Ruger MKIV

quote:

Originally posted by Texas Bob C.:
I like the S&W M&P Compact 22 a lot.

Yet another vote for this one. My local Sheriff’s Office has a stash of these they use for community firearms training classes, and I got to use one when attending their “Citizens Sheriff’s Academy.” Quite a nice pistol.

I own a S&W 422 that was well-used when I got it - it gets a regular work-out.

I think the Ruger MKII is one of the finest all around .22 LR semi-auto pistols made. I have owned a couple for decades with no issues from either one.

Up here in my area I see used Rugers for sale all the time, but hardly and used Buckmarks.

I have a Buckmark URX and wouldn't give it up... I added a rail to the top for a red dot.

I also have a Sig (GSG) 1911-22 that took way too long and way to much money to get going right. I would NOT recommend it, unless you were dead set on a 1911-22 and were ok with hobby-level gunsmithing.

I know the OP is looking for a semi but a cheap "single six" is also a way to make those 22lr pills last longer.

Davidson's plum brown #2021 Ruger Wrangler.

I have a pile of .22's that were purchased for the kids when they were still living at home. That includes a number of 10/22 rifles, single shot rifles, and various pistols. The ruger 22/45 was popular, as was the Ruger bearcat, and a Buckmark with 16" barrel and integral shoulder stock.

What they all had in common was unreliability; it never took very many rounds through any of them, revolvers or autos, before they got dirty and began malfunctioning. The Bearcat, in particular, got dirty quickly, enough that it was difficult to insert rounds or extract brass, and frequent failures to fire occurred, especially when the rounds weren't fully seated due to dirty chambers. Typically two or three cylinders were enough to get there, with some ammunition dirtier than others, of course.

My favorite .22 was the nylon 66. I have no more of them, unfortunately. With an inexpensive red dot on the 16" buckmark, the kids could walk a golf ball up the range, and they liked that because they got results; it encouraged them to shoot. It also gave a black eye to my youngest when he felt the need to choke up on the rear sight and the slide caught him. He later decided shotguns were his calling

The buckmark and the 22/45 shared the same affliction that other .22's did. The chambers got dirty quickly and the rounds didn't want to seat, causing malfunctions, and routinely, failures to extract.

.22's are fun, but take a lot more cleaning, especially revolvers. They're less expensive to shoot, and they're great for daughters and grand daughters who may shy away from louder firearms with more recoil. Just a lot more work for dad and grandpa, later. And, often during the range session. I always found that to be the case regardless of brand or model.

I have a Ruger Mark III 22/45 Tactical and a Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Tactical. The both shoot great and the Mark IV is a breeze to strip and clean. The Mark III can be a bit more "challenging" to strip and reassemble. Let me know if you want me to bring either/both with my next week.

I think the entry level target pistols like Buckmark, Ruger Mk, SW Victory are the sweet spot. They, especially the Rugers, can be upgraded to National Match level or pimped out for maximum Kewl Factor if you want to sink the money.

The cheap plastic guns from Ruger, Walther, Smith, and Taurus are cute, but they are harder to get hits with. My S&W Plastic M&P Compact is reliable but light weight and tough trigger mean it gets less use than I expected.

If you have a CZ75 or 1911 the Kadet or Nelson conversions are very good. I don't know about the Sig stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Watson:
If you have a CZ75 or 1911 the Kadet or Nelson conversions are very good. I don't know about the Sig stuff.

I shot a Kadet conversion a shooter brought to our range last week and you ain't kidding! That thing was amazing.

OK, V-tail, lots of opinions here so tell us what you decide (or decided).

I have the Glock 44, Ruger MkIV, Smith K17 Revolver, Sig 522 Rifle all are fun 22's to shoot.

Have the PMR30 Kel-Tec that shoots 22wmr, and that's a blast more expensive, but more bang and 30 round mags....

CP33 Link

Outside of the Kel Tec and Sig Rifle all of them have one major glaring problem. 10-12 round mags, and that's the drawback to all these 22's limited mag capacity.


Let me suggest an alternative, the Kel-Tec CP33 Just bought a Kel-Tec CP33, it has a long sight radius, top rail for optic, comes with 2 33 round magazines for 22lr. Funny how Kel-Tec can come up with working large capacity 22 mags.

It retails now for $499, reviews are good, it's light, has a decent trigger, and did I mention, holds 33 rounds in each mag...

My next 22 will be a K17 from Kel-Tec, 17 rounds of 22 per mag and a $199 MSRP. Problem is finding one for MSRP in the current market..

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
...

.22's are fun, but take a lot more cleaning, especially revolvers. They're less expensive to shoot, and they're great for daughters and grand daughters who may shy away from louder firearms with more recoil. Just a lot more work for dad and grandpa, later. And, often during the range session. I always found that to be the case regardless of brand or model.

Very true- .22 ammo is dirty, no matte what gun you are using it in.

I fired 200 rounds in my 1911 conversion and it seemed to have more dirt left in it than I got in my Buckmark or Ruger MK II.

Maybe it was the brand of ammo, as it looked like some powder flakes/grains that didn't burn.

Anyway- .22 are DIRTY.

But, cheap and great training tools.

My vote for a 22cal semi-auto goes to the Browning buckmark......hands down. I don't own any of the new series guns, but I hear good things about them. Mine is an older version, and I put a red dot on it, and have zero complaints with it.

If you desire a revolver, then I would look for a S&W model to fill the bill. They are not cheap, but they do perform!!


Note: I own three(3) Taurus big bore snubby revolvers that get shot a LOT!!.. They have been great performers for me.

quote:

Originally posted by CWR67:

I have a Ruger Mark III 22/45 Tactical and a Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Tactical. The both shoot great and the Mark IV is a breeze to strip and clean. The Mark III can be a bit more "challenging" to strip and reassemble. Let me know if you want me to bring either/both with my next week.

Yeah, I'm always up for "show and tell."

quote:

Originally posted by ACP1:

OK, V-tail, lots of opinions here so tell us what you decide (or decided).

No decision yet. Somewhat depends on what is actually available. You have anything to sell?

quote:

What they all had in common was unreliability;

I'm a bit troubled by this one. and mostly I don't believe it is true for the guns I recommended. Sure .22's in general can have issues, and the conversion ones almost always do. But I have shot tens of thousands of rounds and often with thousands of rounds between cleanings down a ruger Mark and a victory without doing anything. They simply run. Of course it can vary with ammo selection, but read the number of problems with WWB on centerfire.

Nothing for sale. They are all awaiting my grandkids.

A local FFL has offered me a Glock 44, NIB, for $439.00. There might be a little room for negotiation, not sure.

I know nothing about this, have never owned a Glock, I did fire a few rounds from each of a 17 and a 19 probably ten years ago, but that's really my only experience with a Glock.

• Do any of y'all actually own one of these? If so, what has your experience been like?
  
  
• In today's enviromment, with not a lot of handguns to be found, is that a decent price? Or should I stay away from this at any price?

Is this really true?

Start with Ruger (Mark IV) and then go elsewhere if you're not satisfied.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Decker:

Start with Ruger (Mark IV) and then go elsewhere if you're not satisfied.

I do not see any in stock anywhere. Do you have any suggestions?