I'm all set for 9mm and .45 ACP pistols, but I want something in .22 LR

Use would be primarily at the range. Nothing fancy, just looking for something to use for trigger time without burning up my center-fire ammunition.

I have a Taurus Model 94 revolver, .22 LR (and also its fraternal twin, a Model 941, .22 WMR); each of these has logged some frequent flier miles back and forth to the Taurus mother ship, and they are both still unreliable.

So, I want a semi-auto, but I really have no experience with these and I am looking for advice / opinion on what to get, paying attention to the quality / cost trade-offs and compromises.

Would the recommendation be for something like a Browning Buckmark? Ruger? There are many variations of both of those. Or how about a .22 LR conversion kit for one of my P228s? Or maybe disregard the semi-auto and get a better quality revolver? Cost is a definite factor, but I don't want to buy low-cost junk, either. Pay a bit more for quality, within reason.

Your discussion is requested, and if you have something to sell that would fit my needs wants, please let me know via the email address in my profile.

I have never had a Taurus firearm of any type until I purchased a Taurus TX rimfire pistol last year. I could not be more pleased with it - full size grip, light weight, 16 round magazine and very reliable. I have shot 500 to 600 rounds of various ammo through it with only one bobble. I know there are higher quality and higher priced rimfire pistols out there however this Taurus suits me fine.

I prefer the Ruger Mk series over the Buckmark but they both fit your criteria. If you own a CZ the Kadet conversions are very good. The Beretta 87’s are spendy but worth every penny. I had nothing but trouble with my Walther P22 but Ruger makes their version and I’ve heard good things.

My Walther PPQ 22LR has been %99 reliable. I literally run about 800 rounds through it before I have to clean it. It'll start slowing down and get some failure to feeds. But only because it's filthy at that point.

(I shoot it suppressed %100 of the time)

My Smith and Wesson. 22 Victory has been reliable, accurate and fun to shoot. Easy to disassemble for cleaning. Includes a rail for attaching an optic, in my case a Burris Fastfire III. Optional "upgrades" available from both Tandemkross and Volquartsen.

I prefer the Ruger Mk IV pistols. I had a Buckmark and got rid of it.

I have a GSG 1911-.22 and wouldn't wish this piece of junk on my worst enemy.

I have a Glock 44 and it's a great compliment to my G19. I even upgraded the sights to the same ones as my G19.

I also have a little Beretta with the tip-up barrel and it too is lots of fun.

My wife has a Ruger American, but I'm just not a fan of it.

The single action Ruger Hawkeye looks like a nice inexpensive revolver.

Over the years, I had and sold off a Walther P22, and a Hi Standard Supermatic. One gun I wish I still had is that Supermatic.

My Walter PP 22LR in 4 inch and 5 inch have been about 98% reliable. I thoroughly enjoy shooting them in addition to my Ruger 22/45 Lite, Mark IV with a Vortex Venom on top. If you like smaller pistols I also like my Ruger SR 22 but it does not do well with standard velocity ammunition. It is also a bit small for my medium-size hand so I put a Hogue universal grip on it.

Some people disdain 22 LR but I would love shooting it for practice and plinnkering.
Have had good success

When I was teaching CCW classes, I used Ruger MK-IIIs in 22/45 configuration since they were the least expensive models. I would occasionally also use my MK-III Hunter, and my S&W Model 41. When I stopped teaching, the 22/45s had right at 30,000 rounds each, with the only malfunctions being either related to bad ammo, or my avoidance in cleaning them. I recently replaced them with the MK-IV 22/45, which has also been flawless, except for failures due to cheap bulk ammo- definitely not the guns fault. After putting in a Volquartsen trigger and sear, I prefer the MK-IV over the S&W Model 41- the Ruger is more accurate and more reliable. Since I started with Ruger, I have had no reason to switch brands. Also the MK-III Hunter has just been broken in with 27,077 rounds through it, and only problems have been cheap ammo and lack of cleaning.YMMV.

I am a Ruger MKx guy. The Buckmark is nice and also long proven.

As far as more traditional trainer type setups I have had the best experiences by far, although I don’t own one, with the CZ Kadet.

Never cared for the Smiths even the regaled 41.

You have a ton of options but your safe options so to speak are a Ruger MK or MK based gun or the Buckmark.

I’ve never had a chance to play with the VQ pistols but they appear to be phenomenal if you want to drop the coin.

Just be aware that the only reason your .22 semi auto runs 100% is because you haven’t used the “right” ammo to choke it yet. . Rugers and Brownings are very forgiving but trust me you will find crappy ammo they don’t like.

Browning Buckmark, Ruger Mark series, or Smith and Wesson Victory would fit the bill nicely. Pretty easy to put a red dot on them also if you want.

If you want a combat style 22 LR pistol the Glock 44 or M&P 22 Compact though that is on the smaller side. These will not have the accuracy of the above pistols though.

I have a Browning Buckmark that I bought a little over a year ago for $324 after rebate and just love shooting it. I also have a Ruger Standard and it is terrific but I prefer the grip ange and grip size of my UFX frame Buckmark. The trigger on my Buckmark was outstanding right out of the box as was reliability.

The SIG 22LR conversion kits are fun but extremely hard to find, at least for a reasonable price, and not as reliable or accurate as my Buckmark or Ruger.

Ruger Mk IV of your choice. Mk IV overview This generation was redesigned to make it a snap to field strip and clean. I have a 22/45 Lite myself and am pleased with it.

I dabbled in the service-pistol style .22s for a while, because I wanted something that I could train with that was similar to my "real" guns. This was unsatisfying, because I had horrible reliability problems with those guns, and they all felt cheap. Friends had a few, I tried them and didn't like them. I quickly lost interest, and sold off the one I'd purchased (Ruger SR22P that had extractor issues and the worst trigger of any handgun I've ever shot).

A buddy had a buckmark and it actually worked. I'd never really had interest in that style of gun because I thought they looked goofy and the grip angle was weird, plus I'd heard horror stories about taking the Rugers apart. Then my brother got a Ruger Mk IV, and talked it up.

I found a used MkII at a local big box place at what seemed like a good price, and didn't buy it because I didn't know much about them. I went home and did some research, decided to try it, but when I went back it was gone.

A few months ago I stumbled onto a MkII stainless target at my favorite LGS. It was priced reasonably so I grabbed it up. It's been awesome. The build quality is supurb...it has good heft and feels like a real gun in your hand, not a cheap aluminum airsoft copy of something else. It's accurate and has a great trigger, and provides a solid platform for working the fundamentals. Apart from the usual ammo-related rimfire duds, it has been 100% reliable.

As to the disassembly, it's incredibly easy once you know the sequence of steps required to do it properly. I can do it in about 30 seconds now, and about the same to put it back together. There are plenty of YouTube videos out there on how to do it the right way, and I'll admit to a little satisfaction and being able to easily do something that many folks seem to think is really hard. I'm fine with letting people keep thinking that it's hard, though...now that the mkIV is out, it's driving prices down on the mkII, and I wouldn't mind picking up a couple more if I can find them at a good price.

I don't remember all the differences in the variants, but I know the MkII hit the sweet spot as far as I'm concerned. Iirc the MKII added a last round bolt hold open, which I like on a .22 because it minimizes dropping the hammer on an empty chamber (although it is a step in the takedown prices for these guns). The mkIII added a pushbutton mag release, which I do like, but also a magazine disconnect safety, which I don't like. The mkIV redesigned the gun with two pins to be easier to takedown.

I don't think you'll be disappointed with a Ruger or a Buckmark. They work better than anything else out there, and are affordable, quality guns. I'd love to try a Beretta 87 some day, but I've never seen one locally, and from what I've seen of the pricing online, I could get 3 or 4 Rugers for the price of one of them. Same goes for a CZ Kadet, which I've also heard good things about but never been able to try for myself.

I'd go with the Buck Mark or Ruger. Parts and accessories availability, lots of options from the factory.

I started with Ruger Mark IIs, but prefer the Buck Mark. Really a question of which one is the best fit for your hands and which appearance you prefer.

For suppressor use, I prefer the Buck Mark. A suppressed .22 auto is a thing of wonder.

A Browning Buckmark, Ruger IV or S&W 41 are great guns. I have and shoot all three. I have 10 magazines for each so that I can spend time shooting while at the range instead of reloading. I love them all but probably like the 41 best but that may be that it cost so damn much. All three guns run perfectly and never a problem.

No matter what you buy, if you stick to one of three I am sure you wll be happy.

My ruger MKII/IIIs have been exceptionally reliable. I think they're the best lookers as well, if that matters. Mags are great quality, at least the blued ones were.

I fondled a couple of Buckmarks but found the grips to be a little too big for my smallish hands. My choice finally came down to the Ruger Mark IV (old school grip, the 22/45 style feels too boxy to me) and the S&W Victory. I chose the Victory because the trigger was slightly better. A friend of mine has both Mark IV and Mark 2 Rugers and they're great guns.

I had a Buck Mark for a few years going on 30 years ago. Sold it when I went through some tight times. Always missed it.

Since then, I’ve had a Walther P22 that worked but was rather “blah”. Was unsatisfied with .22 conversions in both P226 and P229.

Just brought a new Buck Mark home last week and looking forward to getting it to the range soon.

Ok Vtail I’m going to be that guy. Save up your pennies and buy a Beretta 87. Yes it’s pricy. No it’s not a bullseye gun. What it is is the best overall 22 I have ever owned. It works, runs, takes down, loads, everything just like a “real” gun. It doesn’t feel cheap at all. In fact just the opposite. I liked it so much I quickly bought a second one for my then very young son.

I’ve owned mine for probably 10-15 years and it’s easily the gun 8 own with the most rounds through it. I’d have to guess in the 20-30k range. In all that time I’ve had to buy one new extractor that chipped. I didn’t end up replacing it though, I ended up taking a tiny file and rounding the corner that chipped and I still have the new extractor.

It would be the last 22 I ever got rid of and realistically it’s the only 22 I own that I would consider carrying.

I'm an addict. I have everything mentioned and plenty of others. As is said above for your intended use get the buckmark, ruger, or victory. I personally like the ruger the best of those three, but all are reasonably priced, have good factory and aftermarket support and just plain run. No compromises really, and if there is some feature that you want they don't have the aftermarket makes it. There is no bad choice among those three. There are other great .22's like the 41 or 87 but cost is a real issue. I have several of the conversion kits and none of them really seem to be a big win to me.

I like the S&W M&P Compact 22 a lot.