Which is better S&W 22A or Ruger mark II
- Thread starter RAVEN1
- Start date
- Status
"Better" is a subjective term, so what I think is better may be different from you, and everyone else. I have handled the Smith, but never shot one. People that buy them seem to be satisfied with them. From what I read they get the job done.
I do have extensive experience with the Ruger MK II as I own four of them, a few for over 20 years. Yes, things like barrel length, and adjustable sights do matter. The Rugers are over built, will last a lifetime and are accurate, and reliable. The target versions (bull barrel, adjustable sights) are accurate out of the box, and can be made match accurate with a few simple, drop in mods from Volquartsen or Clark. The Rugers can be heavily modified with aftermarket parts if you so desire, but are fine stock also.
For me, the sweet spot in the Ruger MK II line is the 5.5 inch bull barrel, (KMK-512) target model. It is very accurate, but still a pistol that can be carried in the woods for plinking. However, my four inch bull barrel, target model (22/45 variation) is also very accurate, and a little more carry friendly with the polymer frame.
See if you can shoot both guns, and also throw the Browning Buckmark in the mix as that is what the Ruger is often compared.
Do not let the dissasembly, reassembly reputation of the Ruger dissaude you from buying one. If you follow the instructions it is easy, and there are tons of youtube videos with good advice that walk you through it step by step.
I do have extensive experience with the Ruger MK II as I own four of them, a few for over 20 years. Yes, things like barrel length, and adjustable sights do matter. The Rugers are over built, will last a lifetime and are accurate, and reliable. The target versions (bull barrel, adjustable sights) are accurate out of the box, and can be made match accurate with a few simple, drop in mods from Volquartsen or Clark. The Rugers can be heavily modified with aftermarket parts if you so desire, but are fine stock also.
For me, the sweet spot in the Ruger MK II line is the 5.5 inch bull barrel, (KMK-512) target model. It is very accurate, but still a pistol that can be carried in the woods for plinking. However, my four inch bull barrel, target model (22/45 variation) is also very accurate, and a little more carry friendly with the polymer frame.
See if you can shoot both guns, and also throw the Browning Buckmark in the mix as that is what the Ruger is often compared.
Do not let the dissasembly, reassembly reputation of the Ruger dissaude you from buying one. If you follow the instructions it is easy, and there are tons of youtube videos with good advice that walk you through it step by step.
Ghost Tracker
Member
I would pick the Mk II over the 22A. I'm also a fan of the Browning Buckmark. As for barrel length, I prefer ~5-6" models. We e-n-j-o-y helping spend OPM (Other People's Money), what's your budget?
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
If I were looking for an affordable .22 long rifle semi-automatic, I'd buy the Browning Buckmark: it's a better design and manufacturered to higher standards than the other two. I don't doubt the Ruger is rugged; putting the wretched thing back together after cleaning it, however, is an exercise in aggravation. It would have been far smarter to make the frame slightly longer and spare buyers the moronic necessity of tipping it this way and that to make the hammer flop back and forth at various stages of reassembly.
BCRider
Member
I've shot both that were at a rental range.
I like the Ruger for it's longer term durability. You just can't break them it seems. The ones at the rental range are still going strong 3 years later. And they were far from new when I originally tried them. And if you know the use and abuse they see at a rental range this is a HUGE factor.
I like the S&W for the more "normal" grip angle. But the one at the rental range "only" lasted two years before they retired it. But consider that two years of that sort of use equate to about two decades or more from a private owner.
Both shoot fine. But I like the S&W grip angle as it's more like the center fire handguns you'll likely go on to own and shoot. OK I know that Ruger makes the 22/45 to get around this issue. But I'm not a fan of them because the frame is plastic and it makes the gun feel REALLY top heavy.
The other gun I've shot and liked with a more "normal" grip angle is the Buckmark.
In the end I came across a good deal on an older S&W 422. Then later a nice stainless 2206 as a brotherly companion. These two fill my .22 semi auto needs gloriously. But prior to tripping over the 422 my plan was to guy a 22a. I was that impressed with it from the rental range.
I like the Ruger for it's longer term durability. You just can't break them it seems. The ones at the rental range are still going strong 3 years later. And they were far from new when I originally tried them. And if you know the use and abuse they see at a rental range this is a HUGE factor.
I like the S&W for the more "normal" grip angle. But the one at the rental range "only" lasted two years before they retired it. But consider that two years of that sort of use equate to about two decades or more from a private owner.
Both shoot fine. But I like the S&W grip angle as it's more like the center fire handguns you'll likely go on to own and shoot. OK I know that Ruger makes the 22/45 to get around this issue. But I'm not a fan of them because the frame is plastic and it makes the gun feel REALLY top heavy.
The other gun I've shot and liked with a more "normal" grip angle is the Buckmark.
In the end I came across a good deal on an older S&W 422. Then later a nice stainless 2206 as a brotherly companion. These two fill my .22 semi auto needs gloriously. But prior to tripping over the 422 my plan was to guy a 22a. I was that impressed with it from the rental range.
Armored farmer
Member
I can't speak for the others, but my Ruger MKII is rugged, and accurate. No concerns about ammo either, it eats it all and spits 'em out. It has taken it's share of squirrels, raccoons, skunks, and beer cans. I am not proud of it, but I have NEVER taken it apart for a proper cleaning...it just keeps running.
If I were in your shoes, I would look into the stainless 'Hunter' version with the longer barrel and scope rings. I might prefer that over a .22 rifle for some things, I think it would be a tackdriver.
If I were in your shoes, I would look into the stainless 'Hunter' version with the longer barrel and scope rings. I might prefer that over a .22 rifle for some things, I think it would be a tackdriver.
lonestardiver
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 83
The oder 22/45'd had a metal grip frame if I recall correctly.
Also the re-assembly is not that hard...once you get it figured out it goes well.
Just take it apart and re-assemble a few times at that point and you shouldn't
have any problem in the future.
BTW I like mine in the 10" bull barrel... 10 shot groups into the size of a quarter at
50 yards from a sandbag rest.
Also the re-assembly is not that hard...once you get it figured out it goes well.
Just take it apart and re-assemble a few times at that point and you shouldn't
have any problem in the future.
BTW I like mine in the 10" bull barrel... 10 shot groups into the size of a quarter at
50 yards from a sandbag rest.
beatledog7
Member
I shopped both and bought a Buckmark. Would do it again.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I own both the Mark II and a M22A and I like them both. I am partial to the Ruger and my son likes the S&W a little better but i would shoot both and enjoy them. My 22A sports a 7" fluted bull barrel which is very accurate. The longer sight picture helps you shoot well.
Where are you getting a Mark II, on the used market I'm guessing...
Where are you getting a Mark II, on the used market I'm guessing...
I considered the Buckmark and the Mark II, and bought the Mark II, in stainless with a 5.5" bull barrel. I love it and shoot it constantly. I'm sure I would have loved the Buckmark as well. I have no experience with the S&W but I don't doubt it's a fine gun.
My advice: if you can't decide, roll a die. I expect you won't be disappointed by any of them.
My advice: if you can't decide, roll a die. I expect you won't be disappointed by any of them.
mo bow hntr
Member
i have a buck mark and two rugers one with a 5inch and one with a 10inch all three are good shooters but the rugers have a little edge.all the talk about cleaning the ruger is not that bad once you do it once youre fine and to be honest ive never cleand the 5 inch one i biught it for a farm truck gun used and i have put over 500rds thru it dont know how many before i bought it and it dont miss a beat. the 5 inch non bull barrel hits cans 8 out of 10 times at 30 yards free handed how much more do you need to plink. the 10 inch one shoots like a rifle.
If you want a 22 semi look at either Ruger or Browning Buckmark. I see advantages to both, have owned both in the past but kept the Ruger 22/45. It has the best compromise of features I wanted.
http://ruger.com/products/2245Target/models.html
http://ruger.com/products/2245Target/models.html
SwampWolf
Member
I don't know if it's "better",I prefer the Ruger MKII over the Smith & Wesson Model 22A. But I like the pricey Smith Model 41 over either of them. It is better, imo. 
Dudemeister
Member
Neither, get a Browning Buckmark instead.
lonestardiver
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 83
Yeah the S&W 41 is nice... so is my High Standard Victor.
gpr
Member
my vote...ruger....the walther sp22 is also a nice gun...it has a lot of factory variations.....kinda on the lines of a s&w....gary
Ruger
I've owned Ruger, Browning, S&W, High Standard and several others. Most were good and enjoyable pistols. I currently own a Beretta Neos, which has to be the ugliest pistol ever. However, it is one of the most surprising .22 pistols I've owned. Very, and I mean VERY reliable, good accuracy, good ergos, great magazines, good sights. The trigger on mine was not good at all so I sent it back to Beretta and they fixed it. The trigger is still not great but is better and acceptable. In over 1000 rds of Walmart Federal "Auto Target" (or is it Auto-Match??) I've had ZERO malfunctions. And only 1 with other brands (good hard firing pin strike - just no "bang"). The Neos cost next to nothing and is a "Prince that looks like a Frog" in fairy tales. Do not fail to consider one just because it's soooo ugly.
I've owned Ruger, Browning, S&W, High Standard and several others. Most were good and enjoyable pistols. I currently own a Beretta Neos, which has to be the ugliest pistol ever. However, it is one of the most surprising .22 pistols I've owned. Very, and I mean VERY reliable, good accuracy, good ergos, great magazines, good sights. The trigger on mine was not good at all so I sent it back to Beretta and they fixed it. The trigger is still not great but is better and acceptable. In over 1000 rds of Walmart Federal "Auto Target" (or is it Auto-Match??) I've had ZERO malfunctions. And only 1 with other brands (good hard firing pin strike - just no "bang"). The Neos cost next to nothing and is a "Prince that looks like a Frog" in fairy tales. Do not fail to consider one just because it's soooo ugly.
lloveless
Member
I have a Ruger mark 2 with the 5.5 inch bull barrel. I hate the front sight design it catches in the ballistic nylon holster. I clean the barrel and the chamber without dissasembly every 200 rounds. Since buying it in the mid 80's I've had it apart twice. The first time it went back to my LGS for reassembly. I was able to get it back together the second time. I ain't doing it again! It is more accurate than a rifle. Good luck in your quest.
ll
ll
Confederate
Member
"Better" is a subjective term. But regardless how you define it, the Ruger Mark II is much, much better. I have an AMT Lightning that was based on the Ruger auto and unfortunately, Ruger made them stop making it. It was a rip-off plain and simple, but AMT essentially took the Ruger and made numerous improvements in it and Ruger didn't even take advantage of the changes, which included a scope rail, Clarke custom trigger, improved sights and recessed muzzle.
Ruger just knew when they had a good thing going and no really significant change has been made since 1953. They probably determined that if people wanted a target gun, they could put in the trigger, sights and other add-ons. I've since realized that Ruger was right. Their guns are what they are, and they can be target guns, plinking guns, self defense guns, hunting guns or camping guns. I recall the beautifully made Buck .22 autos with luxurious wood grips, but though they were milled out of steel blocks and their craftsmanship was elegant beyond expectation, they just weren't as tough or as durable as the Rugers. When the U.S. put sanctions on Rhodesia and South Africa years ago (because of their racial policies), both blacks and whites gave their eye-teeth for Ruger .22LR pistols. The reason? The Rugers could go years without needing parts replacements.
S&W makes a fairly decent budget .22LR, but they're nowhere in the same league.
A Ruger Mark II with a review taken from an early 1980s magazine. Ruger
has made very few changes in the .22 autos.
Ruger 1953 ad.
The two best .22LR handguns that Ruger has made. Both are outstanding
plinkers. If I were only young again!
.
Ruger just knew when they had a good thing going and no really significant change has been made since 1953. They probably determined that if people wanted a target gun, they could put in the trigger, sights and other add-ons. I've since realized that Ruger was right. Their guns are what they are, and they can be target guns, plinking guns, self defense guns, hunting guns or camping guns. I recall the beautifully made Buck .22 autos with luxurious wood grips, but though they were milled out of steel blocks and their craftsmanship was elegant beyond expectation, they just weren't as tough or as durable as the Rugers. When the U.S. put sanctions on Rhodesia and South Africa years ago (because of their racial policies), both blacks and whites gave their eye-teeth for Ruger .22LR pistols. The reason? The Rugers could go years without needing parts replacements.
S&W makes a fairly decent budget .22LR, but they're nowhere in the same league.
A Ruger Mark II with a review taken from an early 1980s magazine. Ruger
has made very few changes in the .22 autos.
Ruger 1953 ad.
The two best .22LR handguns that Ruger has made. Both are outstanding
plinkers. If I were only young again!
.
Deus Machina
Member
I've shot a 22A and liked it. I own a Ruger Mk3 22/45.
Hold them both. The Ruger seems to have a grip angled geared more toward the side-stance, single-handed method.
Hold both, see which works. If you can find a 22/45 model, the grip angled will be similar, so I'd recommend the Ruger if you can afford it. The S&W's just fine, but the Ruger will go years before you have to fix anything.
Hold them both. The Ruger seems to have a grip angled geared more toward the side-stance, single-handed method.
Hold both, see which works. If you can find a 22/45 model, the grip angled will be similar, so I'd recommend the Ruger if you can afford it. The S&W's just fine, but the Ruger will go years before you have to fix anything.
SwampWolf
Member
I'm sorry-I just can't get past the ugly.
Stevie-Ray
Member
Get the Ruger. A Ruger RST-6 was my first pistol. Liked it so much I followed up years later with this KMK-512. Both are outstanding and I can easily recommend Ruger.
offroaddiver
Member
I have a heavy barrel 22/45, a 22a and a 22s. The 22a now rides in the wife's range bag. The only thing that I dislike is the hook shaped front site on the 22/45, it catches on every holster I've found. Just never cut it into a standard blade. The 22s has the fiber optic front site and plenty of goodies.
Then again 22's are cheap.
Then again 22's are cheap.
- Status