22LR Pistol suggestion...

[OlongJohnson]

If I wanted a target gun without messing around with modifying it, I'd buy the nicest BuckMark I could afford with a long bull barrel and highly visible sights.

Not sure Mystery cares at this point, but for the rest of you, an older Buck Mark Bullseye is probably the way to go in this area. They all have 7 1/4-in. bull barrels with some fluting on the sides. The older models had the full Silhouette package: triggers drilled for an overtravel screw from the factory and a low-tension sear spring with an adjustable pretension screw, so you can get the trigger weight really light. Those springs stopped being available from any source I can find in ~2015. If someone has any sitting around, I'd like to buy a few.

Browning has sold Silhouette and Bullseye models in the past few years, but without the Silhouette trigger goodies.

[Wyoming Shooter]

I have three .22 rimfire pistols:

Kimber 1911. Surprisingly, this thing runs great. Of course, it mimics all things 1911 except .45 ACP recoil and ammo cost.

Ruger 22/45 Lite with Vortex Venom RDS and Thunderbeast 22 TD can. This is SO much fun to shoot. It prefers cheap CCI standard velocity ammo too. I do have an occasional issue with 2nd round FTFs. Still trying to diagnose the problem.

S&W 617. Mine is the 4". Absolutely no issues with this one and a decent trigger too. It also likes CCI standard velocity.

These pistols permit me to shoot more for less. Win - win!

[LittleLebowski]

I'm honestly shocked at how much I prefer my S&W M&P22 with iron sights over my Ruger 22/45 with a red dot. Both are suppressed, of course

[That Guy]

I see three areas where the Ruger needs improvement for competition, the trigger, the barrel, and the sights. The factory Ruger trigger, especially on those pistols with magazine disconnects, is heavy and creepy. The barrel needs to be more tightly chambered and needs a better crown for best accuracy. The sights are not the best for the small targets at the fifty-yard line.

Fair enough. But I think you are approaching the topic from a different perspective. Mystery was claiming the gun needs modifications right out of the box, and even more modifications in order to be usable in a competition setting. I still disagree with that. The way I use mine is typically stapling a few post-it notes onto a cardboard backer and then shooting at those at 25 meters, using the cheapest bulk ammunition possible (ie. that works and gives decent accuracy - no Remington ammo in other words ). While your points are fair, in my use I can still get about a 2" group on one of those post-it notes using cheap ammunition, regardless of the trigger creep. (And if someone were to ever start running Steel Challenge matches local to me, blasting at those big steel plates, the stuff you mentioned would matter even less.) Which is good enough for my use, and would be good enough for Mystery for a good while. Once one starts to feed the gun match grade ammunition that costs more than bulk 9mm and shooting at much longer ranges, then it's a different matter - but it takes a good amount of practice to get to the level where any of that truly matters.

[TDA]

Fundamentals like not moving the sights, aim, just the basic skills without spending $$$ on 9mm.
See above for competition...


Yes, plan is to practice/train with 22 and use 9mm for the end result.
I burn through 100 rounds pretty quick.

If there’s a .22 version of your carry pistol, there’s a good argument for getting the similar platform. However, if you want a .22 pistol for training fundamentals of marksmanship, just go handle some and get one with a nice trigger and sights. The important thing is to buy one and start practicing fundamentals.

[farscott]

Fair enough. But I think you are approaching the topic from a different perspective. Mystery was claiming the gun needs modifications right out of the box, and even more modifications in order to be usable in a competition setting. I still disagree with that. The way I use mine is typically stapling a few post-it notes onto a cardboard backer and then shooting at those at 25 meters, using the cheapest bulk ammunition possible (ie. that works and gives decent accuracy - no Remington ammo in other words ). While your points are fair, in my use I can still get about a 2" group on one of those post-it notes using cheap ammunition, regardless of the trigger creep. (And if someone were to ever start running Steel Challenge matches local to me, blasting at those big steel plates, the stuff you mentioned would matter even less.) Which is good enough for my use, and would be good enough for Mystery for a good while. Once one starts to feed the gun match grade ammunition that costs more than bulk 9mm and shooting at much longer ranges, then it's a different matter - but it takes a good amount of practice to get to the level where any of that truly matters.

Agreed. The stock Ruger Standard-pattern pistols are capable pistols. The .22 LR pistol I shoot the most is one of two Ruger Standards RST-6 models I have. These are essentially factory guns with a Cerakote finish to better deal with hot humid Alabama weather. One has the A54 frame with the magazine follower button on the right side, and the other has the A100 frame with the magazine follower button on the left slde like all of the successor models. The benefit of the A100 frame is it works with new magazines. The A54-framed pistol from 1964 with an original nine-round chrome base magazine is my usual field gun and has done well in informal competitions because I know POA/POI at the distances at which I shoot. I even did a turkey shoot with it and won a turkey. The A100-framed pistol from 1977 is compatible with my Ultimate Cliploader due to the modern location of the magazine follower button. As such, I shoot that gun when I know I have to reload magazines. It is a fine steel plate pistol with the light profile barrel. That pistol will be shot today.

I have no idea how many rounds that A54-framed gun has seen. At one time, I kept the empty boxes folded flat as a rough round count indicator. I tossed the boxes when we moved back in 2007. That pistol is my primary tool for working on trigger control. I can shoot two-inch groups at twenty-five yards with the pistol.

As for ammo to avoid due to issues, both Remington and Winchester are on my "Do not buy" list. Lack of consistency and too many duds. My go-to ammo is CCI Standard Velocity although I love plinking with the CCI Patriot Packs. The CCI SV groups under an inch at twenty-five yards and under three inches at fifty yards IF I do my part with one of my full-house Volquartsen pistols. The tighter groups are the result of the Volquartsen improved trigger, barrel, and sights.

[revchuck38]

I shot bullseye, both UIT and 2700, in the 80s and 90s. I used two Ruger MKIIs with 5-1/2" bull barrels. The first was sold to finance a move, the second I still have. Its only modifications are a Clark rear sight and a trigger job by Clark's and a set of custom Hoffman grips. With its preferred ammo (Eley National Match) it was an honest <2" gun at 50 yards. I used Federal Champion for practice and that would hold <2" at 25 yards. I don't remember it not feeding and chambering anything I loaded into a magazine, but then I didn't try the absolute cheapest ammo I could find.

If I were just starting out today, I'd probably get a current Ruger 22/45 with the 5-1/2" bull barrel and maybe get a trigger job. OTOH, if I were getting it as an understudy to my carry gun, I'd get whatever matches my carry gun.

[That Guy]

While your points are fair, in my use I can still get about a 2" group on one of those post-it notes using cheap ammunition, regardless of the trigger creep.

Well that statement turned out to be horse shit.

I may have mentioned that I have had difficulties getting to the range this year. So it's been a while since I last shot my .22 pistol - as in, I last shot it sometime back in 2018. Well, in the last week or so I have managed to do two range trips with it. The first one was a disaster, but I blame the ammo - extremely inconsistent recoil, stovepipes with the lighter recoiling rounds, etc. Very cheap stuff, and seems to work fine in rifles, but definitely not something you want to feed a short barreled pistol with. The second time, I brought a brick of CCI Standard Velocity (also sometimes known by some as Ye Olde Reliable) with me - and I barely managed to shoot a 3" group at best. So yeah, either I was exaggerating a bit, or I've forgotten how to shoot that pistol, or this lot of ammunition isn't as good as previous ones - whatever the reason, 2" groups at 25 meters are at present beyond my capabilities.

Few interesting observations, while I'm at it: during live fire I do not notice the creep in the trigger, at all. Also, while the front sight is indeed a fat one, at this sort of use (shooting at standard 3" by 3" post-it notes at 25 meters), I did not mind it. Sure, I have to actually align the target so that it is in the middle of my front sight instead of aligning my front sight with my target, but at least I can still see the bloody thing...

Anyways, while my shooting may not be particularly impressive, I still maintain my opinion that a stock Ruger works fine as a generic marksmanship practice tool. And hey - I paid about $150 for mine (bought used, naturally), so it wasn't particularly expensive to buy either.



(And yes, the gun has a rail but no optical sight. I used to have a cheap Russian red dot on it, but it broke. And yes, it is threaded for a suppressor, but I do not have a functional one at present.)

[That Guy]

Forgot this picture. One of the better groups of the day:

[farscott]

Since you mentioned it has been difficult to get range time this year, I assume the larger groups were the result of a lack of practice, not any shortcomings of the pistol or ammo. We know that handgun shooting is a very perishable skill. I expect that after some practice, your groups will shrink down to the size you expected.