Which is better S&W 22A or Ruger mark II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have both and my opinion is that the Ruger is the better pistol. It's pinpoint accurate and almost never has a cycling problem. Small rimfire ammo is not the most precise product in the world and there will be failures.

The S&W is a fine pistol too. For me it's not the laser the Ruger is, but it's very reliable. It's difficult for me to aim properly due to it's design. It seems well built and I don't think you'd regret buying it. I shoot it along side my Ruger and I just don't do as well with it. I don't think it's the pistol, just the way it fits my hand. The sights are different and I just don't see the target as well as with the Ruger.

The Ruger is definitely the sexier pistol.
 
The two guns are in slightly different classes; the S&W is very good entry-level gun, it's just not built to the same level as the Mk series guns (as the Mk guns aren't built to the same level as a Model 41). The Rugers are very accurate handguns.

The barrel length is really a matter of personal taste and intended use. I think the longer barrel on these guns has a negligible effect on the gun's accuracy, but the longer the barrel will make aiming easier, so you will be more accurate. There is, however, an obvious gain in weight and a gun with a nearly-seven-inch barrel is a bit big to tromp through the woods all day with. That said, I now own two Hunter 678s, one for competition and one for just general fun. If you are looking for something that doesn't need to be laser-accurate and you'll carry around a lot, one of the shorter versions should suit you very nicely.
 
Many good .22's out there. I like my 22A but the Rugers and Browning are good as well. I find my 22A accurate and eats everything. I like and want a .22 revolver one day probably a Smith 617 6" or Ruger Single Six.


FWIW unless you sort your .22 ammo you will never get target type groupings.
 
I have a 22A and I've put thousands of rounds through it. When it was a year or so old the receiver broke and I had to send it in. It took S&W a couple months to get it back to me. I needed a new barrel for my Kel Tec P-11, which is in the same price range and they had it back to me in less than two weeks. I've never had a problem with my 10/22 so if I got another .22 pistol I would consider a Ruger.
 
Which 22 is better

I have a S&W 22A, been shooting it for a year or so. The only problem with a 22 is that with every new lot of ammo comes a new zero. It only takes a few rounds to correct this. Do I like it? yes and no. Would I buy another one? No.

The only really good thing with a .22 pistol is the cost. And they make a good bedside gun, you don't have to spend a fortune on self defense ammo to keep from shooting through walls.
 
A friend owned a 22a, I own several mk lls. During our informal shooting competitions, my Mk ll runs circles around his 22a, in the accuracy dept. He finally sold the 22a & after a brief search, he purchased a as 5 1/4 inch (?) bull barrel Mk ll. His accuracy & competition has improved remarkably.
 
At one time I had both a Ruger MK II and a Smith 22A. I traded the Smith in on a crossbow. In shooting both I found the Ruger to be more accurate. Also the Smith would jam occasionally. The Ruger almost never jams. I have had the Ruger for nearly 30 years now. I don't worry about puttting it back together after cleaning it because I have never taken it apart. The most cleaning I ever do is run a swab down the barrel and wipe it out as best I can with the bolt locked open. And that not very often. But it still keeps spitting them out and as I already said, almost never jams.

BTW, the grip angle on the Ruger is the same as on the Luger. I find it just right for me. On a gun with a more vertical grip angle, if I just hold it without aiming or pointing it at anything, it will tend to point down. I have to make a concious effort to hold it pointing level. With the Ruger, if I just hold it, not aiming or pointing at anything, it naturally points level.
 
I've been shooting the same mkII bull barrel of my dad's for 17 years. Out of every pistol I've owned and shot, that MKII is my favorite, its the most accurate, and its never had a failure that wasn't ammo related. And I don't remember many of those.
 
I get really warm thinking about the Ruger Mk II I let go many years ago. What a mistake that was. May have to look around for another next year.

The S&W 41, now that is one fantastic shooter. I breaks down easily for cleaning and reassemble is a snap. To bad they cost half my leg new.:rolleyes:
 
I much prefer my M22A over our Ruger MKII and Ruger 22/45. My Wife prefers the Buckmark.

The biggest negative for the Ruger is their "Chinese puzzle" re-assembly. The Mag safety of the MKIII series doesn't help -- you have to fumble around with an empty mag to release the hammer.
 
Best $475 I ever spent was on a gently used Mark II with Volquartsen grip, comp and trigger. Indeed very rugged and reliable, especially with good ammo and regular cleaning.
Unspeakably accurate, too.
Yup, a bit of a PIA to take down and reassemble. On youtube, Cope Reynolds (Desertscout1) has the best video on the Mark II.
As a bonus, it gets complimented at the range like you wouldn't believe.
 
Where did the OP (RAVEN1) go? I think folks who kick a (even friendly) hornet's nest should stick around to see who gets stung. I'm only counting two posts (of 37) confirmed & convinced S&W 22A fans.
 
I would most definitely go with a Ruger MK.II over a S&W 22A. I have been shooting Ruger .22's for over 30 years now and for the accuracy and reliability that you get with them, I think it's money well spent.
 
I haven't shot a Ruger or a Browning so I can't say. I see them at the range and they look to do just fine. I have probably 5-10k rounds through my 22A and haven't even replaced the original shock buffer. It has also went 2-3 range visits without a scrub and shot just fine. Never a malfunction other than dud ammo and I put red cup lids 50 yards out and hit them with the stock sights. Other than a more PITA piece to take down, more cost I don't see what I am missing on the others.
 
I have probably 5-10k rounds through my 22A and haven't even replaced the original shock buffer.

I've seen Rugger MK II's go 5-10K rounds per month or more, with no maintenance.

Have you shot one?
 
RAVEN1:

A friend of mine had the 22a, I own 4 Ruger mklls. During our informal shooting competitions, my Mkll ran circles around his 22a. He finally saw the error of his ways, sold the 22a & after a few visits to gun shops, he is the proud owner of a used Mkll in S/S 5 1/4 inch (?) bull barrel.
His accuracy & competition has greatly increased.

I hope this helps you in your decision.
 
RAVEN1:

A friend of mine had the 22a, I own 4 Ruger mklls. During our informal shooting competitions, my Mkll ran circles around his 22a. He finally saw the error of his ways, sold the 22a & after a few visits to gun shops, he is the proud owner of a used Mkll in S/S 5 1/4 inch (?) bull barrel.
His accuracy & competition has greatly increased.

I hope this helps you in your decision.
Which one? Standard 22A or one of the limited editions with a bull barrel? I haven't shot the lower end 22A to see if their is a difference but suspect their could be. I think over the Winter when I start going to the indoor range that carries rentals I will rent the Ruger and Browning. Put 50 each out of both with 50 out of my 22A to see which one does better and post the results here.
 
If you are going to own handguns, one of them should be a MkII Target

The choice should be barrel length and finish. Not MKII or something else.

(I hope this doesnt offend anyone. I'm almost joking)
 
No contest! Ruger MK II is head and shoulders best. If you can't maintain it, that's a problem YOU have. Not the gun! Buy a revolver if that's the case.:neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top