I currently have a P226 .22 that I have plinked with for a few years. I have always been on the lookout for a Hammerli Trailside and I'm wondering if it's worth the switch.

I like the fact that the P226 .22 functions the same as my other Sigs and I'm not a huge fan or dedicated .22 pistols like a Buckmark but the Trailside has always caught my eye.

Thoughts?

Question:
Which .22 Pistol would you prefer?

Choices:
Sig P226 .22 Classic
Sig Hammerli Trailside
Other (please comment)

 

The Ruger Mark II / III / IV is pretty much ubiquitous, can't go wrong with one of those, but it would be a dedicated .22

I say get the Trailside if that is what speaks to you.

I have a trailside and a xeese. Fantastic guns. I bought my 6-inch trail side for 450 OTD, the Xeese i bought here from a forum member. He had larry's guns tune it up fully for 1600.

That said. I have owned Ruger mkI, 4 or five MKII (some tuned with VQ stuff), 22/45 prior to mkIII, 4 or 5 mk3 tuned with vq,2-3 VQ custom builds. I don't own any ruger MK series now. I have smith and wesson victories. 3 of them. One tuned up with VQ barrel and tandemkross goodies.

These are the guns I had a year ago.


The Ruger's and the colt revolver are gone, I have added the Smith and Wesson 41.


Now as to what I would buy. I tell this to every person that asks. Flat out, without hesitation a Smith and Wesson 617 10 shot revolver in 6 inch. I would then buy a speed beez speed loader, and speed beez 100 round tray.


Why? 3 reasons.
1: the ability to shoot this double action accurately will improve your trigger skills immensely. Without any doubt, the ability to shoot a revolver DA translates even to single action, da/sa, and stiker fired guns. The best trigger practice under live fire you can do IMHO is a da 22lr revolver.

2: The sights are some of the best target sights for a sub 1k gun. They are crisp, clean and finite. The 6" sight radius allows for longer extended shooting sessions if you wear corrective lenses or contacts.

3: the gun can be used as a whole shooting program tool. Load 3 out of the ten cylinders with empty brass to train your self not to flinch. Shoot it single action to help with single action trigger pulls. Use the weight of it to help train your arms for extended larger center fired pistol shooting sessions.

Mine I bought used in 2011. I have put well over 30k through it since. I use it at the beginning of every range trip. 300-500 round sessions of 22lr. Then I move over to The trailside, Xeese, 41, victory, or 89T. From there I move to centerfire pistols. At 25K (my rounds) I had the hand break on it. Smith had the revolver fixed and back to me in 9 days. Keep in mind this is a pre-lock gun, with 15 years of heavy use prior to me buying it. The owner used it in bowling pin shoots, plate shoots, timed 22lr 25 matches. How many rounds are down its cylinders I can only imagine?

Here are my xeese and trailside.

They are essentially the same thing. The left you can see has been tunned up to the nines. The trailside only has the 90-gram weight. It is the adjustable sights target model. There were several minor, very minor differences. trigger, take down lock area, lined or unlined barrel but overall they are the same.

The victory, the trailside/xeese, the 87 target, the colt woodsman all produce 10 shot dime sized groups at 35ft when I do my part. The 617 does that also. It, however as I mentioned above sets the pace for all my other training, trigger work, and practice with my fire arms. It is my single best 22lr.

If plinking is your game (and its a great time) there is no reason to have a trailside/xesse. There are a zillion more reliable, cheaper, easier to maintain choices. Its not that I don't like the trailside/xesse I have several, but its a specialty gun and totally dependent on Larry's for parts and support afaik in the US.
I'm currently a fan of the S&W victory, but the Ruger Mk4 (don't do the earlier ones if you want simple in terms of maintenance) and buckmark are very good alternatives.
I don't like the grip on the S&W 617 revolver but I have a K22 and its a ton of fun as well.

Ruger MK series. I prefer the MKII, but a MK4 would be a great choice!

I'm not knocking the earlier Mk models. It can be mastered I did it and I'm not that smart. BUT there is no reason to get one at this point, the Mk4 is so much better to maintain.

I'd have to vote Ruger Mk IV as well.

Have 2 MkIIs and the S&W 610 10 rounder. Very happy with these. A MkIV would be nice but low priority.

Beretta 87
Buckmark
M&P 22 compact
PPQ 22

Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite with Primary Arms Red Dot, and a Tandem K Ross (if I remember name correctly) compensator for weight balance and aesthetics. I love mine. 6,500 rounds and counting. Easy to clean and reliable, and accurate.

Another vote for the S&W Victory. There are a lot of aftermarket accessories for them, if that is your thing. It's not mine. I shoot mine stock (except for a red dot sights)and like it a lot. It's accurate and flawless.

I also own a 617 revolver, which, prior to the Victory, was my favorite range gun. I still shoot it but it's second to my Victory. The 617 is a very nice gun but pricey.

I’ve always owned various Ruger MK pistols but I must say I have taken a shine to the S&W victory. It’s usually the one I bring to the range.

I'll add something new to the list of considerations. The Volquartsen Scorpion, albeit its a touch on the pricey side at $1150 but IMHO its worth every penny. On the more reasonable side, it's really its hard to go wrong with any of the other suggestions, Buckmark, Ruger or SW Victory, they are all solid 22's just personal preference would be the deciding factor. On the revolver front, the old SW K22 are sweet as well as the 617's.

For me .22’s are the cornerstones of my collection! Accurate easy to shoot well no recoil low cost ammo no slaving over the reloading bench.
I could not imagine life with any less than 3 dedicated.22 handguns.
I prefer old classics and have a first year production Colt challenger that looks rough but is a great shooter, an early production beretta jaguar, 60’s era smith model 17, and my modern guns the late 90’s smith 422 and early 80’s model 34. They are all fun! .22’s are the one part of my collection that seems to declare room for one more!
The smith 17-2 is probably the last .22 and quite possibly the last gun I will ever get rid of.

Ruger







Or CZ

I know they're "old school", but I'd look to buy a Colt Woodsman. They're great shooters and will never depreciate in value!

My vote would be a S&W Model 41.

After causally looking at and trying various .22 pistols over the years, I eventually selected Beretta's Neos.

Inexpensive, functions with everything I've fed it, accurate, readily available magazines, various length/easy to change barrel options and finally.. easy to disassemble and reassemble.

quote:

Originally posted by ARMT Guy:
After causally looking at and trying various .22 pistols over the years, I eventually selected Beretta's Neos.

Inexpensive, functions with everything I've fed it, accurate, readily available magazines, various length/easy to change barrel options and finally.. easy to disassemble and reassemble.

Glad you got something that works for you.

I am in California, so can't get a Neos.

I have more .22 handguns than days of the week, so I am not hurting for fun options, but always wanted to try a Neos. Oh well.

Enjoy it!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
I currently have a P226 .22 that I have plinked with for a few years. I have always been on the lookout for a Hammerli Trailside and I'm wondering if it's worth the switch.

I like the fact that the P226 .22 functions the same as my other Sigs and I'm not a huge fan or dedicated .22 pistols like a Buckmark but the Trailside has always caught my eye.

Thoughts?

My advice?

Decide once and for all how important the same manual of arms is worth to you, and go from there.

If it is important to you [MoA], then stick to the P226 .22 classic.

If it isn't that important and you've always wanted a Hammerli Trailside- then GET ONE!!!!!

They look fun!


I personally can't imagine not owning at least one dedicated .22 pistol, or not having a .22 conversion kit for my 1911.



I understand the whole 'manual of Arms' idea- namely, training with a .22 to get better with the centerfire caliber.


Yet, I also like a wide variety of types of firearms, and cannot see myself so wedded to any one platform that I wouldn't at least check out another.


For example- I don't care for Glock. Not a fan of the design or the feel in my hand. I respect them, and recognize their quality. I just don't care for them.

So I only have 1. [but, 2 sigs: P220 and original P225].