Stuck between two .22 pisols. Need help deciding. (Firestorm or Ruger)


PDA






leukoplast
July 30, 2008, 06:19 PM
Ok, over the last few weeks I have been actively looking up .22 pistols trying to decide whats going to be best for me. I keep going back and fourth between the Bersa Firestorm .22 and the Ruger 22/45 MarkIII (between the P4MKIII model, and the Hunter model with smallest barrels possible). I read reviews and postings of each gun and they both are great little pistols that offer high reliability and satisfaction. So here is a breakdown of what I like, and what is on the fence.

Bersa Firestorm. (click thumbnail for bigger pic)
http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Leukotic/th_FIRESTORM22.jpg (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Leukotic/FIRESTORM22.jpg)

Pros:
- Nice and light weight (about 19oz) and fairly short length (somewhere between 6 and 7 inches overall), which would work great for CCW or just casually taking it with me on walks, fishing trips, or whatever. Overall, its very compact and small.

- I really like the build of the pistol. Its small, compact, simple and just neat. Kind of James Bond style.

- Ease of cleaning. Breaks down in seconds for very simple cleaning. No tools required.

- Double action trigger with decent 'pull' pound rating.

- Visible and manageable hammer.

- I haven't held it yet, but it appears to be a comfortable hold with the rubber grips and anatomically set finger grooves

Cons:
- Only high velocity ammo can be used. So this virtually eliminates the idea of using rounds such as CCI CB that are very quite good for 'backyard stealth plinking'. Or even other, slightly lower velocity rounds for whatever reason I would want to use them.

-Not many 'colors' available, so for the most part its quite plain looking.

- Expensive clips, and only ships with one.




Ruger 22/45 MarkIII. (click thumbnails for bigger pic)
http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Leukotic/th_p4mkiii_ruger.jpg (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Leukotic/p4mkiii_ruger.jpg) http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Leukotic/th_KP45HMKIII_ruger.jpg (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Leukotic/KP45HMKIII_ruger.jpg)

Pros:
- I absolutely LOVE the way this gun looks. Both from a 'paint job' perspective and overall looks. It just seems like a rock solid gun that's fun to hold and shoot. Overall, I like the look and build of this gun best.

- More options available for ammo use. And while the CCI CB rounds may still fail to work the autoloader properly, at least I am not limited to only the most high velocity ammo like the Firestorm.

- Extras, extras, extras. There is a lot of truly great attachments that I could get for the gun. And its great for customizing.

- 2 clips ship with the gun, and I really haven't checked up on it much, but I am assuming clips are cheaper than the Firestorm clips.

- Larger consumer experience with the gun. Basically meaning more people know, and use this gun than the Firestorm. So that = more support in forums and more overall tips and tricks.

- Made in the USA. While not a tie breaker in terms of what gun to buy, but in this day and age its good to support products made in the good ol' US of A.

-Excellent name in firearms. Pretty much everybody and their mother has heard about Ruger, and knows they are of very good quality.

- From what I have been reading, its very accurate.

Cons:
- Hard to take apart/put back together. This is one of the biggest problems for me, as I am new to guns altogether and have no experience whatsoever in taking them apart/reassembling. And this is quite a problem for many people.

- Seemingly not small enough to CCW or as a carry/stow when I need it kind of deal. This is actually another major deciding factor for me.

- Not double action. This is a feature I would like, but not sure if its a must or not.

- Heavier than the Firestorm. (Varies around in the 29-35oz)

- Length, a inch to two inches longer overall than the Firestorm.


So my questions are, is the 22/45 still pretty small? (with smallest barrel possible). would I still be able to easily carry it? And how does it do with lower velocity ammo such as the CCi CB's?


Main deciding factors for me:

- Needs to be small, easily carry in virtually anything.
- Easy to clean and reassemble/take apart
- Would like to be able to use low velocity ammo for 'stealth' shooting.
- Looks/build

So as you can see, both guns offer exactly what I want, just split up between the two. And I have to figure out what I could part with and what I couldn't. I have came to the conclusion a few times that I could always buy the Firestorm first for a good beginner gun, then purchase the MKIII at a later date. But then I think about how great the MKIII looks and how its so customizable. I am quite torn here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Stuck between two .22 pisols. Need help deciding. (Firestorm or Ruger)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Funderb
July 30, 2008, 06:28 PM
I'd go with the ruger.

rantingredneck
July 30, 2008, 06:29 PM
I have no experience with the Bersa.

I love my Ruger MkIII 22/45. Mine is the 5.5" barreled version.

Not sure that it's exactly a great CCW choice due to the size to power ratio (larger size gun, small round).

It can be a bear to strip and reassemble. That being said, keep the manual open in front of you and follow the directions exactly. You should then have no problems. That being said, you really don't have to take it down after every shooting. I just boresnake mine and spray it out with synthetic safe gunscrubber. Then I tear it completely down about once every six months or so depending on use.

I'd lean toward the 4" barrel version of this gun for your purposes.

viking499
July 30, 2008, 06:32 PM
I would also go with the ruger.

leukoplast
July 30, 2008, 06:41 PM
I know for the most part people will recommend the Ruger due to its known quality. But mainly its the difference in size that's stopping me from going out and buying it right now.

Anybody own both that could do a side by side comparison (picture would be great) and give their opinions?

FourNineFoxtrot
July 30, 2008, 06:48 PM
Disclaimer: I have used neither gun, so it's probable I don't know what I'm talking about.

If I were choosing between these guns (which is possible, as my next gun purchase will probably be a .22 pistol), the primary question for me would be: "What am I going to use this for?"

If I were getting a plinking/practice gun only, the Ruger is almost certainly the better gun in terms of quality, probably accuracy, and (from what you've said) ammo flexibility. The Bersa is pretty cool, but being limited to high-end ammo removes perhaps the greatest advantage of .22s: Plinking on the cheap.

If I were getting what is primarily a carry gun, then I'm not sure. Frankly, I probably wouldn't use a .22 as a carry gun, although that's a personal decision, any gun is better than no gun, and I'm sure someone will come along and be properly derisive of .22 pistols as carry guns soon enough. That said, the Ruger loses the advantage of small size that should be inherent in a .22 carry gun. The Bersa doesn't seem that small, either (for a .22), but it looks a lot more concealable.

Honestly, I think you might be better served by getting two guns: One to carry and one to plink with. Because neither of these guns will perform really well at both. The Bersa needs higher-end ammo to plink with, so it's not really cheap. The Ruger is too big to CC, or at least, loses the size advantage of CC-ing a .22 pistol.

presspuller
July 30, 2008, 07:06 PM
Do what I do when in this same situation.
Ask yourself if both of them were on the table in front of you and you had to pick one up and take it home NOW, which one would it be. Don't stop to think about, you have already done that. Just pick the thing up.
Now which one did you pick up?

tblt
July 30, 2008, 07:07 PM
ruger

HM2PAC
July 30, 2008, 07:33 PM
Ruger.

Later, get the Bersa.

You'll then own two .22LR pistols and can give us details on which one you like best.

gpr
July 30, 2008, 07:57 PM
some thing to consider, pt22 or 21a, a little smaller and less weight, much more of a pocket gun....with a 2 3/4 barrel, not a tack driver, but still is pretty accurate....pretty much keep it on a paper plate at 25 feet....JMHO...gpr

leukoplast
July 30, 2008, 08:33 PM
Thanks for all the replies. I am still unsure which one to get though. But after taking FourNineFoxtrot's post into consideration, I am leaning more towards a defensive weapon, and not too much range shooting or plinking. So for that, the Firestorm is probably the way to go. I can always get the 22/45 MKIII at a later date, and I probably will too since it seems like a really great gun for cheap plinking and range shooting.

Claude Clay
July 30, 2008, 08:48 PM
my bersa is 380; ruger is 22 4" mkll bull bbl. ruger is no way small or concealable. bersa is inexpensive, reliable and much easier to conceal. shoot any 22, even cb's--just wont cycle the action.

rantingredneck
July 30, 2008, 08:50 PM
Indeed, If you're getting the Bersa, get it in a defensive capable caliber. 9mm is cheaper typically than .380 around here too, so keep that in mind when it comes to practice ammo.

Get the Ruger later for a .22.

3KillerBs
July 30, 2008, 08:51 PM
A .22 really isn't a defensive weapon, unless you're unable to use anything else. No one is likely to volunteer to be shot with one and plenty of people have died from being shot with .22, but more power is generally desirable in a defensive gun.

I love my Ruger Mark III. Its way too big to carry -- I'd have to wear a hoop skirt to conceal it. But as a plinking gun you pretty much have to get into expensive target guns to beat the accuracy.

May I suggest you read www.corneredcat.com for a tremendous amount of basic information about choosing the right gun for you. The site is oriented for women, but the information is great for guys too.

bestseller92
July 30, 2008, 08:51 PM
Get the Ruger.

Ng900
July 30, 2008, 08:58 PM
I should buy the Ruger.

nwilliams
July 30, 2008, 09:01 PM
Ruger

rantingredneck
July 30, 2008, 09:02 PM
I should buy the Ruger.

Everyone should own one. I waited too long to buy one myself.

kokapelli
July 30, 2008, 09:07 PM
Ruger!

Meowhead
July 30, 2008, 09:08 PM
For backyard stealth plinking you could cycle the gun manually, or just load one round at a time. I'm not sure CCI CBs will cycle the Ruger's action, either.

Difficulty of reassembling the Ruger is overrated. It's tricky, but carefully following the instructions will help - and if you run into trouble there are even Youtube videos showing the whole process.

The Bersa would be better for carry, definitely, though .22LR isn't the best choice for a defensive weapon. I hate it when people suggest something completely different in threads like these, but I'm going to do so anyway: how about buying one of those German police surplus P6s for defense and carry, then a .22 for plinking and practice?

leukoplast
July 30, 2008, 09:35 PM
For me a .22 is more than enough for defense purposes. I agree that a higher caliber gun will be more effective, but part of my reasoning for a .22 in defense is my hearing. I don't want to go deaf using a defensive weapon with a large caliber. Because, obviously there is no time to put on hearing protection in that given circumstance. So with a .380 or higher, I would lose crucial hearing that will never come back. Or maybe even worse, go deaf. And I for one and really nit-picky about my hearing. I protect at any chance I can when I think anything is too loud.

At least with a .22 its not the loudest out there. Sure you still need hearing protection with them, but at least the damage done to my own ears is significantly less than with a higher caliber gun. And .22 is more than enough to stop somebody dead in their tracks. Literally.

MAKster
July 30, 2008, 09:39 PM
If you want a gun that will be similar to a service pistol get the Firestorm. The target 22s like Ruger have a very different feel.

jon_in_wv
July 30, 2008, 09:42 PM
Someone suggested the PT-22 Taurus. Take my advice, DON'T. My wife talked me in to buying one for her. Its complete junk. Maybe you should look at one of the Beretta 22s. I've heard good things about them. Check our Mouseguns.com. They have a lot of info about these types of guns.

jmr40
July 30, 2008, 09:48 PM
Ruger, or Browning Buckmark are the best bets in a .22 pistol. I slightly prefer the Ruger.

kokapelli
July 30, 2008, 10:01 PM
At least with a .22 its not the loudest out there. Sure you still need hearing protection with them, but at least the damage done to my own ears is significantly less than with a higher caliber gun. And .22 is more than enough to stop somebody dead in their tracks. Literally.

I'm not trying to be funny, but I think the damage your body may receive because the 22 didn't stop the bg maybe far greater than what a larger caliber might do to your hearing.

As for a 22 stopping a bg "dead in their tracks"! Maybe if you hit them in the eye, but anywhere else with a 22 is iffy.

Meowhead
July 30, 2008, 10:07 PM
I don't want to go deaf using a defensive weapon with a large caliberI'm glad I'm not the only one that takes this into consideration. Stay away from .357 Magnum; I fired mine once without hearing protection just to see how bad it would be, and immediately decided it would be a range gun only. :)

But my .44 Mag is much, much easier on the ears, even with full-power loads. I could be wrong but I think it's a matter of pressure. A 1911 wasn't bad either. Nothing I would be really comfortable firing without earplugs, but then, neither is .22LR. So perhaps consider calibers like .45ACP or .44 Special?

presspuller
July 30, 2008, 10:29 PM
As for a 22 stopping a bg "dead in their tracks"! Maybe if you hit them in the eye, but anywhere else with a 22 is iffy.

Excluding war more people have been killed with a .22 than any other caliber. Even a .22 hole in them will take the fight out of most.

leukoplast
July 30, 2008, 11:05 PM
Yeah, a .22 is more than enough to stop somebody. Unless of course they were doped up on heroin/crack, are numb to everything and have the adrenalin of a raged out elephant.

A shot to the head, groin, shins, neck, ribs and chest with high velocity rounds is for sure enough to stop somebody. And if I so felt deemed, 11 rounds into them at random spots would do the trick as well. :D

I think the majority of people underestimate what even a tiny bullet flying at 1,300fps can do. Most people always think 'Bigger the better' and just assume a .22 isn't a good self defense weapon.

Guns and more
July 30, 2008, 11:20 PM
They're tools for different jobs. If you want to enjoy going to the range and becoming a good shot, get the Ruger (I'd get the long barrel.) If you want to carry it for self defense, get the ........but wait, I couldn't recommend a .22 for self defense, so maybe a Kel-Tec. in .32 or .380.
Here we go.

marineman
July 30, 2008, 11:29 PM
The Ruger has already proven itself and has a huge following. You can readily find parts and accessories for it as well.

greener
July 30, 2008, 11:45 PM
If you are looking for small and pocket carry, the Bersa is the better choice. I think the Ruger is a better all-round pistol.

I agree with the consensus that a .22 is not the best choice in SD handguns. However, I don't think many folks would stand in the direction of fire to prove a .22 can't do any damage.

powwowell
July 31, 2008, 12:08 AM
The Ruger MKII is the best all around value in .22 pistols, IMO. It is not a good self or home defense weapon. No other .22 is either. May I suggest at least a.32 for self defense? The Kel-Tec P-32 is a small pocket pistol that is easy to conceal.

leukoplast
July 31, 2008, 10:30 AM
If I wanted a larger caliber for extra self defense, I would simply get the Firestorm .380 as it looks exactly the same as the Firestorm .22 and is even the same size exactly.

Either way, I have decided on the Firestorm. I will more than likely get the Ruger later for a good plinking/range shooting pistol. But for now, a good bit of self defense will work fine for me with the .22 firestorm.

Although, if somebody owns both pistols, I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of them side by side just for curiosity's sake.

Pilot
July 31, 2008, 10:37 AM
The Firestorm is a fun plinker. The Ruger is much more accurate and their are tons of aftermarket goodies to make it even more accurate if you want. Standard velocity loads are also not a problem in the Ruger.

Ruger would be my choice.

leukoplast
July 31, 2008, 10:51 AM
Do you know if the Firestorm has any neat attachments? Like a scope or something to that effect?

kokapelli
July 31, 2008, 11:13 AM
No, but there are plenty for the Ruger.

I thought you had decided in the Bersa!

Here's mine with holographic sight.

http://omploader.org/vbjVm/reddot.jpg

Disaster
July 31, 2008, 11:19 AM
A .22 can definitely kill you...eventually. Coming out of a pistol it is even less powerful and a really bad idea as a defense piece. Recently I read about a guy who shot a home invader square between the eyes with a .22 pistol. The round didn't penetrate the guy's skull. In another case a guy shot a .22 rifle in defense at the center mass. The bullet bounced off a rib and rested in his chest. The BG drove himself to the hospital.

Sure, any caliber CAN be ineffective and pistol calibers are generally worse than rifle, but you have to stop somewhere. Otherwise you will be defending yourself with a BB gun and talking about how you heard stories of people getting killed with them so they are OK defensive weapons.

OK...rant over.

As for the choice, I'd go with either a Beretta Neos, Browning Buckmark, Ruger, or S&W 22A, in that order of preference.

Of all them I tried I liked the Beretta's trigger the best and it is, by far, the easiest to break down. You can swap the barrel in under a minute.

The Buckmarks are my second favorite...built like tanks and a bit more refined than the Ruger...and easier to clean.

The Ruger has the advantage of a huge accessory base. The trigger on the few I tried wasn't quite as good as the Neos or Buckmark. I've read that their quality isn't what it used to be.

I didn't take to the S&W's grip, but your mileage may vary there. It doesn't have the history of the others and did see some reports of some issues with some of them...not sure if those were teething issues that come with many new guns. The rest of the gun was impressive and S&W has the best customer service in the industry.

Guns like the Bersa .22, or the Walther P22, or the Sig Mosquito are fun but less accurate. They mimic the look and feel of centerfire autos which is something some people like (though the grip on the P22 is downright minuscule.)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 31, 2008, 11:33 AM
Whodathunk anyone would ever put looks in the "pro" column of a Ruger handgun. :confused:

Anyway, sounds like a wash - pick whichever one grabs your fancy. Myself, I'd get a Browning Buckmark 1,000 times over before either one of those.

shooter1
July 31, 2008, 12:16 PM
I agree that a higher caliber gun will be more effective, but part of my reasoning for a .22 in defense is my hearing. I don't want to go deaf using a defensive weapon with a large caliber. Because, obviously there is no time to put on hearing protection in that given circumstance. So with a .380 or higher, I would lose crucial hearing that will never come back.
:what:
Yep! When in a fight for my life, I wouldn't want to defend myself with somethng loud. I'm thinking a rubber hammer would be even quieter than a firearm.
str1

kokapelli
July 31, 2008, 12:20 PM
Yep! When in a fight for my life, I wouldn't want to defend myself with somethng loud. I'm thinking a rubber hammer would be even quieter than a firearm.

Well, I don't think anyone could deny that a rubber mallet would have more knock down power than a 22.:)

blackbearaddict
July 31, 2008, 12:28 PM
why go for chicken when u can have steak? 454. casull ;);) haha

RUGER RUGER RUGER

leukoplast
July 31, 2008, 12:30 PM
@ kokapelli - Bersa...Firestorm, they are essentially the same exact thing. :)

@ Disaster - I'm sure there is also stories of higher caliber bullets bouncing or not penetrating people as well. There is always going to be things like that happening. Doesn't mean that caliber is all of a sudden useless. I know for a fact that if I blast somebody with a .22 caliber bullet going 1,300fps, its going to do some damage. If you don't think so then I guess shooting yourself point blank with one would be ok right? When you do, get a video to me, as I would like to see the bullet bounce off your skull. :neener:

Bottom line is a .22 is more than enough to take somebody down, and whether or not you think its good defensively is not the point of this thread. Also, enough with the suggestions for other guns. I have seen the rest, and the ones I liked best were the Ruger and the Firestorm. If I wanted other suggestions, I would have asked for it.

@ shooter1 - Wow, its pretty sad you think you need a big caliber just to protect yourself. Maybe you should improve on your aim a little bit? Or maybe get some of those pills that extend your 'length' cause its pretty obvious you think you have to compensate for your inadequacies with big weapons.

Disaster
July 31, 2008, 12:38 PM
leukoplast: For me a .22 is more than enough for defense purposes. I agree that a higher caliber gun will be more effective, but part of my reasoning for a .22 in defense is my hearing. I don't want to go deaf using a defensive weapon with a large caliber. Because, obviously there is no time to put on hearing protection in that given circumstance. So with a .380 or higher, I would lose crucial hearing that will never come back. Or maybe even worse, go deaf. And I for one and really nit-picky about my hearing. I protect at any chance I can when I think anything is too loud.

Yowsa.

Do you realize that hearing loss is a cumulative thing don't you? Ever been to a noisy club or disco? An hour in there is like 1000 shots with a .44 magnum. Ever mow your lawn without ear protection? How about turn your stereo up in your car to a song you really like.

A couple self protection shots are not going to make a huge difference in the compared to all the other noise assaults on your hearing.

You should be more worried about the rather instantaneous death a bad guy can deal you when you p.o. him with a .22.

presspuller: Do what I do when in this same situation.
Ask yourself if both of them were on the table in front of you and you had to pick one up and take it home NOW, which one would it be. Don't stop to think about, you have already done that. Just pick the thing up.
Now which one did you pick up?


Good suggestion and one we can use with the self defense argument too. Suppose a bad guy is rushing at you and you have a .45 and a .22 on your night stand for self defense. Which one do you pick up?

leukoblast: I know for a fact that if I blast somebody with a .22 caliber bullet going 1,300fps, its going to do some damage. If you don't think so then I guess shooting yourself point blank with one would be ok right? When you do, get a video to me, as I would like to see the bullet bounce off your skull.

P.S. The "if you don't think this gun is effective why don't you shoot yourself with it"...or the "let me shoot you with it" variation is a silly argument. You'd be an idiot to let someone shoot you with a bb gun...let alone a .22. Either could kill you.

The question is, what is most likely to disable or incapacitate someone that is coming at you with bad intentions BEFORE they can harm you. I don't care if they die 6 hours later. I want them to stop NOW. Of course it is a compromise because ideally you'd like to have a shotgun or rifle. My point is a .22 is much less likely to effectively stop someone than other pistol calibers that aren't that much harder to carry. Additionally, rimfires are notoriously unreliable compared to centerfires. Even with the best ammo and the hardest hitting firing pins you are likely to see several fail to fires in a carton of .22 ammo.

wditto
July 31, 2008, 12:45 PM
RUGER

shooter1
July 31, 2008, 12:49 PM
Well, I don't think anyone could deny that a rubber mallet would have more knock down power than a 22. Without a doubt!! :banghead::D
str1

Water-Man
July 31, 2008, 12:52 PM
Ruger!

leukoplast
July 31, 2008, 12:52 PM
Yowsa.

Do you realize that hearing loss is a cumulative thing don't you? Ever been to a noisy club or disco? An hour in there is like 1000 shots with a .44 magnum. Ever mow your lawn without ear protection? How about turn your stereo up in your car to a song you really like.

A couple self protection shots are not going to make a huge difference in the compared to all the other noise assaults on your hearing.

You should be more worried about the rather instantaneous death a bad guy can deal you when you p.o. him with a .22.

Yes, I do realize those things are loud, which is why I protect my hearing in those given situations. I can't imagine somebody going to a concert and not wearing hearing protection, that is outright stupid. And I never turn up my volume for music/movie too loud where I am uncomfortable with it. I keep it to a reasonable level. Because the thing about hearing is, once you damage your eardrums, that's it...you will never get that hearing back ever again.

Honestly, if I can't take down somebody with a .22, then that's my own problem. But I have full confidence that in a defensive situation a .22 will severely injure or kill any attacker. Even if all else fails, I just keep shooting, 11 rounds into anybody will stop them. Definitely enough to protect myself without losing a ton of my hearing. Plus, its a huge step from where I am at now, no gun at all. So to me, a step up to a .22 is like night and day difference in the world of defense.

shooter1
July 31, 2008, 01:00 PM
@ shooter1 - Wow, its pretty sad you think you need a big caliber just to protect yourself. Maybe you should improve on your aim a little bit? Or maybe get some of those pills that extend your 'length' cause its pretty obvious you think you have to compensate for your inadequacies with big weapons.

Guess you're for real. Up to this point I was giving you the benifit of the doubt.
Apparently my life is worth more to me that your life is to you. I want the most effective tool I can get to protect mine. A rifle would be my first choice, but it's a little hard to conceal. Given that I can carry a handgun no larger than a .22 but in a more effective caliber, I'd be a little more than foolish to not give myself that advantage. I'm sure my opinions are worth no more to you than yours are to me, so make your own choices.
str1

kokapelli
July 31, 2008, 01:00 PM
Sounds like leukoplast's mind was probably made up before his initial post here.
So good luck and enjoy the Bersa. :)

leukoplast
July 31, 2008, 01:16 PM
Guess you're for real. Up to this point I was giving you the benifit of the doubt.
Apparently my life is worth more to me that your life is to you. I want the most effective tool I can get to protect mine. A rifle would be my first choice, but it's a little hard to conceal. Given that I can carry a handgun no larger than a .22 but in a more effective caliber, I'd be a little more than foolish to not give myself that advantage. I'm sure my opinions are worth no more to you than yours are to me, so make your own choices.
str1

I see where your coming from and I am not disagreeing that a higher caliber would be more effective. But I am thinking from a perspective of that I have never had a gun to protect myself with. So once I move on up to a .22 the difference in protection increases at least a 200 fold. I also take my hearing into consideration greatly. So I want to effectively gain more defense, while if in that situation, keep as much of my hearing as possible.

A .22 provides this to me with more than enough power to stop anybody with the right shot(s). A bullet, or bullets, to the head from a .22 will kill somebody. You cannot argue this. On the other hand, a BB/pellet from a BB gun would not (unless shot through the eye perfectly). The difference in a BB gun and .22 are phenomenal. Its like the difference in a RC car electric engine, and a truck engine. Sure I could go for a 747 airplane engine for more 'oomph' but if I can get by with considerable gain on the smaller size, then that works for me.

I personally had to make a compromise between raw power, and things such as my hearing.

HisSoldier
July 31, 2008, 01:22 PM
Ruger with steel frame, the Bersa has an aluminum frame.

kokapelli
July 31, 2008, 01:25 PM
leukoplast I don't think you're going to change anyone's mind here and apparently no one here is going to change your mind.

I think everyone here knows a 22 can kill a person. The question is how fast?
Will it be today, tomorrow or next week. And what will that person be doing while waiting for the 22 to take effect?

As far as shooting the bg ten times, what will the bg be doing while you're shooting, just standing there!

And last, but not least. When I call the Firestorm "Bersa" it's because it is a Bersa!

GearHead_1
July 31, 2008, 01:29 PM
Do what I do when in this same situation.
Ask yourself if both of them were on the table in front of you and you had to pick one up and take it home NOW, which one would it be. Don't stop to think about, you have already done that. Just pick the thing up.That's the same thing I do but I always go home with a gun in each hand.:D

I'm in the Ruger camp on this one but like has already been said, I'm not sure I would consider it a great choice as my defensive weapon. It's certainly better than nothing but your life is worth further consideration when using a .22 as a first line of defense weapon.

leukoplast
July 31, 2008, 01:51 PM
I think everyone here knows a 22 can kill a person. The question is how fast?
Will it be today, tomorrow or next week. And what will that person be doing while waiting for the 22 to take effect?

As far as shooting the bg ten times, what will the bg be doing while you're shooting, just standing there!

And last, but not least. When I call the Firestorm "Bersa" it's because it is a Bersa!

Well, usually when a bullet penetrates the brain, the person dies instantaneously. Or in the heart = death instantly. I really don't see the problem here. Its not like I am going to pop the guy in the thigh or foot once and expect him to go down. I would shoot for areas that = severe pain or death.

And yes, I know the Bersa is a Firestorm...that's what I said and why I marked it as a "Bersa Firestorm" in the OP. :scrutiny:

kokapelli
July 31, 2008, 02:16 PM
Well, usually when a bullet penetrates the brain, the person dies instantaneously. Or in the heart = death instantly. I really don't see the problem here. Its not like I am going to pop the guy in the thigh or foot once and expect him to go down. I would shoot for areas that = severe pain or death.


A shot to the heart does not mean instant death, even with a larger caliber and it's an accepted fact that the head is one of the hardest areas of the human body to hit!

Why do you think law enforcement people are taught to shoot for center mass?

You must be reading fairy tales!

Try reading this (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm) and learn just how fast, or should I say how slow gunshot wounds may take effect.

Personally I don't care what you choose, but I sure hope you don't influence someone with little gun knowledge into thinking a 22 is all we need for self defense!

Mike J
July 31, 2008, 03:13 PM
leukoplast there is a reason where I live it is illegal to deer hunt with anything smaller than 22 centerfire. That means pretty much .223 or larger & most people use something in the .30 caliber range. I have seen a deer I shot with a .30-06 run about 50 yards after receiving a fatal blow. I wouldn't want to be shot by even a BB gun as someone else has said but depending on someones state of mind, how much adrenaline is pumping a lot can happen before someone stops. If in a defensive situation I'd use a .22 if I had no other option but given a choice I'd want at least a 9mm if not larger. Also it can be hard to make a perfect shot on a moving target that is trying to cause you personal harm.

GZOh_Jr
July 31, 2008, 04:30 PM
I, too, have been deciding between the Ruger and the Firestorm. Here are the conclusions of my research:

1) I grew up shooting the Ruger Mk.2, and assumed purchasing the 22/45 (or even the Mk 3) would be easy decisions. But the 22/45 is a different animal from the Mk 2. E.g., I thought the different grip configuration wouldn't be a big deal. But upon handling the gun, I HATED it. While small, the Firestorm's grips fit like a glove in my big hands. The Ruger felt like some random inanimate block-like object. (The Mark 3 felt a bit better, but I still did not like the grip, nor the higher price.)

2) The 22/45 is a polymer gun, in contrast with the Firestorm being alloy. This is a huge negative for me.

3) The concept of "lots of accessories" sounds great. But really the only ones that matter to me are extra mags, aftermarket grips, and possibly holsters. The Firestorm comes with excellent grips, additional grips are dirt cheap, and holsters shouldn't be a problem since its PPK design has been carried for ~60 years. I don't believe the 22/45 can take a replacement grip (because it is molded plastic), and could only take an overgrip such as Hogue. Other than that, I personally have a hard time justifying "ninjifying" a perfectly good .22--but maybe I am just old school.

4) I don't think the "high-velocity" ammo issue is a real issue. In contrast to the Sig Mosquito that needs very high quality ammo, the requirement is that you simply cannot put the cheapest bargain basement ammo in the Firestorm. There are lots of threads on www.bersatalk.com about compatible .22 ammo, and there is a lot of relatively cheap stuff that will still work.

5) Unless you are some sort of statistical anomaly-level marksman, the Firestorm's accuracy is likely beyond your capabilities. So the rest of us would not be likely to notice a difference in accuracy.

6) Firestorm is a brand name created by Bersa, and imported by the same US distributor. It is materially the same gun, with a few cosmetic differences from the regular .380 Bersa Thunder. It is NOT lower quality. And on those lines, Bersa has gained a huge following due to its combination of price/performance/quality. Once again, I don't think there is a material difference in product quality between Ruger and Bersa. I can't speak for customer service though, but they seem to be at the same levels from what I can tell. There certainly seem to be a lot of Ruger fans here, but there are quite a few die hard Bersa devotees out there also (once again, check out Bersatalk). Don't confuse allegiance to a brand with being fully informed about the merits of competing brands.

7) DA operation is appealing to me. As is the fact that the gun would be a perfect training companion to the nearly identical .380 Bersa Thunder.

If you can't tell, I am sold on the Firestorm/Bersa. But many of the reasons that I switched from die-hard Ruger may apply to you also. The good thing is that you really can't go wrong either way.

gidaeon
August 1, 2008, 02:14 AM
I've got a ruger mkIII bull target and a phoenix (oh my..) hp22a (now there's cheap)

For target unquestionably the RUGER! if you must consider it a carry piece well the ruger doesn't fit that bill as others said. I find .22 small guns typically overweight for what they are. So maybe pick what your main priority is? I think the little phoenix (which I know you aren't considering of course, and is bottom of the barrel in price and quality) is like over 20oz in ppk size. Too heavy for its size in my opinion. Not sure how heavy the bersa you're looking at is. Good brand still. As leukoplast said Bersa .380 are a step up and I've seen them for just over $200 new, good pricing for a gun of that level. Have fun picking.

Specs
August 1, 2008, 03:21 PM
I have owned the Ruger MK l and MK ll for many years and I also own the Firestorm 22 and the Bersa 380CC.

The Bersa 380CC is a great carry piece, reliable and potent enough with Corbon DPX 8+1. I bought the FS 22 because it is virtually a duplicate of the 380 and very economical as a trainer and extremely reliable with decent ammo as well. After the first 1000 rds of 22 vs 380, the FS 22 was paid for with ammo cost difference. Further, I have read several accounts of FTF with low velocity 22 in the Firestorm, but I have used standard velocity target ammo with only minor problems cycling here and there. It's not too important since the jams clear easily. I do prefer high velocity rounds and would not buy any low velocity ammo for it, just using up some older stuff I had on hand. Because of the shorter length etc. the FS 22 just is not as accurate as the Rugers were. I would not seriously consider the FS22 for defense or carry except as a casual camp pistol. My 380CC is much more suited for that and is about at the limit for pocket carry.

Both of my MK Rugers were fine pistols, accurate and not too ammo picky, but I must admit that they are a pain to field strip. None of the MK 22 pistols strike me as being good for carry, but my MK ll was a good squirrel getter.

I guess the point is that we are comparing 2 different guns intended for 2 different purposes. If I were to suggest an all around 22 I would recommend the Ruger Single Six convertible 22lr/22mag and forget about 22 semi auto.

I have been thinking about picking up another MKll just to have one in my Ruger collection. I would highly recommend that you consider the MKll over the MKlll because of the extra PC safety add ons on the MKlll. The MKll has several refinements over the original MKl so I would avoid the early issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "Stuck between two .22 pisols. Need help deciding. (Firestorm or Ruger)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!