.22s: Will choose S&W MP or New Ruger Mark IV.

When just looking at them.......

The Ruger sights, fixed on the barrel, should make it more accurate then the S&W?

The S&W barrel looks fixed to the frame? But the slide/sights can slop around?

May not make a difference, depending on tne type of shooting to be done.

Edit add- an Adjustable rear sight is a must have for me.

In terms of durability, the Ruger MK series has been around since 1949 and hasn't changed that much. They are good pistols. I don't have any experience with S&W's Victory, but have read lots of good reports on them.

Kookla said:

In terms of durability, the Ruger MK series has been around since 1949 and hasn't changed that much. They are good pistols. I don't have any experience with S&W's Victory, but have read lots of good reports on them.

Click to expand...

I think he's talking about the M&P, not the Victory.

toivo said:

I think he's talking about the M&P, not the Victory.
View attachment 816896View attachment 816897

Click to expand...

My bad, thanks

Although the ergonomics are closer to regular guns, I have always had issues with the look-alike .22s. These are the GSG Firefly (Sig Mosquito), M&P-22 and the like. The ones I have used have all been picky about ammo. The size and shape of a centerfire slide do not necessarily lend themselves well to a .22lr. They make the slide out of lighter metals, but the ones I have owned have preferred a couple exact types of ammo.

I have not had the same experience with built-for-.22 guns such as the Ruger MK pistols, Buckmark, and S&W Victory. They will generally digest whatever you you load them with.

I would go with the Ruger or a Buckmark in this case.

Ignition Override said:

Is the quality/durability of the new Ruger Mark IV considered to be very good

Click to expand...

YES! Especially the metal frame MKIVs are solidly built with great quality and they funtion great. They feel good in my hands, too. Can't speak to the M&P, but if you get a chance, try the Victory. It's even better than the Ruger, IMO.

OP, you are shorting your options by not considering the S&W Victory. Comparing a target type Ruger or Browning to an M&P type .22 is not realistic. Decide which type you want. If it is the target type, then you should also consider the Victory, a very fine target pistol with many options for upgrading.

I have both...Ruger and M&P compact...and both are very nice guns, just different. Probably so different in fact that a third-party recommendation may be virtually useless to you. I think you would personally need to fondle each and decide which meets your needs the best.

Then do like I did and buy both....

The Victory is more comparable to the Ruger.

So I bought it, too....

BOARHUNTER

I agree with Boarhunter. Very different guns. Depends what you want. I like the combat style (M&P) over the target style (Mark IV).

There are definitely a few of the combat style .22's now that are as reliable and durable as the targets - the M&P Compact being one.

If your primary interest is finding the most reliable, it’s pretty easy to recommend the Ruger. It’s also probably the more accurate, more easily accessorized, etc.

imac98374 said:

If your primary interest is finding the most reliable, it’s pretty easy to recommend the Ruger. It’s also probably the more accurate, more easily accessorized, etc.

Click to expand...

You are naturally entitled to your opinion, but you really should back up statements like that with some reference information. For example, a full range of accessories is readily available for the Victory including barrels, grips, sights, compensators, trigger kits (internal and external), etc. As far as accuracy is concerned, do you really have well controlled, side-by-side, comparative results for all three guns being considered? Or are you just speaking about anecdotes you have heard?

rpenmanparker said:

You are naturally entitled to your opinion, but you really should back up statements like that with some reference information. For example, a full range of accessories is readily available for the Victory including barrels, grips, sights, compensators, trigger kits (internal and external), etc. As far as accuracy is concerned, do you really have well controlled, side-by-side, comparative results for all three guns being considered? Or are you just speaking about anecdotes you have heard?

Click to expand...

The OP asked about the M&P 22 compact vs the mk4 In his post. When we ask a different question, ie what is the most durable/best .22 auto-loader period, I guess the answer would be more nuanced.

imac98374 said:

The OP asked about the M&P 22 compact vs the mk4 In his post. When we ask a different question, ie what is the most durable/best .22 auto-loader period, I guess the answer would be more nuanced.

Click to expand...

Earlier in the thread OP allowed that adding the Victory to his list would be a good thing. But even without that consideration you provide no corroboration for your opinions about the Ruger and M&P.

Between those two, I would choose the Ruger. In fact, if I were to buy a .22 pistol today, I would choose the Ruger and then the Browning Buckmark. I just like the nearly no-felt recoil of all metal .22 pistols. Additionally, the Ruger accessories are in abundance. It's a proven design by a respected and reputable manufacturer that comes in a plethora of different variations. It might cost more than some of the polymer .22s, but its a solid piece of engineering.

rpenmanparker said:

Earlier in the thread OP allowed that adding the Victory to his list would be a good thing. But even without that consideration you provide no corroboration for your opinions about the Ruger and M&P.

Click to expand...

So if you’re asking which .22 semi auto is the most durable, I would look to the materials of the pistol (which should give you some idea of wear characteristics). Steel receiver/slide would probably be preferable, so that gives us the Ruger, the buckmark and the victory +/- the Neos (I honestly don’t know much about that last one). Less durable would be aluminum sliding on steel (M&P, SR22). Least durable would be zamak (Walther p22).

Next I would look to history of durability - I think the Ruger and buckmark are best established and would probably be my recommended 22’s.

Next would be accuracy potential. All of the steel guns above have sights fixed to the barrel, which should be better. Thicker barrels should be stiffer/more consistent. Longer barrels give longer sight radium - also better. This again favors the steel guns I listed.

If you’re looking for an accurate enough pistol, that’s durable enough, all should be fine, with the possible exception of the zamak p22 in some cases (search cracked slides). Other things like the similarity of the pistol to your defensive pistol are important (it sounds like the OP make his choice along these lines.)

When specifically comparing the s&w and Ruger, durability should be less of a concern - both because of the reputations of the companies and their track records of fixing broken guns essentially for free.

My two cents...

Between the original two - the M&P version is designed to look like an M&P and then be a .22 second. The Ruger is designed from the ground up to just be a good .22. The same can be said of the Victory too. I'd much sooner go with a Mk IV, Victory, or a Buckmark before buying any of the .22's meant to look like a baby version of a bigger gun.

mgmorden said:

Between the original two - the M&P version is designed to look like an M&P and then be a .22 second. The Ruger is designed from the ground up to just be a good .22. The same can be said of the Victory too. I'd much sooner go with a Mk IV, Victory, or a Buckmark before buying any of the .22's meant to look like a baby version of a bigger gun.

Click to expand...

Well if we are going to talk about best of the best, OP should buy a decent .45 1911 and stick a Marvel Unit 1 .22 conversion slide on it. Best precision known in a .22 pistol. The target .22s can’t touch it. Marvel is widely praised for that conversion unit.

I have a Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite and a Browning Buck Mark Medallion. The Ruger is lighter than the Browning. The Ruger field strips in about 5 seconds. The Browning does not breakdown, nor do you need to according to the manual. Both are fun to shoot.

Between the two I would probably opt for a Ruger Mk.IV Target as I have had Ruger .22 pistols most of my life and I like their overall quality, durability, reliability, accuracy potential, and how nicely balanced they feel in my hand.

If what you want is a fun time plinker I don't think you could go wrong with either the Ruger MK.IV 22/45 Lite or the S&W M&P .22 Compact.