[OH25shooter]

Ready for a 22 auto loader. Narrowed down to Model 41 or 22/45. Suggestions regarding accuracy, after market sights, parts, breakdown, etc.

[usp_fan]

I've owned the 22/45 and can say it is a great pistol and very accurate. However, the nylon frame isn't very pretty, and the slide lock on mine was stiff. Also, the slide lock will not release when you tug back on the slide. If that's not a big deal to you then don't worry about it. The bluing on my 22/45 was about like the finish on most late model rugers I've seen--somewhat thin and prone to wear. Overall, the 22/45 is a great shooter at a great price. The price reflects the finish and frame material.

The S&W 41 is the U.S. produced standard against which all other .22 auto are measured (at least where I live and shoot). You will typically pay more, and hopefully you will recieve more value for your $. Each of the 41's I've handled and shot were finished very well, they were accurate to the highest of my ability, they balanced well, and they were smooth. Barrels are plentiful for 41's in different lengths and with scope mounting options.

Each pistol fills a specific need. If you were to buy only 1 and if its within your budget, I'd spring for the model 41. You'll never regret it. I loved my 22/45, but after a year, I found I wanted to things to it and with it that the frame wouldn't allow without lots of modification (different grips, slide lock, etc...).

As a side note, the 41's run neck and neck with ruger's at our local bowling pin shoots.

[Russ]

The S&W is not even in the same class a Ruger. If you can afford the Smith, 41 get it. They run in the $700 range these days. You could buy 2 or three Rugers for that price. I found one for $399 several years ago on a close out and still kick myself for not getting it.

[RON in PA]

Strange comparison, like comparing a Chevy with a Caddy. Rugers are good guns, have two Mark IIs, but the Smith 41 is a top of the line bullseye match gun that is approx. twice the price of a Ruger. If you can shoot the Ruger as accurately as the Smith, then get the Ruger. If money is no object get the Smith.

[DougCxx]

Just Another Opinion: the S&W 41 is way overrated, and way over-priced. I would bet that many people really buy it simply because it looks like a "22lr 1911". It is priced up in the ISSF-class guns but it is not used at the upper levels if ISSF/Olympic shooting.
...As a side note, the 41's run neck and neck with ruger's at our local bowling pin shoots....
-Yes, that is often the case. People buy them for various different reasons, but what part of a 41 can you point to and say it cost $400 more than the Ruger? A Ruger with a $100 trigger job can shoot pretty much right on top of a mod 41.
-If you want a dedicated target pistol, the EAA IZH35M is about the same price as a new Ruger slabside and is better than either any Ruger or the 41. It has a fully-adjustable trigger and better ergonomics than the Ruger or Smith. Its drawbacks as a general-use gun is the lack of left-hand factory grips and 5-shot magazines (-but then, all ISSF pistols only have 5-shot magazines!). It is a newer version of a gun the Russians used to shoot at the Olymic level, and costs far less than any comparable gun.
-----------
Browse the Pilkguns forum if you don't believe me, you will see lots of posts for Euro target guns, lots of posts about the IZH35M, and maybe a couple posts about Rugers, 41's, etc. The 41 costs around twice what the Ruger does--but among target shooting enthusiasts, it works no better.
~

[OH25shooter]

Maybe one is an apple and the other an orange. I've seen the breakdown of the 22/45. Not thrilled. How about the M41 breakdown?

[usp_fan]

The M41 isn't too bad to pull apart. Nor is the Ruger. Just as another option. A really accurate .22 I can recomend for less than the m41 is the Sig Trailside. I have enjoyed mine and have never looked back on selling my ruger to help fund the purchase. The design has been around long enough now that Sig has worked the bugs out. Disassembly is easy and man do they shoot!

Just another suggestion for you.

usp_fan

[Luis Leon]

OH25shooter

I also considered the Ruger Slabside, Sig Trailside and finally settled on the M41. I don't think the Ruger can compare in terms of looks, quality and ease of takedown. The trigger is another area where the Ruger shooters spend lots of money in order to get it to the level of an M41.

I didn't like the fact the the barrel and frame of the Sig Trailside are one-piece, (no barrel changes), and that the grip frame is shorter than the grips.

The m41 on the other hand I can switch barrels on in seconds (literally) and breakdown is a pleasure. I can switch from my red-dot barrel to my iron sights barrel in seconds. You can't do that on the Trailside or the Ruger. Also it is much more accurate than I can shoot it.

Regards,

Luis Leon


P.S. I bought the m41 because I wanted to do it right the first time. And no, I am not a target shooter, I just wanted the finest American .22 autoloader I could get.:evil:

[Russ]

Welcome to THR Luis. Good choice on the 41 in my opinion. Wish I could afford one now.

[aircarver]

What everyone said above is good advice. I have a 41, and prize it above all 22s. But that said... The ruger is an inexpensive, robust gun with one flaw: the trigger goes 'around the barn' too much to be made top notch. There IS hope, however... a Volquartsen trigger will put a Ruger on a par with the best in class and most shooters won't bother to find the difference.

[Standing Wolf]

I own a Ruger Mark II (similar to the .22/45) and a Smith & Wesson model 41.

Out of the box, both were disappointing. Both had mediocre triggers, the Ruger's somewhat worse than the model 41's. The model 41's rear sight was better, but kept falling off. The Ruger magazines are sturdier and easier to clean. Both included mediocre stocks. The model 41 was quite well finished. Both can be disassembled quickly and easily; the Ruger, however, is an absolute @#$%^&! to clean and reassemble.

After extensive gunsmithing and restocking, they're both reasonably good guns, but neither can hold a candle to my trusty old High Standards and Browning Medalist.

[Luis Leon]

Russ-

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Standing Wolf-

In my opinion the out of the box trigger on the m41 is way better than that of the Ruger. And as for disassembly, there is no comparison there either. The entire piece is solid, I've had no problems with mine so far.

Regards,

Luis Leon

[cratz2]

The model 41 is very nice and I wouldn't mind picking one up some day but honestly, at $700... most people that can pop for a $700 22 pistol can probably pop $1,000 for one as well and a nice Springfield or Colt 1911 with a trigger job and a Marvel conversion would be a much nicer package... for me anyway.

The new Sigs are nice... and not too pricey. For someone that doesn't carry a 1911, the Ruger Mk II is still a great pistol at a great price. Triggers can be tuned up/replaced as money allows.

For me, I'm quite happy with my 10 year old Dan Wesson 22 revolver. Picked it up for $150 and it rings the 100 yard gong quite consistantly thank you very much. ;)

[rbert0005]

I have both.

Here is another thought. If you mainly want to plink and have fun I would get the Ruger. I see in the catalogue they offer a 5 1/2 slab side model. I think that would be the most fun version.

The Smith is really in a different catagory. I tend to treat mine like a fine piece of machinery. It is not stamped out.

You may also want to look at the slab side Ruget Target version. I think that one is a real honey. For around 400 bucks, you can't go wrong.
It will give you all the accuracy you need. There are also a ton af aftermarket dress-uos for it too.

I would still not be without a Model 41 though.

I hope this clears it all up for you..........

Bob

[Crazy]

I have a 41 (2 actually) and shoot bullseye with it. I'm a master pushing high master scores with it.

The Ruger is a good plinker, but they need a lot of work to come up to the level of a "box stock" 41.

The IZH has a number of real problems, I'd avoid it. They are known to have bolt face problems, causing the gun to double or go full auto. Not a fun thing when you're not expecting it.

The Trailside feels like McHammerli. It follows the basic 208 design, but has some drawbacks. It's very light, feels cheap, and is not very easy to clean with that fixed barrel design.

The Marvel conversion is very, very barrel heavy, even without a compensator. You really need to pick one up before you decide to buy. They have also been prone to bolt face problems, and feeding problems. Marvel is a great person to work with and they WILL solve your problems, but you need to expect some tuning. They're also much more expensive than a 41 by the time you add in a frame and magazines.

If you can afford the 41, do it you won't regret it. New barrels are a drop in item, and there are many sources for parts and springs. Mine has a 6# Wolf spring and will feed just about any target grade ammo out there.

Crazy

[cratz2]

The Marvel conversion is very, very barrel heavy, even without a compensator.

Really? The Marvel conversion unit weighs less than a standard 1911 barrel/slide unit and I've never thought of the 1911 as being overly muzzle heavy?

:confused:

[Graystar]

The Ruger is a good plinker, but they need a lot of work to come up to the level of a "box stock" 41. Owning both, I'd have to agree with this statement. The 41 is in a different class.

[Gewehr98]

But in the meantime, I bought a Browning Buckmark. That was after trying a Ruger 22/45 and Mark II. ;)

[Pilot]

If your going to spend $700 for a .22 target pistol, get this instead of the Smith.

http://www.larrysguns.com/default.htm

[YodaVader]

I own a MKII as well as a 41. The 41's out of the box trigger is vastly superior to the MKIIs. Take down and barrel switching is far less complicated. Fit and finish again , in another class entirely. But for the price difference this is exactly what is to be expected.

For some shooters the 41 is a more ergonomic pistol. My friend who was once a national 22 bullseye champion at Camp Perry told me that this factor is one of the most significant differences between top level bullseye guns compared to less expensive brands. Of course all the high end guns will all have very good triggers right out of the box.

As far as bullseye accuracy, the Ruger will allow you to shoot possibles all day long. The trigger will need work - mine was done by Clark and it is actually more crisp and light than the 41 - althought the 41 is pure stock.

[ChopperKen]

I just got a 22-45 Friday from a friend.
It works well for a box stock gun.
As far as disassembly and reassembly With a little practice today and last night I can field strip it from loaded in approx. 12 seconds and put it back together ready to fire in 18.
Nice gun so far..
Ken

[Standing Wolf]

Here's a snap shot of my Ruger Mark II. The original Ruger barrel—stamped with a moronic "safety" message—has been replaced with one from Clark. The guts are now Volquartsen. The cheap plastic grips have been replaced with Fung stocks. The Ultra Dot red dot sight is a vast improvement on the factory iron sights. The gun is still an absolute @#$%^&! to reassemble.

The target was shot with three strings of timed fire at 25 meters. I don't normally shoot this well.

[standingbear]

the model 41 is a nice piece..if you can afford one..get it.