Favorite .22 Pistol?
- Thread starter PawDaddy
- Start date
- Status
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
It might be worth you while to think about barrel weights.
Nick1911
Member
I'm partial to the feel of my Browning Buckmark, might try handleing one in a store sometime.
Nick
Nick
RightIsRight
Member
I am with Nick. My Browning Buckmark is sweet. It points well for me, shoots better than I can aim it (which ain't sayin much) and is reliable as all get out.
Craig M. Arnold
Member
Browning Buckmark
Another vote for the Buckmark. I have two of them and they are great. I think the best bang for the buck in .22lr. Very accurate and I have never had a jam in either one of mine and one has over 15,000 rounds through it!!!
Another vote for the Buckmark. I have two of them and they are great. I think the best bang for the buck in .22lr. Very accurate and I have never had a jam in either one of mine and one has over 15,000 rounds through it!!!
Nick96
Member
The Ruger .22 autos come in a variety of shapes, sizes & weights:
- Standard "Luger" cant grip.
- 1911 type grip.
- Blue & stainless finishes.
- Tapered & bull barrels in a variety of lengths.
- Numerous fixed, adjustable, optic, lazer & scope sight options.
- Numerous grip options.
- Refined trigger accessories.
And these are all "off the shelf" type items. Add to that custom work that is available from several gunsmiths.
I can't imagine you couldn't find one that feels good to you. Certainly more options & accessories than ANY other .22 auto in production.
About the only negative is they all utilize a common action - enclosed bolt & internal striker type hammer. If you are looking for an exposed hammer, DA/SA or DAO trigger or a traditional slide set up - you'll have to look elsewhere. Like a center fire to rim fire conversion kit (many of which don't work too well) or .22 versions of centerfire pistols (generally pretty expensive). The Browning Buckmarks are great pistols - but they are basically a 1930's design - with options and available accessories far more limited than the Rugers.
- Standard "Luger" cant grip.
- 1911 type grip.
- Blue & stainless finishes.
- Tapered & bull barrels in a variety of lengths.
- Numerous fixed, adjustable, optic, lazer & scope sight options.
- Numerous grip options.
- Refined trigger accessories.
And these are all "off the shelf" type items. Add to that custom work that is available from several gunsmiths.
I can't imagine you couldn't find one that feels good to you. Certainly more options & accessories than ANY other .22 auto in production.
About the only negative is they all utilize a common action - enclosed bolt & internal striker type hammer. If you are looking for an exposed hammer, DA/SA or DAO trigger or a traditional slide set up - you'll have to look elsewhere. Like a center fire to rim fire conversion kit (many of which don't work too well) or .22 versions of centerfire pistols (generally pretty expensive). The Browning Buckmarks are great pistols - but they are basically a 1930's design - with options and available accessories far more limited than the Rugers.
WonderNine
member
I like the Ruger MKII in the 6.5" barrel length with a standard barrel not the target one and the Ruger Single Six. I haven't shot a Bearcat, but they look neat, only you can't shoot .22 magnums out of it.
Browning Buckmarks for me as well.
The 4" Micro just sits right in the palm and points very natural for me.
The 5.5" Standard has just enough muzzle heaviness to be noticeable.
The 5.5" Target is more muzzle heavy, as preferred by a number of Bullseye shooters.
The 10" Shilhouette has a wooden fore-end for a reason!
The 4" Micro just sits right in the palm and points very natural for me.
The 5.5" Standard has just enough muzzle heaviness to be noticeable.
The 5.5" Target is more muzzle heavy, as preferred by a number of Bullseye shooters.
The 10" Shilhouette has a wooden fore-end for a reason!
HandGunsR4Me
Member
Colt Woodsman
I've owned and shot other 22s but I still like my Woodsman the best.
I've owned and shot other 22s but I still like my Woodsman the best.
I'm with Nick96. The Rugers offer so many different configurations, it's hard to believe you can't find one that balances well in you hand. There's also more aftermarket stuff for Rugers than you can shake a stick at.
It's cheap, more accurate than me, and a hoot to shoot. I like mine:
It's cheap, more accurate than me, and a hoot to shoot. I like mine:
Killerofgiants
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 16
Sig P210-7. OTherwise, I really like my Browning Buckmark. Great gun for the money, reliable and accurate, super light trigger. Kind of a pain to clean though.
The Ruger that I had was the 4" version of the standard MKII. My son has a six inch 22/45 and it does balance better, but I really do not like the grip. My friend just bought one of the new Baretta's and it feels okay. I might just look at the six inch MKII. They are sweet shooting guns.
I have and old High Standard .22 revolver that my dad gave me when I was a kid. It has had thousands of rounds through it and I hate to keep shooting it and completely wear it out.
I have and old High Standard .22 revolver that my dad gave me when I was a kid. It has had thousands of rounds through it and I hate to keep shooting it and completely wear it out.
DougCxx
Member
What did you not like about the balance?
-If the guns were too nose-heavy and you were mounting optics anyway, then you can maybe mount the optics back over the end of the gun. I have fired one Mk II with a field scope set up like this and while it was a bit bulky, I did like the way it felt more than mine did (that has a red-dot mounted on a generic drill/tap weaver rail, a bit forward).
--------
....I find that most typical field guns are balanced about right with a small/thin barrel, but when you add a long and/or thick barrel they end up way too nose-heavy.
~
-If the guns were too nose-heavy and you were mounting optics anyway, then you can maybe mount the optics back over the end of the gun. I have fired one Mk II with a field scope set up like this and while it was a bit bulky, I did like the way it felt more than mine did (that has a red-dot mounted on a generic drill/tap weaver rail, a bit forward).
--------
....I find that most typical field guns are balanced about right with a small/thin barrel, but when you add a long and/or thick barrel they end up way too nose-heavy.
~
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Hey-Hey Hey Paw Daddy,
My favorite .22 LR caliber self-loader might surprise you;
cuz now days its gett'in kind'a rare:
Colt Match Target Woodsman
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
My favorite .22 LR caliber self-loader might surprise you;
cuz now days its gett'in kind'a rare:
Colt Match Target Woodsman
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
ReadyontheRight
Member
Another vote for the Browning Buckmark.
DougCxx
Member
I think the problem with recommending an old gun is twofold:
1) people unfamiliar with it will worry that something disastrous will be wrong with the one they purchase and it will be expensive or not possible to fix, and-
2) if the gun was so great to begin with, then why aren't they still being made?....
~
1) people unfamiliar with it will worry that something disastrous will be wrong with the one they purchase and it will be expensive or not possible to fix, and-
2) if the gun was so great to begin with, then why aren't they still being made?....
~
Smoke
Member
Put me solidly in the Ruger Camp.
Single Six in .22/.22wmr
22/45
I just traded a MarkII for a 22/45. Best thing I ever did. I hate the cant to the MarkII grip. 22/45 feels good.
Single Six in .22/.22wmr
22/45
I just traded a MarkII for a 22/45. Best thing I ever did. I hate the cant to the MarkII grip. 22/45 feels good.
cratz2
Member
I don't like any of the sub $400 Smith... and I have nothing against Smith 7 Wesson.
The Rugers are nice guns but I wish they'd make the 22/45 in an all steel version. Of the Rugers, I like the 4.5" bull barrel guns the best... They balance the best for me. I'm told the longer tapered barrels are nice as well but have never shot one. The long bull barrel guns are nice for taming recoil (ha! recoil in a heavy barrel 22 pistol!) but they start feeling pretty muzzle heavy after too few shots.
Honestly, I have more experience with Smith & Wesson and Dan Wesson revolvers and 1911 and CZ conversion units.
The Rugers are nice guns but I wish they'd make the 22/45 in an all steel version. Of the Rugers, I like the 4.5" bull barrel guns the best... They balance the best for me. I'm told the longer tapered barrels are nice as well but have never shot one. The long bull barrel guns are nice for taming recoil (ha! recoil in a heavy barrel 22 pistol!) but they start feeling pretty muzzle heavy after too few shots.
Honestly, I have more experience with Smith & Wesson and Dan Wesson revolvers and 1911 and CZ conversion units.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Greeting's DougCxx-
In response to question #2:
The Colt Match Target Woodsman preceeded the
Colt Manufacturing Company by going south. I don't have
specific dates in front of me, but the Colt Match Target
Woodsman went thru 3 generations. The old saying
of "all is well, that ends well" must have come of age
with the departure of the Match Target Woodsman.
I got in on this beauty kind'a late (spring of 76 as my
records indicate), and mine was a 3rd generation. It
had all the modifications and improvements that Colt
had incorporated into this model. My records also do
indicate that I paid a sum of $279.00 + 6% sales tax
for this gem. Try too touch one now for that price!
Its too bad they were dropped from the Colt line; cuz
it would rival the Smith & Wesson model 41 shot for
shot.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
In response to question #2:
The Colt Match Target Woodsman preceeded the
Colt Manufacturing Company by going south. I don't have
specific dates in front of me, but the Colt Match Target
Woodsman went thru 3 generations. The old saying
of "all is well, that ends well" must have come of age
with the departure of the Match Target Woodsman.
I got in on this beauty kind'a late (spring of 76 as my
records indicate), and mine was a 3rd generation. It
had all the modifications and improvements that Colt
had incorporated into this model. My records also do
indicate that I paid a sum of $279.00 + 6% sales tax
for this gem. Try too touch one now for that price!
Its too bad they were dropped from the Colt line; cuz
it would rival the Smith & Wesson model 41 shot for
shot.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
DougCxx,
I did not like the way the guns sat in my hand. They both had the 4" barrels and they just seemed to not have any weight "forward". I think that maybe the Ruger MKII with the plain 6" barrel will feel better.
Both guns never gave me any problem, but they just didn't feel right.
I did not like the way the guns sat in my hand. They both had the 4" barrels and they just seemed to not have any weight "forward". I think that maybe the Ruger MKII with the plain 6" barrel will feel better.
Both guns never gave me any problem, but they just didn't feel right.
withawhat
Member
Beretta
I am pretty new to all of this, but the gun that got me involved is the Beretta NEOS 22.cal. Great to shoot, reliable, and kinda cool lookin.
I am pretty new to all of this, but the gun that got me involved is the Beretta NEOS 22.cal. Great to shoot, reliable, and kinda cool lookin.
Sold my Ruger MkII Competition 'cause it was just too heavy.
My Trailside's very different in that regard. About as light as I would want it.
I think I'd get a Buckmark if I were looking in the sub-$450 range. Depends on what you want to spend. You can get some neat .22 pistols if you just sell your car...
My Trailside's very different in that regard. About as light as I would want it.
I think I'd get a Buckmark if I were looking in the sub-$450 range. Depends on what you want to spend. You can get some neat .22 pistols if you just sell your car...
- Status
Similar threads
