"Just a .22?"

[wanderinwalker]

Can somebody explain to me what “Just a .22” means? I read and hear this a lot to justify putting cheap scopes on inexpensive Marlins and Savages, or why a .22 handgun should cost less than $250. This strikes me as odd, because a well built .22LR takes as much time as a centerfire counterpart. Look at the S&W K-frame .22s as a prime example of this: They tend to command more money on the used market than equivalent .38 Special models. In rifles there are the CZ 452/453 series, as well as the Ruger 77/22s, Browning T-bolts, Marlin 39As and numerous Anschutz models. Any one of these is built up to centerfire standards and as such sells for prices comparable to centerfire rifles.

This is not to say that I disdain or disapprove of the inexpensive Marlins and Savages and similar. Far from it; they tend to be very accurate and functional. But I can't help notice that they feel "cheap" when I handle them. Stamped parts, sometimes not finely finished, flimsy sights and such. Same thing with the basic Ruger 10/22s; my Carbine is very functional and will place a bullet within a 2" circle reliably to 50-yards. Yet stand it next to a Winchester 52 and the difference in workmanship is night and day.

And handguns are similar. A Ruger Mark II or 22/45 is a very functional, reliable, accurate and affordable .22 pistol. I find my $230 22/45 Mk III with the 4" bull barrel to be one of the most accurate pistols I own. But side-by-side with my S&W Model 18 the S&W is better polished and overall had more time spent in producing the final product.

My take on this has evolved to the idea that a .22 is likely to be the most used firearm(s) a person may own. Why should it be looked at as “just a .22?” Why not go ahead and pick something that will provide pride of ownership and satisfaction of use for decades or beyond?

 

[powwowell]

+1 on your comments about quality .22 weapons.

It seems to me that a lot of us go through five stages when purchasing firearms. 1st stage) Most folks's first weapon is a .22. We are young and don't have the funds for fine weapons. We are looking for el cheapos. 2nd stage) We have the ability to purchase more/different firearms and we graduate to centerfire. 3rd stage) We realize how much fun we have been missing, by neglecting our .22s. 4th stage) We want some "quality" stuff and then we check out prices, such as S&W 63s and 617s. 5th stage) We then say, "it's Just a .22", why do they cost so much?

 

[General Geoff]

I own a Smith model 63 .22 revolver, worth every penny I paid for it. And considering I put more rounds through it than any other gun I bring during a typical range session, I'd say my money was well invested.

 

[CaliCoastie]

dont know but i love my marlin 39a from the 60's that has had alot of rounds through it before me and i hope my kids will be shooting it into the next 100 years. but i seem to think that my marlin 60 will be shooting a good while also, yes its cheap but is still running like a champ after....wow, at least 20 years. Ill pay for quality, sometime its seems expensive but you know after i figure out what i want and wait and find it. then buy it, unless i got it really cheap i dont really remember the price(or at least think about it much).

 

[scythefwd]

I don't get the "its just a .22" rhing either. I have two... One is a roughrider aka accurate pot metal. The other is a proper .22... A mossberg 44. It's the whole reason I moved up to centerfires... Couldn't find another mod 44 available.

 

[Hardtarget]

I don't know about the phrase "just a .22" either. Maybe it goes to the idea that since its "just a .22" we don't need the "best" scope. Or that we only hunt small game with it. Or that its not the prime defense/offense weapon.

Thing is...I want it to look good, function correctly, shoot straight! I love my .22 guns and I never go shooting without a rifle and a pistol in .22 LR.

They're just too much fun to leave behind!

Mark

 

[Mike OTDP]

The OP is 100% on the money...and it drives me up a wall, too. Especially the notion that price should somehow be proportionate to caliber.

 

[ljnowell]

I dont care if it is a 22, I want decent quality. For a 22 handgun I went with a Ruger Single Six. I dont consider a nice Marlin model 60 cheap, jusy inexpensive. I'm going to fed it bulk 22 though, so no more than 30 bucks for a scope, IMO.

 

[WifeofBleys]

I've seen both... "it's just a .22" meaning why does it cost so much.

or

"it's just a .22" meaning in some people's opinions, it is not a reliable home defense weapon.

The first, I agree with. For "just being a .22", some models are quite expensive.

The second, however, I don't agree. As I have been told by Customer Service at a major ammunition supplier, if it's what you can comfortably handle, who am I to judge...and a .22 magnum is better than a stick. And my husband has told me that, while one .22 magnum round may not disable someone attacking me or invading our home (in the event he wasn't around with his .40 P99), putting 4 magnum rounds into someone's gut or chest will most likely do some serious damage.

So, right now, I am comfortable with my .22 magnum, even if it is "just a .22".

 

[courtgreene]

In relation to scopes, it seems to me that the phrase could be best associated with recoil. "It's just a .22," so it won't rock the hell out of the scope. Therefore, you can get away with less quality and not have it crap out on you. To cite my reasoning for this theory, see my .22's BSA scope, something I don't use on Center Fires.

 

[Naybor]

Now just a minute!

Your .22 depends on the purpose you plan to use it for!

I bought my Marlin Model 60 over 25 years ago for use as a plinker, tractor gun, and squirrel gun. My Marlin has the best scope I could afford because it's the most accurate .22 I have ever owned. To me, it's not "just another .22 with a cheap scope". Yes, it first sported a Tasco, second, a lower end Simmons ~ but the Bushnell high end scope it has worn for the last 15 years has helped the combo be a superior tack driver and game getter.

Yes, I have owned a few high end .22s with flawless finish in bluing and exquisite wood grains, but I would not want to use them cause I was afraid of (shudder......) scratches. Same with shotguns.

My wife has just gotten into guns this year and has bought two so far. A Ruger stainless SP101 .357 and a Ruger stainless Mark III .22. Her two guns will last her lifetime and also whoever she leaves them to.

Again most people buy for a particular purpose or longevity ~ not to be a "showpiece".

 

[epijunkie67]

If a .22 mag is what you are most comfortable with and are currently using for home defense you might want to keep an eye out for the new Kel-Tec offerings.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/pmr-30/

30 rounds of 22 mag in a pistol, and I think they plan on bringing it out in a short carbine version also.

You might also want to consider an FN57. My wife currently uses one for home defense because it has no recoil. At least no more than a 22mag, and it holds 20 rounds. And it's more powerful than 22 mag.

 

[WifeofBleys]

"You might also want to consider an FN57. My wife currently uses one for home defense because it has no recoil. At least no more than a 22mag, and it holds 20 rounds. And it's more powerful than 22 mag."

While I appreciate the response and information regarding the FN57, and while my husband would LOVE one and has looked at one at our local gun shop...the $1,100 price tag is way out of our league at this point. I will keep it in mind for future reference, though.

 

[Tommygunn]

It seems to me that a lot of us go through five stages when purchasing firearms. 1st stage) Most folks's first weapon is a .22. We are young and don't have the funds for fine weapons. We are looking for el cheapos. 2nd stage) We have the ability to purchase more/different firearms and we graduate to centerfire. 3rd stage) We realize how much fun we have been missing, by neglecting our .22s

I can sort of agree with this sentiment.
I learned on .22 rifles.
As an adult I bought a .30-30, then a .22 rifle.
As I got into handguns I started with blackpowder C&B revolvers and then centerfire pistols....
But lately I have been buying .22 pistols. You can do a heckuva lot of shooting in .22 for very little dinero. Good fun at little cost is really, really attractive these days.

 

[22-rimfire]

"Just a 22", "It's for the children.", and "If one life is saved..." are three of my favorite expressions that I pick at. I love 22's. Many people think because a handgun is chambered for 22, it ought to be a lot cheaper than a similar sized center fire revolver. I beg to differ.

With scopes it can be partially true. It is also true that I tend to spend less on a scope for a 22 rifle than I do for a centerfire rifle. The days of folks using air rifle scopes or the equivalent for 22 rifles is passing very quickly.

You will see threads started looking for a good 22 for $200 but the same person will not think twice about $800-$1000 for a centerfire rifle. Makes no sense to me at all. Oh, and the trigger has to be as good as a Colt Python.... just jesting on that condition....

Wifeofbleys, have you found your 22 revolver yet or are you likely to get the Taurus M94 since you are comfortable with the Taurus 941? I have been temped to buy a Smith 351PD from time to time. But, I just can't bring myself to buy one when I know I won't shoot it often. My latest is the Smith M63 which I just put in layaway. It will be my first J-frame 22 revolver and I am excited about putting it through its paces. That is what I would suggest you consider too Wifeofbleys. But I know, it costs more that you want to spend.

I'm also slowly reverting back to shooting mostly 22's. I can afford to shoot centerfires, but I like 22's.

 

[brandon_mcg]

i dont trust my life to my remington 597 nor do i depend on it to take down a whitetail anywhere from 100-400 yards away. in light of this, i did not put a high quality scope on it (it actually came with a scope on it from remington). the scope that is on it is very accurate and all i use it for is shooting paper from time to time.

i guess my main point is that i tend to prioritize the allocation of my firearm funds. i use my .22 lr for nothing more than putting holes in paper so if my 100 dollar set-up works then so be it. if i was planning on using my .22 for HD or CCW then i would put a little more stock in my .22 set-up.

 

[WifeofBleys]

Hello, 22-rimfire,

In regards to whether I have found my next .22lr...

I think we are now leaning towards the ISSC M22. We have been researching it and have found a good deal at our local gun shop. We are likely to go look at it tomorrow. As with everything, I have seen people really happy with them, and people not so happy. It seems that many of the things I have read suggest using a certain kind and velocity of ammo during the breaking-in period and then the gun is likely not to be so "picky" with the brand of ammo after that. I do love my Taurus 941 though!

 

[frankenstein406]

I'll gladly take that "just a 22" off there hands. I'm looking for one.

 

[happygeek]

If it wasn't for 22LR I couldn't afford to make a hobby out of shooting. I'd probably be at the range maybe once a month if all I had was centerfire and might have lost interest entirely. I'd still own guns, but as the sig line of one poster here states I'd be a gun owner, not a shooter.

 

[therewolf]

My "just a 22" pistol is a High-Standard competition model. This is hefty, well made, and does

NOT feel like a "cheap" or "flimsy" 22. Cost more used than

my 1911 or Beretta 92 cost new.(yeah, got a great deal on the B, but that's

another story for another time) My "just a 22" is more accurate than both the

1911 and the Beretta, too.

As to scopes, IMO, the reasoning inherent in the "just a 22" attitude is more one

of yardage than caliber. For obvious reasons, I'm looking for a much better

scope for my 30.06 than my .22 rifle.

22LR is one of my favorite calibers.

 

[22-rimfire]

wifeofbleys, I guess you read this review: http://www.gunblast.com/ISSC-M22.htm

Hope it works out for you. Clearly pistols are less expensive than most good revolvers in 22.

 

[writerinmo]

I love my .22's, started out on them like most, up to centerfires but always seemed to have at least one in the closet, from Model 60's to the oddball ones that I seem to "attract". Here's my latest plinker, an Armscor M1600, pretty accurate little thing. Hung a Center Point 3-9x32 on it with adjustable objective, red/green illuminated mildot reticules that I bought new off ebay for $2.64 with $14 shipping, so under 20 bucks for the scope!

 

[22-rimfire]

i guess my main point is that i tend to prioritize the allocation of my firearm funds. i use my .22 lr for nothing more than putting holes in paper so if my 100 dollar set-up works then so be it. if i was planning on using my .22 for HD or CCW then i would put a little more stock in my .22 set-up.

You can do pretty well with a $100 scope for a 22 rifle since the scope does not have to be built to handle much recoil. As far as the holes go.... that is mostly what most guns are used for by shooters whether we like to admit it or not.

 

[WifeofBleys]

wifeofbleys, I guess you read this review: http://www.gunblast.com/ISSC-M22.htm

Hope it works out for you. Clearly pistols are less expensive than most good revolvers in 22

Thank you for posting that link, 22-rimfire! Though I have read ALOT about the ISSC M22 over the past couple days, it was nice to have everything all in one place. I will surely be bookmarking that review. Part of my motivation for wanting the semi-auto is to get used to that kind of firearm. Not only will it allow me affordable practice at the range, but will also allow me to get used to loading and unloading magazines, chambering the gun, different safety measures, etc. which will also allow me to become more comfortable with the C9 Hi-Point and maybe eventually my husband's P99.

 

[Hz1098]

In my opinion less expensive firearms chambered for .22 lr are sometimes very well built and accurate guns. My Ruger Mark III is one of the most accurate and reliable pistols I have ever fired. I would say the lower pressures of a .22 chamber allow for less expensive materials and less material in general. Also the 'just a .22' can be a dangerous phrase. Too many shooters who are diligent about safety are more relaxed about it when they shoot .22s. They are just as dangerous. But on another note I do love to shoot my .22s.