Suggest a .22 cal pistol for target, plinking.

Status
Not open for further replies.

buenhec

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
391
Location
Phoenix,AZ
I was looking today at a Ruger Mark III 22/45, it looked pretty well made. I also handled a Sig Mosquito with a really heavy trigger. I am looking for a target pistol and plinking pistol for around $300.

Please recommend something fun, well built and reliable. Some of the P22's and Berettas I have shot were not too impresive.

Thanks
 
I bought my MK-II Ruger new in 1987, and have loved it since. Mine's a "no-frills" one, fixed sights, tapered barrel, but it makes a great trail and plinking gun.
The Browning Buckmark is also a great gun. I never had one, but a friend did, and we both enjoyed it. Others here will tell you more..
 
I heard mkii > mkiii. Wish i could give you some firsthand advice though.
 
Plinking .22...

If you're looking for a 'plinking/targeting' .22, I would say your Ruger Mark III is an excellent choice! The Rugers are a quality gun and are very reliable and extremely durable (have had a Mark II 20+ years, NO problems!!) and is a great plinker that you'll have for many years... and for about $250!!
The SIG Mosquito is really another story. The gun has had a bad history of FTF, FTE, jam-up problems using different types of .22 ammo (shot one many months ago, TERRIBLE... bought a .22 CZ Kadet instead, flawless)... alot of SIG'ers say the newer models have been corrected and are not as tempermental. Retailers in my area have had them marked down to $235 and can't move 'em!
SIG historically makes a GREAT gun (have a 9mm P-229 and I love it... flawless) but I wouldn't recommend the Mosquito unless you can rent/shoot a newer model WITHOUT hiccups!...
Remember, the purpose of a .22 is to be a FUN shoot, not a tempermental pain-in-the-ass!
Browning BUCK is another classic .22 that you might want to look at, another excellent .22 but alittle more $$.
For me, the 'no-brainer' is the Ruger Mark!!... Good Luck
.
 
I'd go with a Ruger, either the Mk.III or a used Mk.II. They're inexpensive, built very tough, accurate and should you want to tinker with the gun, there's a ton of accessories on the market.
 
I'm with the Ruger guys. There are very few 22LR's that I don't own, but for the money: the Rugers.

The one disadvantage of the Rugers is that some people don't know how to assemble them after disassemble. Unfortunately, the manual tells you what to do, but doesn't tell you what you are doing. The "hammer strut" is the problem. If you learn what it does and how it fits into the hammer-spring assembly, you won't have any problems.

I absolutely hated my first Ruger 22/45 because I didn't understand it, nor did I find an ammo that it liked. I sold it - big mistake. I have since bought several Ruger MKII and MKIII as well as a 22/44 Hunter version.

My hero, because of the number of matches he has one, owns 12 Rugers.

Buy one, learn how it works, and your will love it. Try to just follow the words in the manual without understanding what you are doing and you will hate it.
 
I am probably going to get the Mark III, it felt very solid. Another option would be the Kadet kit for my CZ75 or a Ciener kit for my 1911, are these kits pretty accurate and reliable?
 
I have read great things about the Kadet. Never shot one. When I think of getting one, I always come back to: "Wouldn't a new (whole) gun be funner?" (And the dedicated Kadet is pretty spendy)

If size doesn't matter, I recommend:
1. Browning Buckmark - Nice triggers.
2. Ruger - Built to last. (Not a fan of the 22/45 grips)
3. Beretta Cheetah - If you have the bucks.
 
I rented quite a few .22's when I was looking. The 22/45 had a strange trigger kick back after the last round. It was so bad that my finger hurt for nearly a week afterwards. I found the Buckmark to be the most comfortable for my hand.
 
I found my CZ 75 Kadet(complete pistol, or an adapter over a CZ85 frame) at a local gun show, the dealer was selling all used firearms for 20% off of the marked price. Needless to say, I jumped on that deal. Felt like I stole it. It has been totally dependable, and more accurate than I can lay claim to.

If you do go with the Kadet, be sure to get some extra magazines. You won't want to stop shooting to reload.
 
I just got a new one 22A S&W so I will suggest it, I also got a scope for it.
Have not tried the scope on yet. Little red dot Tasco dude 1X30, I don't recommend scopes as a rule, but I thought I'd give it a go. Am getting older and the sites are black on black. I can change it but thought the scope was a good add for other shooters, also.

Wanted to get something when I went to Badger Johns new location in Sacramento, what a beauty, all the taxi work is really something.

http://www.badgerjohns.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=51

So yea I like the 32 oz dude (S&W).
 
If you like to shoot 45

I would consider a S&W M41 22. Match accurate and the grip angle is the same so there isn't much adjustment going from one gun to the next except cost of ammo and recoil. Super easy to break down for cleaning is a real big plus in my book. Yeah, I have one and I admit to bias.
 
To answer Joop's question on Ruger MkII vs. MkIII--

The MkIII moved the magazine release to a more normal position at the top of the grip behind the trigger (yay), slightly bigger ears on the bolt (OK) and added a loaded chamber indicator (phooey). The loaded chamber indicator is an unnecessary accessory that just makes it harder to clean around the chamber area. I prefer MkIIs for the cleaning issue, but the MkII magazine release on the heel of the grip is awkward. Also, the MkIII has special models like the Hunter.

Bottom line--both Rugers, rugged and good shooters, make up your own mind about the value of MkIII's "improvements".
 
Go with a Ruger Mk II, Browning Buckmark or the CZ Kadet conversion kit for your CZ.

Those are all excellent choices. Which one depends on what you like. Do you like the feel of the Ruger or the Browning better?

Do you want a second gun or do you want to shoot .22 LR though your CZ?

All three choices are reliable for .22's and accurate and fun to shoot.

I have a Ruger Mk II and a CZ Kadet. I generally shoot the Ruger more, but still like the Kadet. I just didn't like how the Browning felt in my hand.
 
I'd recommend the Ruger MK-series. I like the 22/45 Mk III because I have one. It's accurate and not super-picky about ammo it will shoot well with. I'm kind of eyeballing the tapered barrel Mk III and used Mk IIs, but that's because I have .22s on the brain lately and could use to bring home 2-3 more than currently in possession! Justification: They're fixed sight models, and I've noticed my adjustable sights aren't what I would call sturdy. :eek:

The loaded chamber indicator really is a pain to clean around. Keep a dental pick handy for this chore on the Mk III models. Otherwise, I like it a lot and don't ever see any reason not to be happy.

Oh, I think the Mk II my father had was more reliable. To me the magazines in the new 22/45s seem like a cheap, weak link. Mine will malfunction from time to time, either failing to feed (mag related) or failing to eject (usually weak ammo, sometimes really dirty gun). The FTEs don't get chalked up to the design, but the odd FTFs do.

HunterGirl, you're the first person I've ever seen complain about that on the Rugers. I've never noticed it myself nor had anybody mention anything about it.
 
I've got a couple of 22's. They're all good. Lately I've been buying revolvers, but the two Ruger semi's are both good shooters. One's a MK II, the other a MK III. One works just as good as the other. The little one at the top right is a Bersa Firestorm. If I feed it CCI mini mags it's 100%. With cheap ammo, it chokes.

003.gif

Smith & Wesson model 17, Ruger Bearcat, Beras Firestorm, Dan Wesson, Ruger Single Six, Ruger MK II, Ruger MK III 22/45. (All 22's)

I hear good things about the Browning and the Smith & Wesson 22A. I've never shot them, but too many people sing their praises for me to think they're not just as good as anything else. I just happen to like Rugers. For the money, they're hard to beat.
 
CajunBass,
I just commented about picking up a scope for my 22a, I see you have one (ascope) how do you like it? Do you move it around to the others or just the one shooter?

I would think the one I got will be real good it has 11 position brightness condition and some needed instruction:what: But I still thought I'd ask.

:D
 
I'd highly recommend the Ruger. I don't own one, but that's only because I have several Colt Woodsmans that I shoot regularly. If I needed another 22 auto, I would be looking at the Ruger, and possibly the Browning, but would probably go Ruger because I have used it a lot, and they are good guns.
 
Additional thoughts

In the original post it was specified "around $300". Setting 300 as Max price and pistol and 22LR on the sportingarms.com web-site gave several interesting hits. There were only 2 Buckmarks and 5 Rugers (7 if you count the Charger).

The CZ-Kadet is a $500 pistol, and I won't even discuss the price of a S&W 41 since it is around 3 times the criteria that was set.

One thing that I didn't think of in my original post is the Beretta NEOS Deluxe. Not the standard version, but the "Deluxe" version. I have one and it came from the factory with a much better trigger than the standard versions that I've shot.

One nice thing about the Rugers is that several other manufacturers, like Volkquartsen, make aftermarket parts that can improve the trigger pull.

Another though: my CZ-Kadet has the same creepy trigger that my CZ-75B has. I've never been pleased with their triggers, and at some point in time I'll work on the triggers, once I'm feeling better.
 
MKIII 22/45 will get the job done. I purchased the 5" bull barreled model and mounted a tasco red dot on top. It has been fantastic from day one, shoots way more accurately than I could ever ask for and has never had a failure (Except for 2 dud rounds out of a really old box of remington bulk ammo...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top