Most reliable .22 autoloader

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
2,710
Location
Oklahio
Out of the following pistols :S&W 22a, browning buckmark, Ruger mark III, which one will best feed cheap bulk .22 LR ammo?(Think Remington thunderbolts.) And how would said gun stack up against a glock conversion kit?
Thanks!
 
Remington T'bolts are the pits.
My BuckMark was very reliable with Federal champions. Have not used any other brands.
 
Once you find the ammo that your .22 likes, most are a bit picky, most of your suggested pistols will be pretty reliable. I am partial to the Buckmark.
 
2nd 41: I know thunderbolts are quite possibly the worst of the bulk packs, that's one of the reasons I mentioned them. I usually shoot federal bulk, way more reliable, and doesn't smell as bad. However, I'd like something that can be reliable with even very poor quality ammo.
 
IMHO, the bulk pak problems are ammo related, not gun. My Buckmark shot them just as well as my Remmy 597 and Marlin bolt-action -- which is to say, probably a 3-5% FTF rate across the board.

I think you would have a hard time finding too many people to speak ill of either the Ruger .22s or the Buckmark. Don't know enough about the S&W 22a or the Neos...

Q
 
With a .22 you just never know what it may like. You could pull 50 consecutive guns off the production line and 49 of them may hate a certain ammo while the remaining one will just love the stuff.
 
I don't know about stacking up aganist a glock but my Browning Buckmark does not like Thunderbolt, neither does my winchester rifle or beretta Neos.
 
I have had a Ruger for nearly 30 years and I don't recall it ever failed in any way.
 
After testing 30-ish different types of .22LR, I discovered my Buckmark to be both accurate and nearly 100% reliable with Winchester Dynapoints. YMMV
 
What you will find with the Glock conversion kit, is it takes some getting used to. A Glock is already lightweight, but when you put on that aluminum slide and skeleton magazine, it REALLY feels like a toy. It is not a great item to run cheap ammo through, especially when new. (You are going to have a break in period of at least a few hundred rounds before it will function well.) And the difference between the AA Glock and my Ciener 1911 kit, they were both stiff when they were new, but my Ciener will eat most .22s not with frequent cleaning. I really never got performance that good from my AA Glock kit. I always had to run stingers/velocitors through it to get it to cycle reliably.
 
The S&W 22A is probably the worst firearm S&W ever made so I'd take it out the equation right off the bat.
 
I shot a Ruger mark II 6 7/8" gun in Bullseye for 3-4 years in the 1980's and got to "expert" class: 90-150 rounds a week during the season and half that off season. I shot WW super-X round nose during that time and it shot better than any Eley match I tried. I had maybe 3 ammunition related failures and maybe 1 dirt/maintenance failures over that period.
Win Power-Point shoots better. Don't keep looking around for the cheapest ammo that works for your gun; go with stuff that works and be happy with it. There is a reason cheap ammo is sold cheap. (Although, if cheap runs in your gun: Buy a bunch and go for it!)
 
Beware: Remington T-Bolts will RUIN your barrel. They are coated in WAX and the wax deposits inside the rifling. Wax cannot be dissolved by normal solvents, and it is darn near impossible to clean it. You should NOT use this stuff in any gun, regardless of how cheap it is. .22's are cheap enough that you don't have to buy something that will damage your gun.

My recommendation is the Ruger 22/45 Mark III Hunter. Try to find a distributor exclusive model with the Hi-Viz fiberoptic sights. Davidson, Inc. has a blued model (significantly cheaper than the standard nickeled) that otherwise has the whole works. The longer fluted bull barrel, the fiberoptic sights, and more. I love mine. It's an excellent little gun, and the .45 frame makes it much more natural to shoot.
 
For ultimate reliability, especially when shooting less than optimum ammo (which might be why the OP referenced the Thunderbolts) or even dirty ammo, I have to vote Ruger.
 
"...With a .22 you just never know what it may like..." Exactly. It's absolutely essential to try a box of as many brands as you can to find the ammo any .22 pistol will both shoot well and cycle the action. Neither the price of the pistol nor the ammo matters either.
"...any Eley match I tried..." My Smith 41 won't shoot or cycle with any Eley ammo either.
 
When it comes to auto .22's everyone is different to a degree in what they like. That being said when I go to the range my Ruger MKII Target always goes with me because I know it will feed anything I put in it and be accurate to boot. Just because mine does don't mean eveyone has the same results.
 
I'd like something that can be reliable with even very poor quality ammo.
That's like asking your car to run great with cheap inferior fuel.

The Fed Champions have a bad round here & there. They are not 100% either but for the $$$ I can live with it. Walmart seems to have the best prices on 22's. Cabelas has great sales if you get their discount coupons.
 
Last edited:
After my initial break in of a couple hundred rounds, my Ruger MKII has been 100% after well over 3000 rounds, with Federal ammo. I get a dud round once in awhile, but no FTF's or FTE's.
 
I highly recommend a Ruger MK series. I have had a MKII for almost 25 years and have excellent luck with it. I still shoot about 1100 rounds of Federal ammunition (that I buy at Walmart) every month.
 
I have over 6K rounds through my S&W 22A. It has been flawless. Remington bulk is what I shoot through it.
 
Browning buckmark is hard to beat. I also have a S&W 2206 [ out of production ] that has been a real joy and very reliable with most ammo. 22's sometimes seem to be funny about certain types of ammo.
 
I've got three Ruger MK II's and a Kadet Kit that will feed the Federal and Remington bulk pack fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top