Ruger 22/45 or 22/45 Lite

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

levsmith

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
153
I am looking to buy a 22/45 this weekend but I am still a little undecided which one I want. I have a 9mm, which is my first pistol, but find myself flinching quite often so I think I want to back off to the 22 until I get comfortable with pistols. I find myself getting frustrated with the 9mm lately because I keep missing the target.

Anyways, I do plan on adding a suppressor to the 22/45 in the future but probably wont right away. Its going to be just a plinker and maybe woods gun when I'm out camping. I am leaning toward the Lite because of the total weight once the suppressor is added but I'm having a hard time finding much input on the Lite version. I can be busy all day reading about the standard version. I guess I'm just hoping to find someone here who has the Lite and can tell me their overall opinion. I'm not sure I like the gold anodized coating on the Lite but maybe it will grow on me.

So what would you pick, 22/45 or 22/45 Lite?
 
I decided against the Lite myself. Cost was one factor. Perceived durability was another. However, it may or may not actually be any less durable than my standard target model in reality, I dont know. But I wanted a .22 pistol that should easily hold up to a lifetime or more of frequent shooting. It's not a carry piece so the weight is of little concern to me. I do like the looks of it though. That was the one thing that had me considering it for a time.
 
I picked the regular old blued one.

I've been perfectly content with it. 3000 or so rounds deep, and it's still going strong.

But for your purposes, the light might be better because of the weight.
 
Last edited:
If you dont mind the gross goldish color on the lite, I say go for it. Although Ive never found the 22/45 to be heavy even with a suppressor. How much have you fired the 9? Sometimes it will take a lot of rounds down range for shooters to stop flinching. Where are you located? If you are close I could meet you at a range and try to help with your accuracy issue.
 
As a primary shooter, either one. If you want something to carry on your hip while shooting rifles or out camping, I'd consider the Lite.
 
I have a MK II era 22/45 with four inch bull barrel. It is not heavy, nor is it an issues with carry. I use it as a woods gun, but I also carry my 5.5 inch barrel MK II without issue either I just don't find the weight a problem.

I think the Lite is a nice concept, but a few more ounces either way really doesn't bother me.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone. I've only been able to handle the standard model so I'm not sure how it compares to the Lite. Hopefully I can compare them side by side this weekend. Also, the place I am going is a class 3 dealer so maybe I can put a can on both to see which one I like better. Thanks for the opinions!

Oh and TAKtical, I'm in Kansas so probably a little too far away. Thanks for the generous offer though! I've shot about 1000 rounds through it over the past couple years. I do think that is probably part of the problem because I only shoot 50 or so at a time. I imagine if i shot a few hundred every outing, it would probably help but I just feel like I should start with something smaller to train my brain a little easier
 
Last edited:
If your have flinching problems do a lot of dry fire practice. This will get you pulling the trigger correctly without the flinch. Also move the target in close till you start grouping, then start moving it back. I find the LaserLyte snapcaps (~$70 at Midway) are a good training aid. The will show where you hitting without firing real ammo.

I have the SS MKIII 6 7/8" Hunter. I would assume it's probably pretty close to a 22/45 with a can. I have not found it a problem at all. The extra nose weight keeps it on target for rapid fire.
 
Ruger 22/45 or 22/45 Lite
Click to expand...

I am going to add to the OP's questions, however if he wishes I will begin my own thread.

I am considering the 22/45 target model 5.5 inch bull barrel with adjustable sights OR the Lite.

Uses will be 95% practice/range use/plinking and 5% long hikes/camping.

Accuracy, reliability, and long term durability are the most important aspects to me.

Besides about $100, 1 inch in sight radius, and weight, what are the differences?

How is the long term durability of the Lite compared to the bull barrel 22/45?

Does the Lite need more maintenance than the 22/45?

Does the bolt on the lite slam into aluminum or steel? Is the barrel a steel insert?

From what I've read on THE INTERNETS, the 22/45 and Mark III models can last thousands of rounds a year, for many many years. Can the Lite stand up to such use?

Thank you!
 
A thread about the Lite over on Rimfire Central has some information about the barrel leading up if used with waxed lead vs copper washed rounds. Seems that the middle portion of the barrel liner is in a cavity with air around it instead of being in contact with the outer alloy portion of the receiver/barrel jacket. The supposition being that it's heating up and causing the waxed lead rounds to lead up the barrel around that part.

Mind you this is only one thread but it does suggest that it's worth checking into before you leap.

A suggestion but if you are after a gun which would be often carried in the woods I'd suggest you consider a S&W 422 or 622. Both are light alloy framed guns with steel slides that are very thin and as light as the Lite Ruger. Either would fit in a slim holster and carry like they are not even there.

But if your heart is set on a Ruger 22/45 then I'd have to say that for all around fun and reliability that you would be better off with an all steel 22/45 that has the switchable grip scales.
 
I'm also planning to purchase a 22/45 this weekend and I have decided on the Lite model. I like the looks of it and it has mostly good reviews on line and if I can find one for around $350 I will buy it.
 
BCRider said:
A thread about the Lite over on Rimfire Central has some information about the barrel leading up if used with waxed lead vs copper washed rounds. Seems that the middle portion of the barrel liner is in a cavity with air around it instead of being in contact with the outer alloy portion of the receiver/barrel jacket. The supposition being that it's heating up and causing the waxed lead rounds to lead up the barrel around that part.
Click to expand...

Thanks BC, I didn't think about looking on Rimfire Central. I looked at that thread and it does worry me. I was wondering about heat buildup when I saw the cutaway picture of the Lite. Well maybe I'll be getting the standard version. Although one thing I like about the Lite is the adjustable sites, doesn't look like thats an option on the standard threaded version.
 
Interesting about the possible leading issue... Gives me a reason to dislike the gun that sounds less crazy than ...

"HategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategold
HategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategoldHategold
HategoldHategold" ;)

I don't really like polymer either, but not a hater, just not my first choice.
 
I am considering the 22/45 target model 5.5 inch bull barrel with adjustable sights OR the Lite.

Uses will be 95% practice/range use/plinking and 5% long hikes/camping.

Accuracy, reliability, and long term durability are the most important aspects to me.

Besides about $100, 1 inch in sight radius, and weight, what are the differences?
Click to expand...

The frames of both 22/45's are exactly the same being polymer, with the same grip angle. The Lite has a lighter weight aluminum upper with a steel lined barrel, that is threaded to accept a suppressor.

How is the long term durability of the Lite compared to the bull barrel 22/45?
Click to expand...

As the Lite has just recently come out, that is unknown. However, knowing Ruger, I would think they are durable and the company would stand behind any issues due to their design or construction.

Does the Lite need more maintenance than the 22/45?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it as the only difference is the aluminum upper. All other parts are the same.

Does the bolt on the lite slam into aluminum or steel? Is the barrel a steel insert?
Click to expand...

The barrel and chamber are steel.

From what I've read on THE INTERNETS, the 22/45 and Mark III models can last thousands of rounds a year, for many many years. Can the Lite stand up to such use?
Click to expand...

I bought my first Ruger MK II, all steel 5.5 in bull barrel Target model in 1991. I have lost count on the number of rounds I shoot each year but it is plenty more than you state above. I now have three MK II's and one MK II era 22/45. All get lots of rounds put through them, and are very accurate and reliable even with cheap bulk ammo like Federal or Winchester. Again, the Lite is new, but I would think Ruger would design a pistol which is able to stand up to a lot of rounds.
 
I have both a target 22/45 and a Lite. I like them both. Ran about 200 rounds through each this morning using Blazer and Federal Champion. The Lite had some leading that was easily removed with some Hoppes #9. It is not as accurate as the Target and I never expected it to be. Still, it's accurate and I did not notice a loss of accuracy today.
My shooting buddy always chooses the Lite over the Target when he has a choice of the two. It's a fun gun. Haven't tried any copper washed bullets yet but my guess is that the leading would become a non issue. Like someone else mentioned in the RFC thread I too have had worse leading in other pistols while using lead bullets.
 
I just got the Lite. What little I have shot it, I like it. If the barrel leads up then I have an excuse for missing my target. I'm sure it's more accurate than I am capable of. I did put a Tru Glo site on it. Nice!
 
Good choice in getting the Lite. I had a Mark II slab-side competition model that was very pretty and shot extremely well, but I recently sold it because it was just too heavy of a pistol for a .22. It was just too much to carry around in a holster.
 
You really won't go wrong with no matter what you choose.

I have a 22/45 5.5" bull barreled model myself and love it. No plans on a suppressor and I got it with the sole purpose of getting a LOT of (inexpensive) trigger time for target shooting to improve my flinch myself... I find switching between my 22/45 and my 1911 Commander helps me to overcome my bad habits and I've gotten to the point that when I go to the range I'll shoot my 1911 first and am starting to eat the centers out of targets with it.

What I find fun is challenging myself to see how far out I can shoot my 22/45 and keep it all within a ~5" ring... my personal record is 60ft which is great considering my eyesight is aweful:p

FWIW if I were in your shoes, I'd get the aluminum "lite" model because it has the threaded barrel and adjustable target sights... the steel 4.5" threaded model has either fixed sights or a picattiny rail. You really need to have good iron sights to learn on... it should come with an adapter for you to add a scope should you ever decide to do so down the road.

edit: fail on my part for not reading every reply. Good for you! Enjoy your new pistol!
 
The 22/45 is available in a blue model called the "Black-Lite"' it's a TALO exclusive. I believe they made around 3000 of them. My boss picked one of them up and loves it. He is 85 and decided to take up shooting again after about a 40 year break.

You might think about buying the standard model 22/45 and then adding a Tactical Solutions upper receiver and barrel later for a light weight option. I have the 6" upper for my 22/45 and I am very pleased with it. Very little recoil and I have not seen any leading problems as of yet.
 
22/45

I looked at both recently. I chose the standard 22/45 rather than the light. I noticed that when looking online the model 10150 pictures (standard 22/45)show fixed sights. Mine has adjustable sights and I'm fairly certain the more recent model 10150 22/45's have the adjustable rear sights.

The balance of the pistol is very good. I also plan on putting a suppressor on it later and would rather match a steel suppressor to a steel pistol than an aluminum alloy pistol. The standard 22/45 is really about as light as I want a pistol to be...and the small cost savings didn't hurt my feelings either.

I'm sure both would be fine though.

Best Regards,
Jerry
 
Dry firing

I should add: Although you don't want to dry fire a .22lr....try dry firing the heck out of your 9mm. It'll smooth out the trigger quite a bit and help your flinching problem.

You really have to be anal about following gun safety rules when dry firing obviously.

When dry firing...I've found that if you draw a horizontal line on a piece of white paper (tape it to the wall) and stand back a few steps you should be able to balance the horizontal line on top of your sights and just pull the trigger.

Do your best to balance the horizontal line on top of your sights through the shot and the follow-through with as little movement as possible. It really helps create good muscle memory.

If your basics are good (stance and grip) this should help. Hope the above doesn't sound condecending....but it really helps and so will the .22.

Best Regards,
Jerry
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all of the opinions so far guys. Ends up the gun store was closed last weekend because of a gun show in the area and it will be again this weekend so I've got another week and a half to think about it. Keep those opinions coming!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Ruger 22/45 lite magazine- Best speedloader??
Replies
13
Views
2K
wally
wally
triplebike
  • Locked
Hammer/Sear Kit install advice Ruger/22/45/MKIV
Replies
12
Views
876
Taurus 617 CCW
T
C0untZer0
  • Locked
The Ruger 22/45 LITE
Replies
1
Views
406
Rangegod
R
N
  • Locked
Pac-Lite and Ruger MkIII 22/45
Replies
10
Views
5K
varoadking
V
Zak Smith
  • Locked
Photos of Tac-Sol Pac-Lite Ruger MkIII 22/45
Replies
23
Views
2K
Atticum
A
Back
Top