Bullseye 22's


PDA






Erud
June 7, 2004, 08:37 PM
Hey all of you bullseye shooters out there, what are you using for your .22? I am planning on trying bullseye league this fall and am thinking about upgrading my MK II. Here's what Ive thought of so far:

-S&W Model 41
-Volquartsen MKII
-Marvel conversion on dedicated 1911 frame

Anything else I don't know about? I shoot about twice a week, and would like to be competitive from the start, so I don't want to skimp on equipment.
I'm just kind of hunting for ideas right now, so any input is appreciated.

Thanks,
Erud

If you enjoyed reading about "Bullseye 22's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mhdishere
June 8, 2004, 10:37 AM
Personally I did OK with my S&W 617, the thing shoots like it's got eyes. Of course I was always the only guy on the line with a .22 revolver, but....

Since my center-fire was a 686, I doubled my training. I'm thinking of getting back into Bullseye and am considering a .45 ACP revolver to round out the set.

Quantrill
June 8, 2004, 10:47 AM
I shot Bullseye a few years back in a league. The guns I personally saw on the line used by experienced shooters (in no particular order) Colt Woodsman Match, High Standard Victor and Supermatic Citation, S&W #41, Browning Medalist. Some of these guns were very fussy as to ammo for accuracy. Quantrill

M67
June 8, 2004, 11:15 AM
Well, you have Walther, Hämmerli, Pardini and a few others.

A bit more expensive, but if you can afford it, it's worth it. They are that much better.

In that class I don't think there is a "best" gun, but there will be one that is best for you. Testing is required to find out.

The best alternative for less money, IMO, is the Baikal IZH35M. It looks a bit rough, but the Russians are all about business, if it doesn't affect accuracy and functionality, they won't waste time and effort in polishing it. Personally, I would take the Baikal over a Smith 41. If the price was the same. The ergonomics are that much better, again IMO, I'm sure opinions will vary.

I don't own any of these, but I have tried all of the above and some others on several occasions and it currently looks like I'm landing on a Hämmerli SP20 as my next gun purchase.

Oh, and I've heard rumors that Walther is going to reveal something new in connection with the upcoming Olympics, but according to the romors they are very tight lipped about just what it is.

BillL223
June 8, 2004, 07:29 PM
Shortly after beginning pistol shooting and before I discovered "Action Shooting" , I tried Bullseye. As a beginner, the equipment has very little to do with your sucess. Get a pistol and practice. When your are cleaning the targets and need more "X" hits, consider a better pistol. I shot a S & W 41 and it never limited me. You do need a decent trigger.

Aneat
June 8, 2004, 07:33 PM
I would stick with the Ruger, most stock Rugers I have seen will shoot well enough for Masters or High Masters, I use a Ruger and it will still hold the X ring at 50 yards from a Ransom Rest. Usually all they need is a trigger job.

My second choice would be the Marvel conversion. That would help getting used to the grip, trigger etc if you are using a Govt model for center fire and 45.

I see more and more guys going to the Marvel

Adam

BlindRat
June 9, 2004, 02:48 PM
Not a Bullseye shooter...yet...Pistol Parapalegic as they say.
But I see Hammerli's in the hands of the better shooters here...although every so often the USMC will station one of their Bullseye Hardguns out here who will clean up with the S&W 41's that they have on hand in the Armory.

I noticed no one has mentioned High Standard?

OMCHamlin
June 10, 2004, 06:14 AM
My picks would be: an OLDER High Standard Victor or Trophy, S&W 41, Marvel Unit I, Ruger MK II w/Voquartsen trigger job, in that order.

Erud
June 10, 2004, 08:34 AM
Thanks for the info, guys. I think I'm going to try and find a local shop with a High Standard and/or a Baikal for comparison's sake. Like I said I'm just in the planning stage right now, and I have enough time to think about it so I will have no excuse for buying the wrong gun!

Valkman
June 11, 2004, 04:13 PM
When I started in Bullseye I had a bull-barreled Ruger MK II but it didn't really have the trigger that you need. When a guy let me shoot his M41 my score went up 10 points, so I went out and found an older one at a gunshow. Electronic trigger Hammerli's are nice, but I don't think you need more than a M41 at this point. :)

Chris Rhines
June 13, 2004, 08:23 AM
I've shot Bullseye for many years. Started out with a stock Ruger MkII, then on to a Smith 41, and finally my present gun, a Pardini SPE. If I had it to do over again, I would skip the Smith 41 - for the price, there are far better guns out there.

Were I you, I would just shoot the MkII for a while. After a few matches you'll have a better idea of what you want - at that point you can dump some money into upgrading my MkII (trigger, sights, and ammo - my old worn-out MkII shoots 1" groups at 50 yards from a solid benchrest) or get a better pistol.

On the subject of ammo - get a bunch of different types of match .22 ammo and try them all in your gun. Find out what groups the best at 50 yards. Select the brand with the best combination of price and consistency, and buy a case or two of it. .22s are weird about ammo - two identical guns will perform much differently with the same ammunition. For example, my Pardini likes RWS Rifle Match, and hates Federal 711. Find out what your gun likes.

- Chris

rick_reno
June 14, 2004, 12:12 PM
I've shot bullseye for years; I started out shooting a Buckmark, moved on to a High Standard Victor (Hamden gun), then a Hammerli 208S and now a Pardini. Most of the shooters I shoot with use older High Standards. We've seen two new S&W M41's at our club in the past 5 years, and neither worked. One went back and forth to S&W so many times it was spending more time in the mail than being shot. They both had problems feeding. I saw where you're going to a shop to look for a High Standard - be careful. The new ones are crap and other than the name on them bear no relationship with the older guns made in Hamden or Hartford. If you find an older one, check the slide for cracks - they'll sometimes crack if HV ammo has been used in them. The Baikal is a good gun for the money, I've seen several 100 targets shot with one this year. The owner just sold it, he's being quiet about what he is replacing with. Ruger is a nice gun to use, replace the trigger/sear with something from Clark or Volquartsen and you'll have a very nice gun (Gil Hebard has the parts). The nice thing about a Ruger is they're available everywhere and will get you shooting rather than spinning your wheels looking for a gun. Once you get to a match, most shooters are more than happy to let you try their guns - and then you can narrow down your choices.

halvey
June 16, 2004, 01:02 PM
I don't shoot Bullseye, but the Marvel is fantastic!

BigG
June 16, 2004, 01:38 PM
There is a Benelli out there that is as good as anything. Has the mag in front of the trigger. Also, I would check out the Baikal based on the reputation of their long arms. I have one and it's a keeper!

If you enjoyed reading about "Bullseye 22's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!