.22 LR rundown

[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.

[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?