Good, cheap revolver

[kazztek]

Hi group,

I have a Ruger Mark III and its a great pistol, but it jams frequently with hollow points, of which I have two bricks. I wanted to get a simple revolver to shoot as well and teach my son about, and clearly this gun won't jam with these hollow points.

I dont understand why some of these are approaching $500 for a simple pistol - can anyone explain why a .22 revolver is more than a S&W M&P ?

Where can I get an inexpensive revolver for this purpose ?

Thanks.

[Kyle Reese]

Hi group,

I have a Ruger Mark III and its a great pistol, but it jams frequently with hollow points, of which I have two bricks. I wanted to get a simple revolver to shoot as well and teach my son about, and clearly this gun won't jam with these hollow points.

I dont understand why some of these are approaching $500 for a simple pistol - can anyone explain why a .22 revolver is more than a S&W M&P ?

Where can I get an inexpensive revolver for this purpose ?

Thanks.

These here are inexpensive, but it doesn't appear that you're going to get S&W quality. If you're just looking for an inexpensive plinker, this might fit the bill.

Here's a thread from about a year ago discussing the Czechpoint revolvers, for full disclosure on them.

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...oint-revolvers

[Tamara]

A S&W .22 revolver is the hardest thing to sell to the average consumer in the handgun showcase.

We are conditioned by a generation of .22 plinker self-loading pistols to think that a rimfire should naturally be cheaper than a centerfire, right? But even a classic Ruger Mark II has a barrel threaded into a piece of tubing, mounted atop a gripframe that's just a couple of big stampings joined together; it's essentially a well-polished Sten gun with fancy stocks.

Meanwhile, over in the revolver case, the only real difference between the Model 617 .22 revolver and the Model 686 .357 Magnum is the size of the hole drilled in the barrel, but having walked past the auto case to get there, our brains tell us that the price should be lower for the .22 because it's just a .22. It's more expensive than an M&P auto because, with the exception of its barrel and rather elaborately-machined slide, the M&P is a collection of injection molded parts and stampings that are much cheaper to make than a Hand Ejector revolver.

This is the same sort of economics that killed the Woodsman and relegated the 41 to an esoteric niche product, despite an attempt to come out with a sort of de-contented matte blue Highway Patrolman-esque version in the late '50s.

It's kind of ironic that the inexpensively-constructed Ruger self-loaders are themselves threatened from below by products of injection molded polymer and cast zinc alloy, for people who don't want to shell out the bucks for a "high end" Mk. III auto.

There are inexpensive .22 revolvers on the market, but most tend to be fairly crude constructions of painted zinc, like the Heritage. If all you're looking for is a plinker as opposed to an heirloom, and understand that you could certainly wear one out with a high enough volume of shooting, then I reckon they'll do.

[NETim]

I guess you could try picking up an old High Standard Sentinel. They're about half of what an old S&W is going for these days but they're still not cheap.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=393109182

[Tamara]

I guess you could try picking up an old High Standard Sentinel. They're about half of what an old S&W is going for these days but they're still not cheap.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=393109182

My roomie is becoming quite the collector of Double Action Rimfires What Aren't Smiths, and the Sentinel is her absolute favorite. She notes that even for the nicer of her Sentinels, she paid about a third of what she did for her K-22 (and she got a screaming deal on that pre-18.)

[LSP972]

A S&W .22 revolver is the hardest thing to sell to the average consumer in the handgun showcase.

We are conditioned by a generation of .22 plinker self-loading pistols to think that a rimfire should naturally be cheaper than a centerfire, right? But even a classic Ruger Mark II has a barrel threaded into a piece of tubing, mounted atop a gripframe that's just a couple of big stampings joined together; it's essentially a well-polished Sten gun with fancy stocks.

Meanwhile, over in the revolver case, the only real difference between the Model 617 .22 revolver and the Model 686 .357 Magnum is the size of the hole drilled in the barrel, but having walked past the auto case to get there, our brains tell us that the price should be lower for the .22 because it's just a .22. It's more expensive than an M&P auto because, with the exception of its barrel and rather elaborately-machined slide, the M&P is a collection of injection molded parts and stampings that are much cheaper to make than a Hand Ejector revolver.

This is the same sort of economics that killed the Woodsman and relegated the 41 to an esoteric niche product, despite an attempt to come out with a sort of de-contented matte blue Highway Patrolman-esque version in the late '50s.

It's kind of ironic that the inexpensively-constructed Ruger self-loaders are themselves threatened from below by products of injection molded polymer and cast zinc alloy, for people who don't want to shell out the bucks for a "high end" Mk. III auto.

There are inexpensive .22 revolvers on the market, but most tend to be fairly crude constructions of painted zinc, like the Heritage. If all you're looking for is a plinker as opposed to an heirloom, and understand that you could certainly wear one out with a high enough volume of shooting, then I reckon they'll do.

Well-stated truth. Its all about perception. Revolvers are "old school"; therefore they should be less expensive... or so thinks the nimrod.

Actually, I would think that the .22LR LCR might fill the OP's need, with the most "bang for the buck".

.

[JHC]

Locally I've stalked a couple of older Model 34 kit guns but it's a hard $700. I'm going to look around for a High Standard Sentinel. Kinda cool too.

[SGT_Calle]

I've enjoyed shooting my step-dad's ruger single six but I think they are still in the higher price range.

[Chuck Haggard]

One of my best investments has been my 317.

I have a .50cal ammo can of all the odds and ends of plinking days from back when all I could afford was shooting .22s, many of the rounds in that can are shorts or longs, back when those were easy to find and actually cheaper than long rifles. I can scoop rounds from that can with abandon when shooting the wheelgun. Can't do that with my semi-auto .22s

The .22lr LCR I bought is a decent little gun, and fun to shoot, and the sights aren't too difficult to improve, but I think teaching a kid to shoot with one might be a bit frustrating for the kid due to the gun being DAO


Ruger needs to make that exposed hammer LCR in .22lr and with a 4" barrel.

[UNK]

Try a new magazine. If that doesnt make a difference then try a different ammo. The Ruger should run on something...

Hi group,

I have a Ruger Mark III and its a great pistol, but it jams frequently with hollow points, of which I have two bricks. I wanted to get a simple revolver to shoot as well and teach my son about, and clearly this gun won't jam with these hollow points.

I dont understand why some of these are approaching $500 for a simple pistol - can anyone explain why a .22 revolver is more than a S&W M&P ?

Where can I get an inexpensive revolver for this purpose ?

Thanks.