22 flying / Survival-vest pistol search

Status
Not open for further replies.
Was the .22 Airlite you got rid of a 2 inch, or 3 inch gun? Did it have adjustable sights?

Thanks,

-John
 
So I am back searching for a accurate and reliable 22 to carry in my flying survival vest.
I'm suprised that you had such a problem with the S&W .22 revolver. The good old 317 "Kit Gun" (alloy frame, 3 inch barrel, adjustable sights) would be my first choice for your indicated usage.

If you are dead set against the 317, I might consider a 4 inch 617 revolver. With its steel frame its a heavier gun, but they are famous for being accurate. IF you are sour on all S&W .22 revolvers, I'd probably look at the Ruger Mk III "Standard" model next. A very reliable gun with reasonable accuracy. Its more limited in ammo that a good revolver but still a quality choice.
 
Was the .22 Airlite you got rid of a 2 inch, or 3 inch gun? Did it have adjustable sights?

3 inch first model with adjustable sights. I just could not shoot that gun very well. I sold it to a local friend who is a much better shot than I am...

At my age I have found that I am now very far sighted. Suddenly 29 inch rifle barrels make sense.

So I may need to get something that I can mount with a pistol scope or a red-dot type sight.
 

Attachments

  • S&W AirLite 8 shot 22..jpg
    S&W AirLite 8 shot 22..jpg
    152.5 KB · Views: 18
23 ounces, cheap, reliable and accurate.
3906.jpg


I've got an advantage arms Glock29 conversion that is very light and accurate as well and you could stash the 10 mm mag and slide in your kit.
 
23 ounces, cheap, reliable and accurate.
3906.jpg

As the owner of a few of the ones listed in this thread (Bersa 22. Ruger SR22, BuckMark), given the OP's scenario of flying over water in Alaska, Id choose the Ruger Lite. Better accuracy than the 1st 2 and lighter than the BuckMark.

The OP also mentioned the possible need for optics. If the Ruger Lite cant accept optics, Id personally choose the BuckMark but the Ruger Mkseries is a fine choice too.
 
One thing I sincerely wish for is getting rid of the stupid ban on shoulder stocks. A Ruger or Buckmark (or my 1938 Colt Woodsman) with a shoulder stock would be lighter, more compact and more accurate than an AR 7 or similar "survival" rifle.
 
Float Pilot
Adding a set of boot grips and a Patridge front sight blade made a world of difference with out 317 Kit Gun.
The ramp sight just didn't pick up very well and the UM gripper grip that came on the revolver was spongy and had the gun moving around in the hand too much.
You might take a second look at one of the heavier M63 Kit guns for better results.
 
At my age I have found that I am now very far sighted. Suddenly 29 inch rifle barrels make sense.

So I may need to get something that I can mount with a pistol scope or a red-dot type sight.

I've come to the same conclusion regarding long rifle barrels and sights on a pistol. Too bad a red dot on a pistol adds so much size because they work wonders for the eyes. And I am near sighted, but wearing tri-focal progressives don't help me see fixed sights that are too close in.
 
One thing I sincerely wish for is getting rid of the stupid ban on shoulder stocks

Is that strictly true? Maybe I am not up on this because I haven't paid much attention to this particular part of the law, but can't you legally own the carbine kit for the Beretta NEOS? I thought that if it was originally bought and "registered" as a pistol, it was OK to put a stock on it and vice-versa.
 
I have five Ruger Mk pistols, and for the money they are hard to beat. Two of these Rugers are the early model of the 22/45, I didn't care for the later model. I also have a S&W 351 PD in 22 Mag that is a very good, reliable gun. If it were me, I would buy a S&W 386PD, it is very light weight and in a good holster you won't know you have it. It will take care of anything that a 22lr won't, like a cougar, black bear, etc...
 
Is that strictly true? Maybe I am not up on this because I haven't paid much attention to this particular part of the law, but can't you legally own the carbine kit for the Beretta NEOS? I thought that if it was originally bought and "registered" as a pistol, it was OK to put a stock on it and vice-versa.
The answer is yes and no. They went after Thompson-Center who sold a receiver with stocks and barrels for both pistol and rifle in one package, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Thompson-Center.

But if you have, say a Ruger, Browning Buckmark, or Colt Woodsman and make a simple shoulder stock in your basement, you have to register it and pay a $200 tax.
 
My hunting buddy and I both use Ruger MKII with red-dot sights for squirrels and raccoon. They aren't light or pocket sized but they will shoot like a rifle and eat any ammo. I use mine for a truck-gun in the off-season.
If I couldn't use a MKII or( MKIII 22.45) for some reason, I' would check into a SR22. #1 son has one and it is light, smallish, and a good shooter that feels good in the hand and isn't picky on ammo. It's priced right too. If you can't hit a Ritz with it, you can surely scare the salt off of it.
Other than that I might go with a Browning compact 1911 .22. You may not be able to survive with one, but you will look like a boss with it in your vest when they find your corpse. All jokes aside, I think they're cool.
 
Is that strictly true? Maybe I am not up on this because I haven't paid much attention to this particular part of the law, but can't you legally own the carbine kit for the Beretta NEOS? I thought that if it was originally bought and "registered" as a pistol, it was OK to put a stock on it and vice-versa.

Regarding the Neos (like Vern mentioned) unless you go through the Federal hoops, you can't use the pistol barrel with the stock mounted.

placards.jpg
 
Another one I personally like that might fill the bill - early model Ruger Bearcat.

Light, accurate, fun (not that fun is supposed to be a factor) and reliable.
 
Old eyes, shaky hands, but I still like to shoot pistol. Recently I bought a Burris Fastfire III to mount on a .22 pistol. Comes in two dot sizes and with a few different mounts, it is small and works well. The big dif between the model 2 and 3 is where the battery door is located, small but significant improvement. Check it out.http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Burris+fast+fire+3

Mine is on a GSG 1911-22 with an aftermarket slide that is set up to accept an optic.
88cba132-fbf1-48e4-9621-8ca3694ba8ac_zps6f29c0f5.jpg

(photo was meant to illustrate the difference in accuracy with the new slide and red dot...shot from a rest at 10 yards)
 
I put a burris fastfire III on my ruger 22/45 lite with the dovetail mount that replaces the rear sight and it is nice. I did have to shim the rear of the dovetail mount on the top (with some aluminum tape) to get the point of aim in the middle of the elevation adjustments on the fastfire. I was a little upset about having to do this, but oh well.
 
"No disrespect to the small guns that keep getting posted but they simply do not meet all of needs of a true survival situation They are all too small and not accurate enough to be used for real life small game hunting.

Another possible choice in theory although I withhold final opinion until the price comes down and actual field reports come in would be the KelTech PMR 30.

With a 30 round mag in the gun and a spare 30 round mag 60 rounds of 22 Magnum is a lot of firepower in a convenient package."


BSA1,

The OPs criteria is a "survival vest" gun. That kind of makes me think small and light. Small and light doesn't necessarily mean inaccurate. I carried a Charter Arms 3" bbl Pathfinder .22 while deer hunting for a long time. It took it's share of squirrels, rabbits and grouse over the years
 
I keep reminding myself that Francis Gary Powers had very little space or weight allowance in that U2 he flew over Russia, but he carried a silenced High Standard .22 pistol -- about the same size as my Colt Woodsman.
 
Yeap I think it was a High Standard HD govt model. They had a very long suppressor , but the couple I have fired were pretty quite.
 

Attachments

  • high standard 22.jpg
    high standard 22.jpg
    14.7 KB · Views: 13
That's the gun. Now I would think in a float plane, with a bit more room, and no need for the suppressor, the High Standard would come very close to being ideal.
 
Well there are a few new guns out that might be the bomb. The new Browning 1911-22 ones look good . The Sigsauer mini 1911 in 9mm (think it is 938) are REAL nice and at 15 oz they are accurate and then you would have 9mm power. Think I'd rather have 100 9mm rounds than 500 .22s for survival after looking back 50 interesting years of my life.
 
I love my Sig Sauers. German Sig Sauers, not Sigarms of NH. I would never ever ever stake my life on a Mosquito. With all the horror stories I have heard regarding reliability and the pot metal zinc material they are smelted from you or I would deserve anything we got if we trusted our lives to one.
 
I certain that you know what makes the best survival gun for the Alaskan bush pilot. Far beit for a flatlander tractor jockey from an Illinois cornfield to make a suggestion but.....

here's what I think would be a 'good behind the seat' companion. It won't fit in your vest though.

http://lofigunandgame.com/the-baikal-mp94-combo-gun-reviewed/

A very nice review by a fellow THR member.

One of these with a 2.5x scope would make and awesome truck/plane/combine/cabin gun esp in a caliber/gauge that you already have ammo for.

my $.02 just for fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top