.22 LR rundown

[jellydonut]

I have a semi-sudden itch/requirement for a .22, and I've never been into these things before so I don't know what's what.

I really like these sorts, with threaded barrels for suppressors.

https://ruger.com/products/markIV2245Tactical/models.html
https://www.browning.com/products/firearms/pistols/buck-mark/current/buck-mark-field-target-suppressor-ready.html

I've heard iffy things about the Glock 44, although if it wasn't for the iffy feedback I think it would be my automatic choice.

Anyone got any useful feedback for me? I'm not very emotionally involved in the .22 game so I would honestly just like to be told what to buy by my betters. As stated before, suppressor-ready is a big plus.

[OlongJohnson]

I like Buck Marks. Do a search, Buck Mark vs. Ruger Mark x has been discussed many times.

If you do go Buck Mark, you can get a Tactical Solutions aluminum threaded barrel for ~$170 shipped online if you're good at online shopping. Might be cheaper to just find the cheapest used Buck Mark you can and throw one of those on it, than to get a "bells and whistles" gun from the factory, especially in this market.

[GJM]

Is your use Steel Challenge, dedicated .22 or sub caliber trainer?

[jellydonut]

Is your use Steel Challenge, dedicated .22 or sub caliber trainer?

I would just like to train cheaply and have a cool gun at the same time, which is why I like the suppressor capability. Sub-caliber trainer is the real use case, i guess, which is why i also mentioned the G44.

[GJM]

Perhaps this?

https://fnamerica.com/502tactical/

[awp_101]

The easy button is a MKIV or a Buckmark and it’s almost Ford vs Chevy now.

The Ruger has greater aftermarket support but the receiver tube is the sn part. If you want to swap uppers, the replacement is an FFL item. Volquartsen has factory uppers listed on clearance for $100 or less on a regular basis.

The frame is the sn part on the Browning so replacement uppers are a direct to you item but the aftermarket isn’t as large. At least it wasn’t several years ago when I made the switch from Browning to Ruger.

[Suvorov]

I’ve put tens of thousands of rounds through Ruger MkIII and would have no problem recommending them.

That said, the Beretta 22LR conversion kit mounted to a 92FS frame (NOT the M9-22 gun - although people here are reporting it to be a good shooter as well) has quickly become my favorite .22LR pistol option hands down. It’s been every bit as reliable and accurate as my Rugers, carries the same as my full caliber Berettas, is lighter than the Ruger, has full sized and modern controls, and at the end of the day can be switched back to 9mm. As for suppressor readiness, Beretta sells a threaded barrel for it (you might actually be able to buy it with the threaded barrel).

Stay way from the Sig Mosquito or it’s Firefly descendant. They just aren’t very reliable and I don’t like their reduced size controls.

[farscott]

For a sub-caliber trainer, unless the focus is single-action trigger control, both the Ruger Mark IV and Browning Buckmark should not be the choice. Both models offer a single-action only trigger, which is nothing like a Glock striker-fired action or DA/SA pistol. The DA/SA Ruger SR22 at https://ruger.com/products/sr22Pistol/models.html might be a better choice, but I am not aware of any factory-offered threaded barrel options. Ruger does offer a threaded barrel kit from shopRuger.com at https://shopruger.com/Ruger-SR22-Threaded-Barrel-Kit/productinfo/90520/ which would allow the addition of a threaded barrel. I have no personal experience with the SR22, but shooting buddies are pleased with their examples.

[alamo5000]

I have a semi-sudden itch/requirement for a .22, and I've never been into these things before so I don't know what's what.

I really like these sorts, with threaded barrels for suppressors.

https://ruger.com/products/markIV2245Tactical/models.html
https://www.browning.com/products/firearms/pistols/buck-mark/current/buck-mark-field-target-suppressor-ready.html

I've heard iffy things about the Glock 44, although if it wasn't for the iffy feedback I think it would be my automatic choice.

Anyone got any useful feedback for me? I'm not very emotionally involved in the .22 game so I would honestly just like to be told what to buy by my betters. As stated before, suppressor-ready is a big plus.


I have two short listed items in way of 22 pistols. A Volquartsen and the new FN 502. The latter comes with 15 round mags and it's optic cut and suppressor ready. I will get one once the new wears off and they are on the shelf more. The Volquartsen is a much more expensive pistol so that one I am saving up for to purchase at some future date.

[alamo5000]

Stay way from the Sig Mosquito or it’s Firefly descendant. They just aren’t very reliable and I don’t like their reduced size controls.

I bought a firefly several years ago. I modified the mags and did some polishing and other work so now mine works great. That said I also think there are better options out there.

I am going to get a FN 502 for one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4JUPsrfbeM

[awp_101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4JUPsrfbeM
Crap, that really appeals to my inner Timmy...

The first gen Walther P22 I had ~15 years ago was OK and certainly felt more solid than the Mosquito I bought right after they came out.

[Duelist]

Our G44 is just fine as a trainer, and my wife endorses it as more fun than any other .22 we have. Plus, it’s super lighting you want to throw it in a pack for hiking.

The factory mags work greats, but the Promag higher capacity mag is a pain to load and iffy on reliability.

[jellydonut]

Perhaps this?

https://fnamerica.com/502tactical/

I have two short listed items in way of 22 pistols. A Volquartsen and the new FN 502. The latter comes with 15 round mags and it's optic cut and suppressor ready. I will get one once the new wears off and they are on the shelf more. The Volquartsen is a much more expensive pistol so that one I am saving up for to purchase at some future date.

I bought a firefly several years ago. I modified the mags and did some polishing and other work so now mine works great. That said I also think there are better options out there.

I am going to get a FN 502 for one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4JUPsrfbeM

I feel like if I am taking this route I will be missing out on not also getting a "matching" 509 and buying into the whole system. Ditto Walther's .22 PPQ and not also having a regular PPQ.

Currently pretty set on Glock but willing to be persuaded otherwise, so the full system is not set.


Our G44 is just fine as a trainer, and my wife endorses it as more fun than any other .22 we have. Plus, it’s super lighting you want to throw it in a pack for hiking.

The factory mags work greats, but the Promag higher capacity mag is a pain to load and iffy on reliability.

Noted, I should probably read up more on the G44 again too besides the early complaints.

[gato naranja]

For a sub-caliber trainer, unless the focus is single-action trigger control, both the Ruger Mark IV and Browning Buckmark should not be the choice. Both models offer a single-action only trigger, which is nothing like a Glock striker-fired action or DA/SA pistol. The DA/SA Ruger SR22 at https://ruger.com/products/sr22Pistol/models.html might be a better choice, but I am not aware of any factory-offered threaded barrel options. Ruger does offer a threaded barrel kit from shopRuger.com at https://shopruger.com/Ruger-SR22-Threaded-Barrel-Kit/productinfo/90520/ which would allow the addition of a threaded barrel. I have no personal experience with the SR22, but shooting buddies are pleased with their examples.

I wanted to hate the SR22, but I have a ball shooting them.

It took Ruger years to to screw up the Ruger .22 pistol, but they did it and even convinced the masses to approve the resulting mediocrity. "But it takes down easier!" they whined. Yeah, it does.... and everything else about it is worse, in quality and/or performance. I don't like Buck Marks, but would probably get one in preference to a Ruger Mk IV... and I used to be a Ruger Mk I, II and III fanboy.

There. Flame away at this stupid, old cat. He doesn't care.

But enough of that, and more about Ruger's enjoyable, but not "target grade" .22 pistol: the SR22. The trigger is incorrigible, but at least the SR22 doesn't pretend to be a fine example of the gunmaker's art and capable of world-class accuracy. Get an SR22 with a threaded barrel, put a can on it, set expectations on realistic and have fun, fun, fun.

[EricP]

I recently bought a Ruger MKIV 22/45 Lite for just pure shooting fun. I already had another MKIV upper, so now I have one with nicer irons and one with a dot. Both are threaded for a can. Volquarten made the triggers much better.

I've been very much enjoying that they are not match guns or sub-caliber trainers and only exist to make pieces of clay pigeon smaller or ring steel.

[farscott]

It took Ruger years to to screw up the Ruger .22 pistol, but they did it and even convinced the masses to approve the resulting mediocrity. "But it takes down easier!" they whined. Yeah, it does.... and everything else about it is worse, in quality and/or performance. I don't like Buck Marks, but would probably get one in preference to a Ruger Mk IV... and I used to be a Ruger Mk I, II and III fanboy.

Have too agree with this. I have been shooting Ruger Standard pistol variants since 1973, have examples from a 1961 to 2020, and the Mk IV has a horrible stock trigger. I much prefer the old Standard pattern to the Mark III and Mark IV with the magazine safety and a few other warts (Mark III "chamber loaded indicator and Mark IV barrel/receiver wobble. My stock 1964 Standard has a trigger almost as good as a Volquartsen Scorpion and cost a fraction of the latter pistol.

The good news is most people want the easy takedown, so the old guns languish on the shelves. That allows one to find a good deal.

[joshs]

Have too agree with this. I have been shooting Ruger Standard pistol variants since 1973, have examples from a 1961 to 2020, and the Mk IV has a horrible stock trigger. I much prefer the old Standard pattern to the Mark III and Mark IV with the magazine safety and a few other warts (Mark III "chamber loaded indicator and Mark IV barrel/receiver wobble. My stock 1964 Standard has a trigger almost as good as a Volquartsen Scorpion and cost a fraction of the latter pistol.

The good news is most people want the easy takedown, so the old guns languish on the shelves. That allows one to find a good deal.

Put me in the easy takedown for the win camp. I shoot a ton suppressed, so the easier takedown is much appreciated. I did put a VQ trigger kit in my MKIV, but I don’t think the stock trigger was terrible. I have about 25k through my MKIV 22/45 with no broken components, and the new design seems durable so far.

[1Rangemaster]

That FN looks neat. We have had G44s(10) in department inventory for remedial work and civilian familiarization, obtained within the past 12 months. Aguila and CCI Blazer have been run through them with no hiccups I’ve observed.
I had some old, poorly stored (in trunk of car) “Yellow Jacket” that gave my personal 44 fits-ftf, fte, etc., but I put that down to the suspect ammo. GLOCK sells an “accessory” threaded barrel, so that’s an added expense along with the can. No experience with cans personally, but I’ve seen a handful on the 44 run well.
The polymer slide doesn’t lend itself to a red dot. There are one or two aftermarket mounts that attach to the rail though.
I just carefully put Ameriglo fiber front sight on CAREFULLY and run it like that. Mags are 10 rounds, but easy to load by hand with the little tabs on the mags.
I’m pretty committed to the GLOCK for daily use, so I appreciate the G44, FWIW.

[19852+]

Is a .22 upper conversion out of the question? I have an Advantage Arms .22 upper for my Colt 1911 and it works quite well. 100% reliability with the recommended ammo and the full power mainspring in the Colt insures reliable ignition. Mine is the deluxe version with adjustable rear sight [Kensight].

[Jim Watson]

I shot a Glock 44 today at the range demo day for Glock, CMMG, and Eotech; and a friend is buying one based on my favorable review.
If you have a Glock 19 as everybody on PF should, the G44 is a natural for cheap practice.

Agree that Buckmark vs Ruger is Ford vs Chevy and you don't have to spend money on them, they will shoot just fine right out of the box without becoming an Endless Internet Lego Gun.

If you have Other Makes, I can testify that the CZ Kadet Conversion and Nelson 1911 Conversion are very good.
The S&W Plastic M&P .22 Compact is in the same category as the G44 and mine is very reliable, 100% with MiniMags.

There are others, but those are the ones I have shot, not counting bona fide target pistols like M41.

[SecondsCount]

I liked the old S&W 422, 2206, etc and when those went away I got into Buckmarks. I've never owned a Ruger but friends have them and like them.

[TWR]

We had a SC match today and had my G44, a Buckmark, a Ruger MK IV, an Advantage Arms G17 conversion and 2 Sig GSG 1911-22’s. Both of the 1911-22’s ran well enough to get me thinking about one and my G44 ran without issue except the rear sight getting moved on me but the gun didn’t hiccup. The AA conversion ran too.

The BM had a lot of problems and the Ruger choked at least once or twice. We discussed the four BM’s that we’ve owned and they all had problems. My old 22/45 lite MK IV was reliable with CCI Blazer but not much else.

My G44 has been great once I learned to keep the last three rounds from nose diving. I’ve got the threaded barrel too and it’s fun with my suppressor. It’s a great trainer for the G19 and being so light, it’ll keep your trigger finger honest. It’s not hard to shoot but being so light makes you pay attention.

[OlongJohnson]

Agree that Buckmark vs Ruger is Ford vs Chevy and you don't have to spend money on them, they will shoot just fine right out of the box without becoming an Endless Internet Lego Gun.

I've gone through a couple of Buck Marks 100 percent, which showed me enough that I will never put one into service without going through it 100 percent and fixing all the little issues. But they are sweet when done. I don't require any aftermarket parts to unkitten them. Depending on how poorly the safety was fitted at the factory, I may start over with a fresh, unfitted sear. That's ~$8 from Browning, if I remember right. And I bought a lifetime supply of German-made, metric-dimensioned e-clips that are a perfect fit on the recoil spring guide rod (minimum order quantity on $0.03 parts), so I put those in every one I take apart. And I really like the Hogue or Tactical Solutions G10 checkered grips, so I have a few sets of those (which get slightly customized). But that's it, for the most part. A few different barrels I can swap onto different guns if I'm feeling frisky.

[DDTSGM]

Have too agree with this. I have been shooting Ruger Standard pistol variants since 1973, have examples from a 1961 to 2020, and the Mk IV has a horrible stock trigger. I much prefer the old Standard pattern to the Mark III and Mark IV with the magazine safety and a few other warts (Mark III "chamber loaded indicator and Mark IV barrel/receiver wobble. My stock 1964 Standard has a trigger almost as good as a Volquartsen Scorpion and cost a fraction of the latter pistol.

The good news is most people want the easy takedown, so the old guns languish on the shelves. That allows one to find a good deal.

I have two Mark I's - many rounds through them - parts is the problem.

[rob_s]

I’ve lost count of how many .22 rifles, pistols, and conversion kits I’ve bought that match my “real” guns with the idea that I’d use them for “cheaper training”. You know how many times I actually “trained” with any of them? Zero.

What I finally figured out, for myself, is that my commodity is time not ammo cost. And with limited time, I don’t want to waste it shooting a .22 facsimile. If you find that the reason you don’t go to the range is ammo cost, then disregard.

All of that to say, I wouldn’t waste any time or brainpower on buying something that matches your centerfire gun(s).

My “main” .22 pistol now is a Ruger MK?? I don’t even know what Gen. It’s threaded and has rails top and bottom but no sights. I have an old Gemtech silencer on it and a Streamlight light/laser combo that I’ve never even bothered to properly zero. I like the ones now that have the top and bottom rails AND sights. If the Buckmark had a bottom rail and a shorter barrel I might get that instead today.

My prime, and only, use for the gun now is dispatching critters in the yard.

[HeavyDuty]

I’ve had a Ruger MkII CTM forever. I picked up a MkIV 5.5” heavy barrel a few years ago - it has a new trigger and sights, and does just fine.

[steve]

I have a Ruger MK IV 22/45 and recently got a Glock 44. In the past I have owned Ruger MK II's, S&W 422's and even an Iver Johnson TP22. If I had to do it all over again I would buy the Glock 44 and stick with it. Mine has run well with CCI mini mags. It is a Glock 19 that went on the Keto diet. It fits the 19 holsters and mag pouches. Extra mags are at Primary Arms for $15.99. Glock hit a home run with it.

[Shades]

I’ve lost count of how many .22 rifles, pistols, and conversion kits I’ve bought that match my “real” guns with the idea that I’d use them for “cheaper training”. You know how many times I actually “trained” with any of them? Zero.

What I finally figured out, for myself, is that my commodity is time not ammo cost. And with limited time, I don’t want to waste it shooting a .22 facsimile. If you find that the reason you don’t go to the range is ammo cost, then disregard.

All of that to say, I wouldn’t waste any time or brainpower on buying something that matches your centerfire gun(s).

My “main” .22 pistol now is a Ruger MK?? I don’t even know what Gen. It’s threaded and has rails top and bottom but no sights. I have an old Gemtech silencer on it and a Streamlight light/laser combo that I’ve never even bothered to properly zero. I like the ones now that have the top and bottom rails AND sights. If the Buckmark had a bottom rail and a shorter barrel I might get that instead today.

My prime, and only, use for the gun now is dispatching critters in the yard.

This is where I'm at. I have one .22, a Buckmark that works ok as long as it's fed decent ammo; Fed HV Match and CCI mini-mags work best. Win and Rem are iffy, some boxes work fine and others have issues, mainly dead priming. I have more 9mm, .38 and .223 than .22 LR, and the cf ammo is much more consistent. Net result is that if I want to practice with a defensive handgun, I take a 9 (or if revolver, a .38) to the range. If I didn't have the supply of cf ammo, I might reevaluate.

[awp_101]

This thread is useless without pics.

77672

[jellydonut]

Bumping my own thread with off-topic considerations from my inquiry in the Glock 44 thread, as well as further thoughts.



I haven’t tried the CCI standard velocity but I think you want to stick with the most potent high velocity ammunition for any reliable function in these guns.[editor's note: Glock 44s]

A further consideration since I started this thread is that I'd like my .22 to function reliably with standard target loads such as the CCI Standard, as this is readily available to me at a very good price. If I need to special-order less affordable rimfire to run it, I would rather just eat the cost and shoot 9mm.

Having gotten quite a bit of .22 shooting under my belt since I made this thread, I've found that there's very little that is more annoying than shooting with a rimfire pistol that misfires every other magazine. I would rather not have one than have one of those.

It is surprising to me that the bullseye/Olympic type target pistols I've been using run perfectly reliably with these lower-power loads, despite being made of high-quality materials and presumably having far tighter tolerances than your average "plinker".

How hard could it really be to make a .22 that cycles without the need for high velocity rounds?

Tangentially, does anyone have experience with the Beretta 87?

[NukeRef]

Just a thought if you haven't purchased yet ...

Mentioned only once that I saw in this thread, have you considered the S&W M&P .22 Compact? Comes from the factory with a threaded barrel with a suppressor in mind (you have to buy the adapter for it), so you know it is intended to run on subsonic ammo. No need for Mini-Mags. Mine has never burped on any ammo it's been fed.

I like mine, lots of people like theirs. And it is essentially the same price as the G44.

[OlongJohnson]

It is surprising to me that the bullseye/Olympic type target pistols I've been using run perfectly reliably with these lower-power loads, despite being made of high-quality materials and presumably having far tighter tolerances than your average "plinker".

They probably have smooth, even polished surfaces on the parts that move.

Make a pistol rough as a cob, and you need a heavy spring to return the slide to battery reliably. That heavy spring, plus all the friction it's there to overcome, requires high-velocity ammo to cycle.

Make it smooth, and it will have enough force available to feed and return to battery reliably with a lighter spring. The lighter spring, plus the reduced friction, can be cycled reliably with the lower-velocity ammo that is usually favored for targets.

Also, you seem to be mixing up "tolerances" and "clearances" in your thinking.

One of my dream gun wishes is getting hold of a Buck Mark frame right off the machinery before it's grit blasted and a slide before it's fully machined, fitting them precisely, and polishing the moving interfaces.

[Lost River]

1911 conversions are a pretty decent option if they are in the running for consideration.


I have both a Marvel and a Kimber Conversion. Shown is the Kimber. While the Marvel is insanely accurate, I cannot shoot to the accuracy potential of the Kimber, and threaded barrels are an option. I am not sure if they are still in production or if it is something you need to do a little hunting for, but they are well worth it in my opinion.

Very reliable and quite accurate. Loads of fun.

https://i.imgur.com/TYQqPeR.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/myV3llH.jpg?1

Compatible with most holsters:

https://i.imgur.com/4aWn8uW.jpg?1

[TWR]

That pic alone makes me want to chase down a conversion or break down and order a Nelson conversion for my 1911.
I had a Kimber 1911-22 that was the most aggravating pistol I ever had but I've been told the conversions work much better.

For now this is my only 22 auto left
https://i.postimg.cc/DfShjyyG/76-E3-F3-E2-D0-EC-4687-9266-716711859-C68.jpg (https://postimg.cc/Hj1FjmMW)
and that suits me just fine.

I don't need a 22 coversion. I don't need a 22 conversion. I don't need...

[SecondsCount]

1911 conversions are a pretty decent option if they are in the running for consideration.


I have both a Marvel and a Kimber Conversion. Shown is the Kimber. While the Marvel is insanely accurate, I cannot shoot to the accuracy potential of the Kimber, and threaded barrels are an option. I am not sure if they are still in production or if it is something you need to do a little hunting for, but they are well worth it in my opinion.

Very reliable and quite accurate. Loads of fun.

....
I have been happy with my Kimber conversion. It likes ammo on the warmer side- Mini mags, stingers, etc. Bulk pack Remington Golden bullets are hot and it eats them like candy.

[757_Magnum]

Bumping my own thread with off-topic considerations from my inquiry in the Glock 44 thread, as well as further thoughts.



A further consideration since I started this thread is that I'd like my .22 to function reliably with standard target loads such as the CCI Standard, as this is readily available to me at a very good price. If I need to special-order less affordable rimfire to run it, I would rather just eat the cost and shoot 9mm.

Having gotten quite a bit of .22 shooting under my belt since I made this thread, I've found that there's very little that is more annoying than shooting with a rimfire pistol that misfires every other magazine. I would rather not have one than have one of those.

It is surprising to me that the bullseye/Olympic type target pistols I've been using run perfectly reliably with these lower-power loads, despite being made of high-quality materials and presumably having far tighter tolerances than your average "plinker".

How hard could it really be to make a .22 that cycles without the need for high velocity rounds?

Tangentially, does anyone have experience with the Beretta 87?

My G44 has been flawless with a steady diet of Winchester bulk copper plated as well as Aguila Super HPs, which is most of my stash. I haven't dipped into my CCI Standards or Mini Mags yet. On my last range trip, there was a couple who were shooting for the first time, and their rental G44 was getting FTEs on half the Norma Tac 22 provided by the range. I let them use mine so that they wouldn't lose range time troubleshooting it and/or going back to the counter. Mine choked on it just as much.

I was the second owner of a Beretta 87BB threaded by Tornado Tech. I somewhat regret selling it off, but I bought it at a pretty low price and was offered nearly double for it. It was definitely well built, but it would start jamming after 75 rds of suppressed shooting since it was pretty tight. At the time, I was just starting to learn DA/SA shooting with a Sig P226, and since it didn't have a decocker nor would it shoot suppressed for long, I sold it off.

My Ruger MKIV has been flawless suppressed and un-suppressed, as well as my S&W M&P22 Compact.

[ASH556]

I used to have an M&P22 (the full-size, not the compact). At the time I was shooting 9mm M&P's, so it made sense as a sub-caliber trainer, same holster, etc. I sold a Buckmark to make the deal happen. I even changed out the crappy plastic sights for a real set of steel M&P sights (had to file a bit to make them fit). It was alright I guess. I put a ton of rounds through it. I had the 1/2x28 thread adapter and used it to host my AAC Element2. Ultimately, it never fully scratched the itch for me.

*Disclaimer* In general I have found sub-caliber trainers to be useless after owning 3 different M&P 15-22's along with this M&P 22 pistol.

I LOVE .22's. Like they're probably my favorite guns, but I don't find the training to really carry over beyond what I could do in dry fire (and I actually believe dry fire with the real thing is better than .22 fire). So that said, I got a smokin' deal from a buddy on a MKIII 22/45 Ruger with TacSol Pac-Lite upper from a buddy. Got Rose Action Sports to add a light rail to the bottom for me.

This does absolutely everything I ever wanted a .22 pistol to do. Better than trying to fit it into a "tactical" package for some perceived training crossover. Just my opinion.

https://i.imgur.com/G2zVuA9.jpg

[Gun Mutt]

The conversion slides (https://www.kimberamerica.com/rimfire-target-conversion-kit-3) are still on the Kimber website. Available in black and silver...could make for a fun two tone...damn this pfucking place is expensive.

[MichaelD]

I've owned two .22 pistols, a Ruger MKIII 22/45 and a Smith & Wesson M&P 22 full-size (which was made by Walther).

I hated my Ruger as I found it uncomfortable to shoot since the mainspring in back would dig into the web of my thumb and I got tired of getting "bit" when I'd make the mistake of holding on to the slide a little too long when loading a round. I ended up selling it and buying the M&P 22 instead.

The M&P 22 has had a couple of minor niggles thanks to roll pins that kept coming out, but a trip to the S&W service center cured that and I've put about 10,000 rounds through it since then without issues. It's my favorite pistol to shoot and is basically laser-accurate with almost anything I feed it. I've run everything from Fed Champion bulk, Fed 510's, Mini-Mags, Remington Golden Bullets, and Winchester 555 bulk in it, and the only thing it hasn't liked has been the Winchester crap -- it even runs Golden Bullets without issue.

Unfortunately, S&W no longer sells the M&P 22 full-size, but Walther makes a .22 version of the PPQ that's almost identical inside to the M&P 22: https://waltherarms.com/ppq-22/. Since you can't buy a new M&P 22 full-size anymore, that's what I'd recommend.

[Rack]

Does Ruger still put a key-lock device on their .22 pistols? Specifically the MKIV?

Thanks.

[momano]

https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/Mark-IV-Pc4tS28s.pdf

I can't remember off hand; but mine came with the cable-padlock.

[Borderland]

Perhaps this?

https://fnamerica.com/502tactical/

You're going to burn a lot of ammo with that baby. Just a heads up. ;)

[Rack]

https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/Mark-IV-Pc4tS28s.pdf

I can't remember off hand; but mine came with the cable-padlock.


I’m referring to an integral lock on the pistol, itself.

[Default.mp3]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the CP33 yet. Probably not the greatest for practicing manipulations and all that, given it's different manual of arms, but it is suppressor ready, extremely easy to add optics, and has 50 round mags (though annoyingly, you have to build them by buying the 33 rounders first, then getting the basepad; they do make the heel magazine release way more intuitive to hit, too). Most folks find mine with an ACRO, X400UH, and Rugged Oculus to be a real hoot. Super fun, and still good for practicing transitions.

[MichaelD]

Does Ruger still put a key-lock device on their .22 pistols? Specifically the MKIV?

Thanks.

My MKIII didn't have one, and as far as I know the MKIV doesn't have one either.

[Outpost75]

This is an older article which talks about older .22 pistols, but is a good read and food for thought:

A .22 Pistol for the Evader or Survivor - The Fundamental Truths:

A .22 auto pistol isn't your first choice when expecting combat.

If combat isn't your job, but you find yourself alone in a hostile environment, your job is to get back to “the world.”

The purpose of a survival handgun gun carried by downed aircrew or clandestine operators is to neutralize immediate threats from contact range to 30 feet, to facilitate escape. That is all.

In the words of the late Harry J. Archer, "If you stand and fight you'll never live to shoot them all." The rapidity with which a the .22 enables accurate, multiple hits, combined with low noise,muzzle flash and recoil, discreet profile and minimum weight and cube of "the package" mostly compensate for lower kinetic energy.

During WWII through the Cold War era Colt Woodsmans, and WWII-era High Standards were of any barrel length were greatly prized, being deemed the greatest natural pointers in the “Applegate method.”

The user's attention is "target focused," upon the threat, watching the bad guy's hands, evaluating whether he is friend or foe, being ready to either instantly disappear without notice, or to “shoot and scoot,” always with emphasis on speed. We aren't talking "one-shot-stops" here, but precise double or triple tap head shots in two seconds or less. The gun is gripped convulsively and pointed "as naturally as if it was an extension of your finger."

Israel's Mossad is popularly credited with originating the concept of using a silenced .22, but they simply learned it from the British and improved the hardware. During WWII Britain's SIS and SOE, were thoroughly trained in Fairbairn and Sykes (Shanghai Police) shooting methods. When the US entered WWII Rex Applegate became a student of Fairbairn and Sykes. He brought their techniques to Camp Richie, Maryland where they were adopted by the OSS. Applegate’s influence remained strong in the black ops community throughout the Cold War. The boys down at "the farm" never fully accepted Cooper's so-called "modern" technique of the pistol other than as "good disinformation to have out there,” serving as a distraction from old school trade craft which they knew worked. Having popular magazines reinforce the virtues of Cooper's techniques was encouraged to reinforce the illusion in exactly the same way today that the canted “gangsta” grip is presented in TV and movies today.

Always remember that the cover story is published and that the truth is “protected by a bodyguard of lies.”


High Standards of the WWII era shared the same favorable grip angle, and could use Colt magazines which were more reliable and readily available. Six inch and longer barrels provide longer sight radius which aids accurate shooting when the target is camp meat for the pot. An expert pistol shot can bring small game to bag at 25 to 40 yards with ease. A longer barrel increases velocity by 80-100 f.p.s., which improves hollow-point bullet performance noticeably.

Shorter 4-1/2” barrels were favored for missions where concealed carry was important. A common carry method was muzzle-up, butt forward, with the hammer cocked and slide closed on an empty chamber. The guns is retrieved quickly from the pocket as easily as your wallet, grasping the barrel behind the muzzle with thumb and forefinger of the left hand, grasping the butt as the gun clears the coat, trigger finger extended, pointing, as the left hand sweeps the slide back against minimal resistance, against the cocked hammer ( these days called “Mossad style” ) deftly releasing the slide and chambering a round as the left arm assumes the protective folded position across the chest, freeing the gun hand to rapidly trigger a protective "burst on target."

An alternate carry method was the ancestor of today’s popular Desantis and Allesi pocket holsters. Parachute riggers would sew a simple pancake design using a salvaged top cut off an old pair of jump boots, lining with fabric from an OG107 wool shirt or nylon parachute pack fabric, with two button tabs, which were commonly attached inside the flight suit or coat pocket using paracord loops sewn into the pocket. When in Europe in 2011 I was shown a holster of this type which had been fabricated used by a member of the French Resistance, made from an old felt hat, covered with tent canvas and using horn coat buttons to hold an FN1992 Browning 7.65mm.

Six inch and longer barrels are preferred for survival or rural field work, but harder to conceal in settled areas. A common method was to drop the gun butt-first into a bag of pomes frittes, or an improvised tote made from a folded newspaper tucked casually under the arm. Jim Cirrillo of the NYPD stake-out unit used this method frequently on undercover assignments, substituting a box of Cracker Jacks, movie popcorn or the New York Post and an M1911A1 for the .22.

81339

My survival “ruck gun” carried until 9/11 was a High Standard B with 6-7/8 barrel pistol inherited from the late Col. Gregory Kalinzky. Less known from his resume' are his time with flying with Air America, Air Zimbabwe, and also as a bush pilot in Alaska. http://www.146thalumni.org/last_flight.htm I received the pistol from Greg’s estate. When I got the pistol it proved accurate and reliable, but was thoroughly dirty. Detailed disassembly revealed that at one time it had undergone complete saltwater immersion. It had been rinsed promptly in fresh water, then probably doused in JP8. There was rust in crevices and blind holes, and brown residue under the grips and on concealed machined surfaces. Exterior blue remains good, original finish. After carding the internal rust off, installing replacement Wolfe springs, thorough cleaning, and reassembly, it resided in my survival ruck and often bagged an occasional grouse, or rabbit. [After 9/11 I replaced the .22 pistol in my ruck with a 6-inch, fixed sight .38 Special revolver because I wanted a firearm which accomplished the small game role, but having better defense capability and would reach out to 50 yards.]

81340

My Sport Model 4-1/2 inch Colt Woodsman was one of Harry’s “spares.” Harry was a big believer in redundancy and cached duplicates of essential equipment everywhere. I don’t think my Woodsman ever went on a mission, because it is too clean. It’s a “parts gun” assembled on a pre-war 1940 frame with post war slide and barrel having adjustable sights. Its target sights are nice, but lack the rugged durability I favor in a field gun.”

While current fashion seems favor some variation of Ruger semi-auto, I've had my share of frustration which these. Out of the box, hand held from sandbags, Rugers average 1-1/2" ten-shot groups at 25 yards with standard velocity ammo of good quality. High speed ammo runs closer to two inches. Firing off a Ransom rest eliminates the human error, is not a realistic expectations of field utility because aiming and holding errors influence the "system error budget."

The Ruger trigger as it comes from the factory often leaves some to be desired. Getting a match quality trigger pull usually requires a trip to the gunsmith, and replacement of factory parts with after-market ones. If you replace any springs you may induce function problems if you use anything other than high velocity ammo. HV loads often fail in the accuracy department, which defeats the whole purpose. I have little use for high velocity ammunition because it is usually less accurate, muzzle flashy and too noisy.

I prefer fixed sights are best for a field or “survival” gun. You must spend range time to determine which ammo is reliable and accurate, get a good supply of that and then zero the gun. I recommend that fixed sights on a .22 be zeroed to strike about 1 inch above point of aim at 25 yards. Ruger adjustable sights don't stay put unless you flood them with LocTite. Many users today prefer compact red-dot sights. I have found them less rugged, your mileage may vary.

The barrels and chambers on current Ruger Mk.III pistols are better than on guns I tested in the 1980s. Polymer-frame pistols are lighter, while providing a full sized gun to hold onto, but trigger and sight problems still exist. By the time you buy a new Mk. III, do a professional trigger job and put good optics on it, you've invested more than you would to find and obtain a very good “shooter-grade” Colt Woodsman or fine pre-war High Standard. I find the "full race Ruger" more bulky and less handy than "Target and Trapper" pistols of the 1930s and 40s, designed for the very survival situations we talk about and plan for.

Some years ago I tested my Colt Sport Model 4-1/2" barrel hand-held off sandbags, indoors at 25 yards using its original iron sights. I fired five consecutive ten-shot groups with several ammos, then compared results against similar samples fired with some borrowed modern and older .22 revolvers and auto pistols which were deemed by their owners as "good shooters."

The data below are averages of five consecutive 10-shot groups at 25 yards. Both Rugers were fired using a 4X Leupold pistol scope to do a better job of testing the pistols, rather than my ability see the sights! The High Standard Victor is a proven match gun used by a Master competitive shooter, intended as a benchmark.

The High Standard Model B is 1942 production with saw WW2 and Vietnam service. I shot some old ammo from the survival seat pack and some new stuff.

The Beretta 70S is the ca. 1968 "Jaguar" model, the lightest 6" barrel .22 autoloader I have ever seen, weighing only 20 oz. These came in 2-barrel sets with 3.5" and 6" barrels. They are difficult to shoot accurately, but are quality guns if you can find one.

*Two High Standard Sentinel revolvers tested are both fixed sight 9-shooters found at pawn shops for around $150. These are ugly very serviceable if found in good mechanical condition which time and index well, without noticeable cylinder end play. I fired one 9-shot cylinder load in each per group.

**The Colt Officer's Model Match was made in 1959 and is a target grade revolver, a 6-shooter. In it I fired TWO cylinder loads, totaling 12 shots per group.

The Walther P.22 illustrates my disappointment with current offerings of compact .22 pistols. It was barely accurate enough for combat training on silhouette targets.

Gun Bbl.Length Sights
Ammo Avg. ES(Ins.) 5x10@25yds*

1942 Colt Woodsman 4-1/2" irons
CCI Std. (USA) 1.5"
CCI Blazer (USA) 2.0"
Eley Std (UK) 1.25"

1942 High Standard Model B, 6/3/4" irons
Korean era "Sterile Package Brown Box" FMJ Ball M24 2.0"
Canuck (1965) HP 2.2"
CCI Blazer (USA) 1.85"
Eley Standard (UK) 1.5"

HS Victor 5-1/2" irons
Eley Std. (UK) 1.0"
Eley Sport (Mexico) 1.3"

HS Sentinel R107 revolver 4" irons
CCI Std. (USA) 2.6"*
Eley Std. (UK) 2.3"*
Eley Sport (Mexico) 2.3"*
CCI Blaser (USA) 2.3"*
Winchester Super-X (USA) 2.7*

HS Sentinel R103 revolver 6" irons
Eley Sport (Mexico) 2"*
CCI Blaser (USA) 2.2"*
Winchester Super-X (USA) 2.5"*

Ruger MkI 6-7/8" 4X Leupold
CCI Std. (USA) 1.5"
CCI Blazer (USA) 2"
Eley Sport (Mexico) 1.1"

Ruger Mk.III 5-1/2" 4X Leupold
Eley Std. (UK) 1.25"
Eley Sport (Mexico) 1.25"

Walther P22 3.5" irons
CCI Std. (USA) 4"
CCI Blazer (USA) 5"+

Beretta 70S 6" irons
Eley Std. (UK) 2"

Colt OM revolver 6" irons
Eley Std. (UK) 2" **
Eley Sport (Mexico) 2"**
CCI Blaser (USA) 2"**

I haven't seen anything in new .22 handguns which would make me replace my old Colt or High Standard. If you search auction sites you can still find a “shooter grade” Colt Woodsman, Huntsman or Challenger for around $700. A High Standard Model A, B, GB, D, H-B, or H-D in similar VG to Exc. condition will sell for $100 less than a Colt. The High Standard Model B uses the same magazines as the pre-war Colt Woodsman. It is similarly trim, light and accurate. A good used High Standard costs less than a new Ruger. A good used Colt costs less than buying the Ruger and then having it ""tricked out" by a gunsmith. The classic trapper's .22 autos are sure handy in the ruck and worth EVERY penny!

Ordinary CCI Standard Velocity, the CCI Subsonic Hollow-Point and Eley Sport are the best bang for the buck. Some batches of CCI Blazer shoot OK, but you need to test. The CCI Subsonic HP is the only standard velocity round I have found which expands reliably in water jugs from my 4-1/2" Woodsman. I have found that the same bullets which expand well from the 4-1/2" Woodsman do not from revolvers. In revolvers you are better off with solids. High velocity is OK if you can find a batch of unplated stuff that is accurate. I use the Hanned SGB die to clip the noses off to make flat points, which are more effective.

About 25 years ago I went through a succession of S&W .22 Kit Guns and K-22 revolvers. I didn't find any that would average consistently less than 2" at 25 yards hand held off handbags. A few were better than that on the Ransom Rest, but Harry's Woodsman put them all to shame when fired off sandbags.

So practice with your .22 handgun frequently from a field position, using the sights you've got.

Use a Para cord lanyard to steady it unless you can get Mr. Wabbit to stay STILL while you settle the gun in your Ransom rest... 8-)

[TWR]

https://i.postimg.cc/g06KRHzD/78-CFDA05-FA77-42-CA-9117-16-D58166-B607.jpg (https://postimg.cc/hJcxRx7z)
That dude from Idaho is a bad influence.

[farscott]

As a huge fan of the older .22 designs like the Woodsman, the one big negative about these pistols is parts availability, especially magazines. Woodsman magazines, especially 1st series models, are essentially unobtanium. Later magazines can be found but often cost more than $100 each. The least expensive solution for 2nd and 3rd Series pistols is to buy Beretta U22 NEOS magazines, cut down the follower button, and (for the pistols with releases on the butt) sand down the floor plate to allow the magazine to latch.

The older guns are lighter and do point easier than the modern Ruger and Browning offerings. The Ruger "Target" offerings are heavier with the balance point farther forward compared to the older field-grade pistols, but the Woodsman Target models have similar balance points. It does seem harder to find a new fixed-sight Ruger although my old LGS had a stainless Standard upper on a .22/45 Mark II lower for $400. Another $100 in Volquartsen action parts would result in a "trapper/hunter" pistol with a nice trigger and decent field accuracy. Parts are available everywhere as are magazines. Much less money than a Woodsman.

The one big positive of a shooter-grade Woodsman is it responds really well to a Cerakote finish in terms of corrosion protection and reducing the need for lube while making one giggle at how an old gun shoots. My latest project started with a finish-challenged 1938 Woodsman with fixed sights on a 6.625" barrel. The finish and an extra magazine raised my total sunk cost to $900.

The Belgian Brownings offer a similar experience to the Woodsman at lower cost with better parts availability. That makes sense as the Browning guns are essentially product-improved Woodsman pistols with a modicum of cost reduction. Magazines on these are also skyrocketing in price.

[OlongJohnson]

They have the other shortcomings of a modern Buck Mark, but a "Challenge" variant of the Buck Mark at least has the pencil barrel like an old Challenger or Nomad. They have been made in recent years with 6.75 and 5.5 inch barrels. They are built on the URX frame, which means the URX grip goes right on. A 5.5 Challenge with a URX grip and everything tuned up is a compact, lightweight, decent little woods gun.

[paul105]

Don't know how many different .22 pistols I've had, but the only one that remains is a Nelson Custom conversion unit. It's mounted on a Ruger lightweight CMD frame. Accurate, reliable, last shot hold open, and dry fire feature.

https://photos.imageevent.com/paul105/hobby/large/nelson%20ccustom%202%20thumbnail_IMG_53842311.jpg


Full size all steel guns can get a bit heavy with a suppressor.

FWIW,

Paul

[UNM1136]

Another data point on the Rugers...

I borrowed a friends to take on a deer hunt a couple of months ago. I am currently .22 poor. Well, I have a SBR'd MP5K clone in .22, but it has a PDW stock and weighs about 4 pounds. Not a good thing to lug backpack hunting. Used it for camp meat (birds and bunnies) and just general screwing around in camp. Couple hundred rounds suppressed and brought it home. Needed a rubber mallet to strip it for cleaning.

Currently looking all over town for Glock 44 and have a few saved on Gunbroker if I can't find one tomorrow. Ordering a threaded barrel for it, and a Crye Gunclip since it will mount on a vest or belt and allow the gun to be carried suppressed.

pat