Which .22lr should I buy next?

I shoot .22 LR handguns, and .22 LR rifles for that matter, for my enjoyment, not for "training" for shooting other guns. So, my preferences for 22 LR have nothing to do with whether or not they are almost identical to some centerfire gun or another.

Among my .22 LR handguns (shown below) I like shooting the Kadet kits quite a bit on the CZ guns (they are surprisingly accurate), and I like the older Smith revolvers pretty well, the Buckmark is pretty decent, and I'd be willing to shoot a Ruger if I didn't have anything else. But about 2 - 4 levels above any of those guns in my order of preference is the Browning International Medalist, followed by the regular Medalist. (The slightly longer barrel length of the regular Medalist is the only difference. I also have a selection of Challenger barrels, but prefer the International Medalist, followed by the regular Medalist barrel). Old-school build quality that pretty much doesn't exist today, awesome trigger, outstanding accuracy, and a joy to shoot. Every friend, family member, or other acquaintance who has shot one of mine has out-shot their own handguns with it on the first outing.



With regard to the laser on the CZ P-01, I wouldn't want a HD handgun without a green laser, so I recommend you do try that combo you mention for your P-01. I have the Crimson Trace lasers on my SP-01 and P-01, and wish more of my handguns had rails.

 

Take it easy Chaim and wait for your 317 to arrive. Hopefully, it doesn't bind up on you. It should be a fun little gun, but between it being a 22 and a revolver with 9 chambers, it's going to mean a LOT more cleaning than a pistol.

You've already got a TX22, so that covers basic semi-autos and trainers for CCWs.

IF you still want another 22 after you get the 317, I think the next logical choice is a full size target 22, not something that's pretending to be something else. Go the whole nine yards and get something that can accommodate a laser, zero it for 25 yards and you're all set. My choice in this genre was the Ruger Mk. II Target model with the 6-7/8" tapered bull barrel. I have a sight base to put a red dot on it and am going to do that again soon. (I took it off so it would fit in the fitted Ruger hard case, but I miss the red dot now)

A Browning Buck Mark that can accommodate a laser (preferable) or red dot (would settle for) would be just the thing. This Buck Mark Plus Rosewood UDX looks beautiful to my eye, and will be accurate and reliable too. It bit it will EASILY outshoot the TX22 and S&W 317, with the result that you don't shoot them much any more:

​

Note that it has all kinds of sight options:

• Pic rail for laser or red dot
• Adjustable rear sight
• Fiber optic front sight

The Buck Mark lineup is huge, these days. [LINK]

 

Is it me, or is the Buck Mark just an aesthetic revision of the Medalist line?
Do you feel like the Buck Mark line took a hit in build quality compared to the Medalists?

 

I bought this Rossi Plinker dirt cheap from of all places GunBroker. Upon arrival I found out why the low price, it shot 4’ low a 10’ and the rear sight was froze unable to be adjusted. An easy fix by removing the sight and reinstalling. The Plinker is a much better gun than its price would dictate. It’s all steel and beautifully blued. I killed a ground hog with at 35 yards (took 5 shots however).

 

This is a different post, in that I am not recommending you buy a particular 22. I am cautiously telling you about my purchase of a Ruger LCP 22. I saw it setting on a shelf at a local gun store and thought “what a neat fun thing this could be”. Ruger recommends high velocity 22 such as CCI mini mag. So when I purchased this little bugger, I also purchased 200 rounds of mini mags. All was for not, you would think after 200 rounds it would be broken in and function at least 95% of the time. Nope, it will not get through a full mag without a hiccup of some kind. Beware!

 

It's because you can't handle the guns and see and feel the differences. They have a lot of similarities at first glance, but they feel like very different guns. The grip angle is different, which could be a matter of preference (I like the Medalist layout). The Medalist trigger is far better, and the feel and quality of the Medalist is in another league, as is the finish and craftsmanship. The Buck Mark feels like a nicely done, cheap-to-manufacture pistol (I like it better than Ruger .22s and other modern .22 semi-autos). The Medalist feels like no corners were cut, anywhere. To put it into .22 rifle terms, the Buck Mark compared to the Medalist is a Ruger American compared to a Winchester 52. My Medalists will shoot groups close to half the size of the Buck Mark, but the Buck Mark is an accurate pistol. The Medalist is more accurate in my hands than any of my Smith, Beretta, Colt, Kimber, CZ, or Browning centerfire handguns, both the semi-automatics and the revolvers.

 

Three of my current favorites that see lots of range time are my S&W 317, Beretta M71, and KT P-17. I would highly recommend any or all.

 

A miniature Colt .22 caliber Gatling Gun.

 

I don't know if I'll ever get a silencer, but the fact that the Tx22 has the capability to work with one is definitely a plus.

As far as mentioning your CZ 457, my new love of .22lr is having me look again at .22 rifles. My Marlin M60 is OK, it is 100% reliable with CCI Mini-Mag and Stingers, but anywhere from hit or miss to terrible with other ammo. So, while I may buy a bunch of Mini-Mags to break it back out, I'm also thinking between a CZ bolt rifle, a Ruger 10/22 (I haven't had one in 15 years) or a Henry lever rifle to go with my growing collection of .22 handguns.

 

I still kind of want the 2" 942 and the Glock 44, but I'm finally starting to like .22 for .22 sake. I am finding myself eyeing some pistols that have no "training" purpose. I may consider a Ruger MkIV (my understanding is that they are a lot easier to take apart and reassemble than the MkII I had), but the Buckmark does somehow seem more interesting to me.

 

I shoot my Buck Mark and Ruger Marks more often than any of my other semiauto pistols.

 

But if you already know how to take apart the Rugers, why worry about it any more? I have one and it IS a pain in the ass, but once you know it, it’s no big deal.

 

Anything that takes 3 hands, a mallet, that much time and still can be a struggle, I'm not interested in anymore. Honestly, after so many years I barely remembered (other than it was difficult) and started thinking about it, then I watched some YouTube videos on disassembly and reassembly of the Mk IIs and Mk IIIs and some videos on the Mk IV. If they could have re-engineered that pistol with all that makes it good but now it is one of the easiest guns to take apart and reassemble, why did they wait so long? Anyway, after watching several videos on it, the Mk IV is now high on my list.

 

a henry 22lr lever action rifle is way too much fun, easy to fieldstrip/clean, handy, reliable, exempt in its design from unfree states’ capacity limits. did i mention enough that it’s fun?

 

Bold emphasis mine, and know there's no malice or snark intended in what I write. My guess is that the waited so long because there was no reason to change- until there was. Maybe they had new tooling in place (for the grip frame) combined with their .22 auto pistol market share being threatened by other companies that caused them to change. They're doing something right with it- the pistol is still going strong since 1949. I'd expect a Ruger Standard from '49 to shoot just as well as a newly made MK4.

 

As far as I know, it was still a strong seller, so from a pure business point of view, one might ask why they finally made the change. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the tools in the factory finally wore out to the point that they needed to retool a bit anyway, so it was more financially feasible to do a redesign. Of course, they could be selling well and still the company could have been concerned about losing sales to other companies so they did it to be more competitive. Doesn't really matter in the end, the Mk I, Mk II, and Mk III were great rimfire pistols with one big glaring drawback, and now that drawback is gone. If I'm not careful, I'm probably going to pick up a Mk IV by the end of the month (and likely sooner).

 

"LCP" stands for "Little Crappy Pistol."

 

Don’t overlook the Smith & Wesson Victory. It’s a good shooter. Academy has a good price on them right now.