is in good shape, snap it up and you'll never look back. Check out RimfireCentral.com and look under Smith & Wesson - you'll see posts from a whole bunch of pretty fanatical owners. Happy shopping!

woolfam
March 31, 2007, 12:54 AM
My Buckmark Standard has a better trigger and I shoot it more accurately than any of the three Ruger Mark IIs I've had / been able to shoot.

rockstar.esq
March 31, 2007, 02:50 AM
The Rugers have sincere fans. The guns work, they're pretty accurate. They are also as ugly as a Luger and share the same miserable grip angle.

I owned a couple of Buckmarks, both good guns. As accurate as the Ruger, better trigger, non awkward grip angle. I had the entire top end rebuilt (after an estimated 6K rounds) on one for the princely sum of $50.00! Get this, all parts were direct from Browning!

Since then I moved up the food chain and bought a Beretta 87 Target. Easily the single finest handgun I've ever shot, best gun I've ever owned. My best ever group was 10 shots into 1.5" at 100yds! It came in just over the $600.00 stated as the upper limit. But to be fair that was after taxes. Very few folks have held one let alone shot one. I bought mine on faith from my personal impression and a few reviews by authors I've come to respect. I'm genuinely thrilled with it and I really think most shooters would love one.

tostada
March 31, 2007, 04:09 AM
The general consensus seems to be that Buckmarks and Rugers are great, and the S&W Model 22 and Beretta Neos just don't quite stack up. As far as picking a Buckmark vs. a Ruger, it mostly comes down to personal taste. One thing both sides can agree on is that the Ruger is more sturdy.

People with Buckmarks say Rugers are ugly. It's whatever you like. Personally, I think a nice shiny Ruger looks great. I think old German Lugers are really cool, so maybe that's why. I think Buckmarks look like a really cheap gun with a cheap tube for a barrel. The stainless Buckmarks don't seem to have a very good finish and look even cheaper to me. But that's just my own stupid opinion and I know they're actually good guns.

Choosing a bull barrel vs. a tapered barrel or stainless vs. blued or MKII vs. MKIII is all personal preference. You definitely have to try them out at least just to see what you think of the grip angle. If you like the steeper grip angle of a Glock you'll probably like the regular Ruger grip angle. If you like the 1911 angle, you'll probably like the 22/45. Note that the MKII 22/45 and the MKIII 22/45 have different feels. A lot of people tend to go for the heavy bull barrels. Not much reason not to, since I doubt you're using a 22 for a carry weapon.

The only real complaint with the MKIII is the mag safety, but that's easily disabled by replacing the hammer/bushing. The MKIII has the mag release in the normal spot, which I think is a big enough plus to make up for anything else. Keep in mind that Ruger clips aren't interchangable. MKII clips don't work in a MKIII, and MKIII clips get jammed in a MKII. The 22/45s also have their own clips. I mention that because a lot of people go crazy and end up buying several Rugers.

Beretta 87's and S&W Model 41's are said to be great if you really want to push the limit of your budget.

I just don't think you can go wrong with any Buckmark, Ruger Mark, or the really pricy ones. Just think about what you think looks best.

BlkHawk73
March 31, 2007, 09:16 AM
For $600 try finding a used Benelli. MUCH more of a target pistol than the Brownings or Rugers.

XavierBreath
March 31, 2007, 09:54 AM
What is best value in the Range of $300-$600? (used is ok) You will probably get a range of responses here, everyone has a favorite. Mine is the Ruger MKII, often available used for around $200. Used is fine with the Ruger MKII, they are a durable pistol. In fact, consider it broken in, not used.
Is a Ruger Mark 2 really better than a Mark 3?
IMHO, yes. It is more simple, less to go wrong, less to maintain. In response to the "range only" comment by jakk (just another side of the argument), the best self defense gun is the closest one at hand. By chance, that might be your .22 pistol. Thus, I prefer a safe to lock up my guns, not a lock on the gun. The safe also helps prevent theft. An integral lock does not.
Is a bull barrel really worth the extra weight?With the Ruger MKII, (and I own several) I have found no practical difference between the tapered and bull barrel, as long as they are of equal sight radius. The Competition Target Model is a horse of a different color, but I believe it's increased accuracy is due to the sight radius and better rifling, not the bull barrel.
Does a stainless barrel make any diff?Only in corrosion resistance.

4fingermick
March 31, 2007, 10:01 AM
I just bought a Baikal Ismash M35. $AU1000 here and competive with the real stars worth two and a half times as much. It would be a lot cheaper there I would imagine. Absolutely brilliant and barely moves under recoil. It has a low slung barrel and an upside down hammer to fight the recoil and it works. CCO low velocity ammo, the gun barely moves.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k228/4fingermick/Handguns/baikalM35StandardPistol1.jpg

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k228/4fingermick/Handguns/baikalM35StandardPistol.jpg

PS, there's no frills, just wood and forged steel.

If you enjoyed reading about "Trying to decide on .22 target pistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!