S&W .22LR recommendation

[Storm]

To add to my collection of Smith semi-autos, and to have a .22 plinker (I traded my P22) I am interested in acquiring and inepxpensive Smith .22. I'm interested in economy, accuracy and reliablity, and would prefer stainless/alloy.

Recommendations?

BTW, so far my tendency is towards the 422 (or stainless version) as the comments seem to be generally very positive.

 

[Headless]

Can't speak for or against the 422, but I can say - don't get a 22A. I love S&W (i own 3 of them, revolver and 2 semi-auto, and owned a third that I regret selling to my brother ...) but my 22A was crap. I'm glad I sold it.

Honestly, and I know you'll hate this because you did say S&W... If you want a very nice 22 plinker I'll be the first (likely the first of many, actually) to recommend you get a Browning buckmark. I got mine on clearance for 180$ and it destroys my 220$ 22a in every way - the grips are nicer, the sites are nicer, the reliability is better, the trigger is better....it's just a better gun. This is one case where brand loyalty doesn't help you unless you spend mucho $ in my experience on a nice model 41

 

[Storm]

Honestly, and I know you'll hate this because you did say S&W...

No problem, I knew that someone would recommend the Buckmark It's a good recommendation, brand aside. I think if I was going to put brand aside I would probably go for a Ruger or the Buckmark, although I used to hate breaking down my old Mark II.

Thanks for the warning on the 22A.

 

[cerberus65]

Inexpensive and Smith don't really belong in same sentence without some sort of negative word in between. That's especially true in the .22 arena for some reason. On the auto side, only the 22A is inexpensive and I've seen lots of negative feedback on it. On the revolver side they're all expensive.

Personally, I went with a Beretta NEOS and a used S&W model 34. Those together with a Marlin 980S keep me set for plenty of plinking fun.

 

[Storm]

Inexpensive and Smith don't really belong in same sentence without some sort of negative word in between. That's especially true in the .22 arena for some reason.

The 422/622 seems to have a good reputation. Any experience with that?

 

[mikebnem]

I have a 22a with over 10,000 rounds through it, with out a single problem.

BUT They are cheap looking.

 

[Soybomb]

I have a 22a and mine runs great. I find nothing about it exceptional but it was a $200 plinker with a metal frame, easy take down, and a lifetime warranty. I think I did well.

 

[cerberus65]

The 422/622 seems to have a good reputation. Any experience with that?

None here. Sorry.

 

[wally]

Another M22A lover here. Like any maker, S&W has some guns get out that shouldn't. My M22A was one of them, but a quick trip back to the factory on their dime and its become my favorite .22 pistol -- I've also got P22, Buckmark, Neos, Ruger MKI, MKII, 22/45, & 22/45MKIII so its got tough competition.

Mine is the 7.5" fluted barrel model.

--wally.

 

[.38 Special]

I had a 622. Reliable, but inaccurate and a truly horrible trigger.

To be blunt, if I wanted a good inexpensive .22 it would be a Ruger, and if I wanted an S&W .22 auto it would be a Model 41. Sorry that's not what you want to hear, but there you go.

(FWIW, I just bought a used but like new Model 41 for $750, in that's in Southern California where we don't get good deals on handguns. You might want to keep an eye out for something similar.)

<edit> Upon rereading the OP, however, the 422/622 might be adequate for you. It will certainly be minute-of-beer can, and if you can overlook the poor trigger, it should be an okay plinker. I'd still take the Ruger for the job, though...

 

[Storm]

<edit> Upon rereading the OP, however, the 422/622 might be adequate for you. It will certainly be minute-of-beer can, and if you can overlook the poor trigger, it should be an okay plinker. I'd still take the Ruger for the job, though...

Minute-of-beer can is about it! Maybe the small 7oz. cans. It's also a gun that my 18 year old daughter could start on as she is showing a flicker of interest. I'll be trying the triggers on them (hopefully) so I can get an idea of the horrors involved. Truth is that I will end up with a Ruger eventually, but for right now this one needs to be a Smith.

 

[Claude Clay]

422 is blue and shares mags with the model 41. i have 422/41/34/617. 422 is very good teaching tool and a good plinker. low bore axis, negligible recoil, good adjustable sights--a fun shooter. also (used for under $400.00) a real good shooter is the sig trailside. can use S&W 41 mags and has a built in scope mount.

 

[.38 Special]

Minute-of-beer can is about it! Maybe the small 7oz. cans.

My 622 may actually have been an accurate gun, but between the crummy fixed sights and the heavy, creepy, gritty trigger I could never prove it. YMMV, of course.

 

[RonC133]

Happy S&W 22A owner here. I have two barrels, 7" and 4" I have mounted an inexpensive red dot on the 4" and it is now one of my favorite guns. It is more accurate than I am.

It is a bit more picky over ammo than Buckmark and Ruger, but it is a lot of fun to shoot, easy to strip.

Early ones apparently had the barrel hook cast as part of the barrel. When it broke, you were screwed. Newer ones have a pinned steel claw. No longer a problem.

 

[Onmilo]

I own a 422, 2214, Model 41, K17 and a 317 revolver.
All are accurate and reliable.

If you can find a 422 or 622 with the revolver style adjustable sights I would strongly recommend purchasing one.
They are excellent and most of the guns have better triggers than the one posters example.

They aren't Match guns but one inch at 25 meters is certainly possible with the right ammo.

 

[gb6491]

Another happy 422 owner here; mine has been reliable and accurate (if I do my part). Trigger pull is on par with my Ruger MKII Target (no slouch). The light weight of the pistol is quite appreciated on the trail and might make it more appealing when instructing some younger shooters.
Regards,
Greg

 

[varoadking]

The 422 is a marvelous piece. Lightweight, smooth, uber accurate and reliable.



Not sure what the 422 naysayers have been shooting, but it certainly wasn't this one. Minute of beer can, indeed...

 

[wristtwister]

I've got a S&W 22A, and had problems with it at first. I sent it back to Smith and they boosted it with a new frame, and it shoots perfectly now. AS for ugly...

 

[Myles]

I have a 622 with adjustable sights and beautiful walnut stocks that I will never give up. I've only had two problems with it, both of which were easy fixes over 15 years ago.

The trigger was a bit rough at first, but after a few thousand rounds it breaks like glass.

The rear sight would loosen after an extended shooting session. A drop of loc-tite fixed that.

It's a solid shooter, capable of half-dollar sized groups from 25 yards from sandbags. I've used it squirrel and rabbit hunting, plinked with the kids for hours on end. It would make an ideal form 4 platform, with the raised sight picture above the low barrel.

 

[usp9]

My only real complaint with the S&W 622 is that it's a pain to disassemble. Other than that is is accurate enough for most people. It is not a "competition" grade pistol IMHO, as is say the S&W 41. I also highly recommend Buckmark for general .22lr fun.

Anyone know what's happening with the "Woodsman" revival, as seen at the 2007 Shot Show?

 

[Pilot]

I'm sorry, but with the exception of the Model 41, which is a different class alltogether, the Smith .22 autos are just plain UGLY. I second the Ruger MK II or III instead. Yuck!

 

[.38 Special]

As an aside, I note that anytime anyone has anything negative to say about a particular model of gun, someone will come along to defend it. Hi-Point, Lorcin, Jennings, Bryco...

So the apparent conclusion is that either there are no bad designs; poor executions; or endemic problems with any model of firearm, or else that some folks are less discerning than others.

 

[gb6491]

As an aside, I note that anytime anyone has anything negative to say about a particular model of gun, someone will come along to defend it. Hi-Point, Lorcin, Jennings, Bryco...

So the apparent conclusion is that either there are no bad designs; poor executions; or endemic problems with any model of firearm, or else that some folks are less discerning than others.

I don't really see posting a positive comment after a negative as defending something (anymore than the negative post is an attack). I'm for hearing the good and the bad experiences people have had with a firearm; it makes for good reading and informed choices.

I'm sorry, but with the exception of the Model 41, which is a different class alltogether, the Smith .22 autos are just plain UGLY. I second the Ruger MK II or III instead. Yuck!

I really like my MKII Target and would not hesitate to recommend it to someone looking for a.22 pistol. That said, if I'm out on trail (and on foot) I prefer the lighter weight of the 422. Add in equal reliability and comparable accuracy, the butt ugly part is a little easier to bear At the range I probably shoot my 617 more than anything, but the Kadet kit on my 75B is rapidly catching up.

Now where did I stash that Raven?



Regards,
Greg

 

[Storm]

I'm for hearing the good and the bad experiences people have had with a firearm; it makes for good reading and informed choices.

Exactly! And, I have a wealth of info here. Even though I specified Smiths I'm glad to hear about other brands as I'm sure that the Smith will not be the only .22 pistol that I own. I may well go shopping for the Smith and run across a deal on another brand that was discussed here. And, if the 422/622 is the way that I go, I will now be extra sensitive to the trigger but will also be armed with the knowledge that it may well improve with use. It's all good. An opinion that a gun is ugly is certainly fair game to me, but that call is so subjective that it filters out on its own. I appreciate all of the input and even the call that a gun is ugly makes me consider it's aesthetics, which while a more minor point is still a point.

Thanks to everyone.

 

[hans1911]

I have two S&W 22A pistols. Both 5.5", two tone. They both shoot great, only a few minor feed problems during break in. Speaking of the break in, these pistols are either painted or powder coated. When new, they need a good dose of lube (I prefer Tetra gun grease) on the slide rails. Until this "coating" gets smoothed up a bit, it seems to cause a little extra friction which can hamper the feeding/ejection of some pistols. They also coat the feed ramp. I polished the ramps on both mine with a felt wheel, dremel and some Mother's mag polish. When I bought my second one (because my wife swiped the first one as hers ) I burnished the slide rails and the point they contact the frame with a little 0000 steel wool and some oil before shooting. The coating is pretty hard, and this only smooths it up some.

They both have about 1500 rounds each through them, and are a blast to shoot, and pretty darn accurate.

As far as ugly goes....they are only half as ugly as a Beretta Neos