.22 LR host for a Dead Air Mask

[HeavyDuty]

I have a Dead Air Mask in jail. I really don’t have any .22 LR pistols I’d want to suppress.

I saw Silencer Shop is doing a stubby version of the Ruger 22/45 that looks like it would be a really good supressor host. Stick a red dot on it, mount the Mask and drive on.

https://www.ruger.com/products/markIV2245Tactical/specSheets/40179.html

Opinions or other suggestions?

[CCT125US]

Chopped MKII is really fun. Maddmacs mount and Riton MPRDV2.
105794

[maximus83]

The version you linked would work for sure, with a 3" barrel it's purpose built. I have the slightly longer 22/45 "tactical" trainer model, which has a 4.4" barrel and would also work.

Might be worth considering the P322, but I'd lean toward the 22/45 as a more proven/debugged design.

[Grouse870]

Taurus tx22 compact. Comes with the threaded adapter and it’s direct milled for the rmsc. I really like mine. I haven’t run mine suppressed yet.

[HeavyDuty]

I don’t know if I’d want a tilt barrel auto - something like the 22/45 appeals more. I have one of the M&P22cs I could adapt, though.

[CCT125US]

I don’t know if I’d want a tilt barrel auto - something like the 22/45 appeals more. I have one of the M&P22cs I could adapt, though.

Had that combo myself, DA Mask and M&P22c. Found it to be very front heavy and prone to self destruction. Seems to be a common thread with S&W ( but that's a story for another time). Pistol went back to Smith several times for a broken safety and various other troubles. The plastic adjustable sights would randomly decide to relocate themselves. I did the EGW dovetail optic mount and it added enough weight that cycling became an issue. Had to run supers (negating the suppressor) in order to get it to cycle. Went with another mount from EGW and moved to the lighter RMSc pattern and it worked with CCISV. After about 5k I sold it off, as wanted to move on.

If you would use it, I've still got the EGW RMR MP.22c plate.

105798

[HeavyDuty]

Had that combo myself, DA Mask and M&P22c. Found it to be very front heavy and prone to self destruction. Seems to be a common thread with S&W ( but that's a story for another time). Pistol went back to Smith several times for a broken safety and various other troubles. The plastic adjustable sights would randomly decide to relocate themselves. I did the EGW dovetail optic mount and it added enough weight that cycling became an issue. Had to run supers (negating the suppressor) in order to get it to cycle. Went with another mount from EGW and moved to the lighter RMSc pattern and it worked with CCISV. After about 5k I sold it off, as wanted to move on.

If you would use it, I've still got the EGW RMR MP.22c plate.

105798

Thanks - I don’t think I’ll go this way, I’d be smarter to put the money for a threaded barrel into a better platform. I like my M&P22c but honestly haven’t shot it in years.

[DaBigBR]

My TX22 has been boringly reliable and the capacity is nice. I also have a MKIV 22/45 and it's hard to argue with a Ruger Mark series pistol. FN502 and SIG P322 are also solid picks.

[Shawn Dodson]

Savage Mk II FV-SR bolt action 16" carbine - https://savagearms.com/content?p=firearms&a=product_summary&s=28702

[HeavyDuty]

Savage Mk II FV-SR bolt action 16" carbine - https://savagearms.com/content?p=firearms&a=product_summary&s=28702

I have rifles covered!

[jandbj]

I’m a “suppress all the things” fan.

For pistol hosts, I like the VQ variants of Ruger MK series uppers, with stock or chopped Ruger uppers as a close second.

Keltec P17 is surprisingly good and inexpensive AF.
I had poor accuracy with a couple of cans on an early Taurus TX22, but will likely try a compact at some point.
Glock G44 has been boringly reliable.
Sig P322… I really want to like it but the feeding reliability with those 20 round mags just isn’t in the same league with the previously listed rimfires.

[BWT]

I would go Ruger 22/45 MKIV.

I sold a Browning Buckmark and made the move. The ease of cleaning/disassembly, the massive aftermarket, built like a tank, I went with this https://www.ruger.com/products/markIV2245Tactical/models.html.

I installed a VQ trigger, slide release, Lobos mount, UM Tactical 1 degree shim, Vortex Venom (these need a shim for additional elevation), and given the barrel length it should keep it subsonic.

I’m waiting for the transfer to finalize, but I’m extremely pleased with the combination thus far. I have about 500-700 rounds through the gun/silencer combo. I just didn’t want to push it without cleaning it. I feel like 1,000 rounds, but I can’t take it home to clean it until everything clears. We’re getting there…

[masternave]

There is a Ruger / Silencer Shop collaboration dubbed the Ruger SSH (https://www.silencershop.com/ruger-mark-iv-tactical-pistol-ss.html). It's pretty sweet if you don't want to pay Volquartsen money for the Mini Mamba.

105819

[HeavyDuty]

There is a Ruger / Silencer Shop collaboration dubbed the Ruger SSH (https://www.silencershop.com/ruger-mark-iv-tactical-pistol-ss.html). It's pretty sweet if you don't want to pay Volquartsen money for the Mini Mamba.

105819

That’s the one I linked in my original post. I am thinking it’s my best all around option. It should easily be earsafe with SV, and may even be with MiniMags.

[Super77]

If you already have a Ruger Mk 3 or 4 pistol you can have Mk 3 firearms cut the barrel down. They call it a Mk 0 (https://www.mk3firearms.com/services), looks pretty cool.

[paul105]

Shown with tactical innovations quest. The G44 is also pretty slick.
.
https://photos.imageevent.com/paul105/hobby/SR22%20G44%2022s%20thumbnail_IMG_633212.jpg

[Evil_Ed]

There is a Ruger / Silencer Shop collaboration dubbed the Ruger SSH (https://www.silencershop.com/ruger-mark-iv-tactical-pistol-ss.html). It's pretty sweet if you don't want to pay Volquartsen money for the Mini Mamba.

105819

I would want one a lot more if it weren't a 22/45...i have a pile of regular Ruger mags, and a Mk3 that I had chopped to 4" and threaded. It's great but it's so much easier to disassemble a Mk4.

Other than disassembly, my only other complaint about my Mk3 is the sights - they are huge, chonky, and the front sight isn't actually at top dead center of the barrel...it's at like 11:59:30 or so. It's just baaarely noticeable, but the top of the front sight has just the tiniest angle on it when lined up with the rear. When I sent it out to get threaded I was hoping they'd "fix" that but they slavishly moved the front sight back using the original front sight location as a template...it's not a huge deal. I suppose I could see if Dawson or somewhere has better sights. If I'm honest I should find a red dot sight mount for it and just put a dot on it..

Why would I not want a 22/45 and prefer the regular version? Nothing more complicated than the movie "Assassins" ...you know, Stallone and Banderas and Julianne Moore..I want an integrally suppressed Ruger, have for decades, just never could justify it to myself I guess...

[CCT125US]

Evil_Ed when I had my MKII chopped and threaded the smith installed the "hammer strut support" ($25 from Amazon) free of charge. Simple install.

[HeavyDuty]

Evil_Ed when I had my MKII chopped and threaded the smith installed the "hammer strut support" ($25 from Amazon) free of charge. Simple install.

Does that give you MkIV style disassembly?

Edit - I just googled it, I have one of those in my MkII. It does make a big difference.

[HeavyDuty]

I went ahead and ordered one of these. It seems like a no-brainer. Which is perfect, since I don’t have one either.

[Doc_Glock]

I am quite happy with the Glock 44 with factory threaded barrel as a Dead Air Mask host.

[BWT]

Does that give you MkIV style disassembly?

Edit - I just googled it, I have one of those in my MkII. It does make a big difference.

Not to labor the point unnecessarily. The guns will run dirtier suppressed. That’s what made me prioritize ease of disassembly of the MKIV.

[HeavyDuty]

Not to labor the point unnecessarily. The guns will run dirtier suppressed. That’s what made me prioritize ease of disassembly of the MKIV.

Really good point - my Mk IV is incredibly easier to keep clean because of the new takedown button. I have invented new swear words cleaning my Mk II.

[farscott]

Not to labor the point unnecessarily. The guns will run dirtier suppressed. That’s what made me prioritize ease of disassembly of the MKIV.

Agreed that the suppressed Ruger Standard/MK design runs much dirtier when suppressed. I have an integrally suppressed stainless Mark II that has seen untold rounds. That being said, takedown and assembly of the older (before MK IV) designs is pretty easy once done a few times and the older designs are less expensive due to the reputation for tough field strip and assembly. I used to dread doing it, but after years of owning them, it is a bit fiddly but not troublesome. Just yesterday, I took down and put back together a very tight A100-frame Standard that visited Clark Custom for a Douglas barrel and an Aristocrat sight rib back in the day. I adopted it because it sat due to the field strip and assembly process and because I really enjoy the older pistols with no last-round hold open.

There are two important steps: 1) Ensure the bolt is fully home in the receiver before installing the mainspring housing pin. If the bolt will not enter the receiver, the hammer is flipped up. Just push it down with a finger from the opening for the bolt in the receiver. 2) Ensure the hammer strut is dangling free and ready to enter the mainspring housing pocket. It can get behind the strut. If it does so, lift it out with a small flat-blade screwdriver. This is what the "hammer strut" speed strip design supports. I just tip the muzzle upwards and pull the trigger to ensure the strut is hanging in the correct location.

There is one serious failure mode of the older design that can preclude disassembly. Occasionally the pin that holds the mainspring housing together can drift due to poor staking. When that happens, the mainspring housing cannot be opened and removed from the frame as the pin stops the housing from moving outward from the frame. The trick to that one is using a feeler gauge to determine in which direction the pin moved. Then use a dead blow hammer on the opposite side of the frame to drift the pin back into position. Once the part is out of the gun, staking the pin is recommended because repeating the drift process is no fun at all. This happened to a friend's pistol, and he asked me to take a look. It took me a few hours to figure out the issue and figure out a way to attack it. Later I learned it is not a frequent occurrence but happens enough to be discussed.

I get why Ruger created the Mark IV, but the older guns are great and can be acquired for a song and have great aftermarket support. The ones with a bull barrel are great candidates to be threaded. They also can go a lot of rounds before needing to be cleaned. The pistol with the pin that drifted had never been taken apart before I did so. It was filthy and ended up in an ultrasonic cleaner with diluted Simple Green. After most shooting, a few bore snake passes is enough to keep the gun going for another brick or two. The pictured Standard is from 1964. I bought it for $300 and had it Cerakoted by a buddy. It is the pistol I shoot the most.

[BWT]

Yeah, I would say the hiccup with the older Rugers is the MKIV is more akin to a 1911 or Glock in that you can easily “field strip and clean”. From your messages it looks like the pre-MKIV are more of almost a detail strip.

I don’t really care other than my Ruger was heavily coated with lube from the factory and clean within 500 rounds of suppressed shooting all of the lube had burnt off and there was a good bit of caked carbon.

The gas / carbon goes somewhere - that’s part of suppression. Week before last I shot an MP5 and MP5SD at a rental range. Guess which one had a stoppage?

It’s just the nature of things. Screwball also said he liked the older Ruger series due to their being more sealed versus gas leaks (I didn’t observe that in my shooting but I’m not going to discredit the guy).

I went from a Browning Buckmark to the Ruger for a few reasons. A factory threaded barrel, a shorter barrel (more likely for subsonic), an ejection port that is contained to one side and has less port pop, VQ triggers (after shooting a suppressed 22/45 some years ago with one), red dot ready, and candidly ease of cleaning / disassembly in the MKIV.

But, to each his own. I’m not saying the other hosts are bad or wrong. But from my perspective that’s a value. YMMV. You may not care about those things.

[HeavyDuty]

I’ve had such good luck with my Ruger Mks (a Mk II CTM and a Mk IV bull) that it was an easy decision to go with this new model. I’m sure the Mask will spend most of its time mounted to it.

I’m having issues finding a RDS mount. The FN PS90 I recently bought came with a Vortex Viper, and I think using it on this pistol makes sense. (I was going to sell it.) However, this new SSE model and a few others have a different receiver hole pattern. One mount maker said they could do the new pattern for a $25 upcharge, but I think I’ll sit tight and see if the market responds while my Mask quietly rots away in jail.

[Evil_Ed]

I’ve had such good luck with my Ruger Mks (a Mk II CTM and a Mk IV bull) that it was an easy decision to go with this new model. I’m sure the Mask will spend most of its time mounted to it.

I’m having issues finding a RDS mount. The FN PS90 I recently bought came with a Vortex Viper, and I think using it on this pistol makes sense. (I was going to sell it.) However, this new SSE model and a few others have a different receiver hole pattern. One mount maker said they could do the new pattern for a $25 upcharge, but I think I’ll sit tight and see if the market responds while my Mask quietly rots away in jail.

This is one of the better mounts out there (https://lobos-industries.com/products/ruger-mark-series-low-profile-mount) - I need to a) buy a decent red dot for mine, and b) get one of those mounts. But, as you said, different hole pattern...how different? I'm not seeing any mention of this on SilencerShop's page? Looking at Ruger's page...there's one angled shot where the receiver holes on the top look the same as other Mk3/Mk4s?

[HeavyDuty]

This is one of the better mounts out there (https://lobos-industries.com/products/ruger-mark-series-low-profile-mount) - I need to a) buy a decent red dot for mine, and b) get one of those mounts. But, as you said, different hole pattern...how different? I'm not seeing any mention of this on SilencerShop's page? Looking at Ruger's page...there's one angled shot where the receiver holes on the top look the same as other Mk3/Mk4s?

The note on this Lobos page is what got me investigating. I don’t see spending RMR money for a .22 dot, but as of this moment Valerie at Lobos is saying they will only port over their RMR mount to the new base. Things may change in the next eight or so months, though.

https://lobos-industries.com/products/low-profile-red-dot-mount-ruger-mark-series-rmr-footprint

MaddMacs is the one offering the $25 upcharge. I was really hoping for Lobos, they are nice looking mounts.

[HTM]

I've found that the longer barrels work better with both DB suppression and function. Additionally I now only run the CCI poly coated subsonic through my pistols with the suppressor. Lead subs tend to lead up the can much more out of pistols than rifles where the lead is mostly deposited in the barrel than in the can. FWIW

[Evil_Ed]

The note on this Lobos page is what got me investigating. I don’t see spending RMR money for a .22 dot, but as of this moment Valerie at Lobos is saying they will only port over their RMR mount to the new base. Things may change in the next eight or so months, though.

https://lobos-industries.com/products/low-profile-red-dot-mount-ruger-mark-series-rmr-footprint

MaddMacs is the one offering the $25 upcharge. I was really hoping for Lobos, they are nice looking mounts.

Ahh, gotcha - it's odd that that note is ONLY on the RMR and Holoson 407k/507k footprint mounts though...the note is not there for the Vortex-pattern or DPP pattern mounts.

[HeavyDuty]

I've found that the longer barrels work better with both DB suppression and function. Additionally I now only run the CCI poly coated subsonic through my pistols with the suppressor. Lead subs tend to lead up the can much more out of pistols than rifles where the lead is mostly deposited in the barrel than in the can. FWIW

I wasn’t aware of that load - I’ll try and track some down.

Speaking of which - do Ruger Mks need to be resprung to be reliable with subs?

[HeavyDuty]

Ahh, gotcha - it's odd that that note is ONLY on the RMR and Holoson 407k/507k footprint mounts though...the note is not there for the Vortex-pattern or DPP pattern mounts.

I emailed them to ask, and was told it affects all mounts - and that they were only developing a new RMR version. Maybe I’ll email back to be sure I understood correctly.

Edit - no need to follow up, she was clear:


Once we found out about Ruger doing this (super annoying) we began to come up with a mount that was compatible. We are in the process of getting the product page set up and I’m assuming it will be up in a week or so. And yes, it does effect every one of our mounts.

Valerie Frechette, Owner
Lobos Industries

[farscott]

I wasn’t aware of that load - I’ll try and track some down.

Speaking of which - do Ruger Mks need to be resprung to be reliable with subs?

No need to swap recoil spring assembly or mainspring to run everything from subsonic to hyper velocity ammo. I have a few spare recoil assemblies, but my 1964 Standard still uses the factory assembly.

[BWT]

The note on this Lobos page is what got me investigating. I don’t see spending RMR money for a .22 dot, but as of this moment Valerie at Lobos is saying they will only port over their RMR mount to the new base. Things may change in the next eight or so months, though.

https://lobos-industries.com/products/low-profile-red-dot-mount-ruger-mark-series-rmr-footprint

MaddMacs is the one offering the $25 upcharge. I was really hoping for Lobos, they are nice looking mounts.

Sign up for the PSA email notification. They typically have discounts on the Vortex Venoms. But they do need the 1 degree shim.

I had the same thoughts. I’m not putting a RMR/SRO on a .22 LR pistol.

Right now this optic is $170 with discount code VENOM.

https://palmettostatearmory.com/vortex-venom-red-dot-top-load-3-moa-dot.html

I went with a different model Ruger. I think you’ve picked up on this but if you do get that model the 1 degree shim is a necessity to zero it.

https://www.umtactical.com/store/p5/Delrin_Shim_1.0_Degree_for_Vortex_Venom_%26_Viper% 2C_Burris_Fastfire_II%2C_III%2C_Docters_and_Sightm ark_Optics.html

However! I know you’ll have a different foot print - but I figure if that’s the optic you want let you know about the coupon code.

[HeavyDuty]

No need to swap recoil spring assembly or mainspring to run everything from subsonic to hyper velocity ammo. I have a few spare recoil assemblies, but my 1964 Standard still uses the factory assembly.

That’s good to know! I’ve only tried running SV through mine a few times and never had issues, but I wasn’t sure if adding a can would change things.

[HeavyDuty]

Sign up for the PSA email notification. They typically have discounts on the Vortex Venoms. But they do need the 1 degree shim.

I had the same thoughts. I’m not putting a RMR/SRO on a .22 LR pistol.

Right now this optic is $170 with discount code VENOM.

https://palmettostatearmory.com/vortex-venom-red-dot-top-load-3-moa-dot.html

I went with a different model Ruger. I think you’ve picked up on this but if you do get that model the 1 degree shim is a necessity to zero it.

https://www.umtactical.com/store/p5/Delrin_Shim_1.0_Degree_for_Vortex_Venom_%26_Viper% 2C_Burris_Fastfire_II%2C_III%2C_Docters_and_Sightm ark_Optics.html

However! I know you’ll have a different foot print - but I figure if that’s the optic you want let you know about the coupon code.

I’m really trying to use the new in box Viper that I already have, but that shim is something I had no idea would be needed. Thank you for the link!

[HeavyDuty]

The pistol arrived today. It has the wrong name - it should be “Magnum Noisy Cricket” because of the proportions.