.22 LR rundown

[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.





Compatible with most holsters:

[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

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.

[Gun Mutt]

The conversion slides 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.