.22 lr pistols

[Fishbed77]

There is no better rimfire .22 than a Ruger; IMO of course. They can be upgraded, if desired, without great expense. But out of the box they are great to begin with. I was told once, and I believe it, they are over engineered and will last many lifetimes.

The last sentence above is exactly why I recommend the Ruger over all other low-to-mid-priced .22LR pistols.

The whole point of owning a rimfire is to shoot it a LOT, and the Ruger will last a lifetime, which is more thatn you can say for most of the potmetal guns out there.

[carguychris]

I think you're confusing the Umarex/Walther relationship with the Colt M4.

No, not really. It depends how you qualify the question.

Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG is Walther's parent company. In that respect, all Walthers are made by Umarex to some degree.

Postwar-designed Walther centerfire pistols, including the P99, PPQ, and PPS, are built at the original Walther plant in Ulm. (Well, it's only kinda the original plant. The first Walther plant in Zella-Mehlis was destroyed during a little disagreement various European countries had between 1939 and 1945. ) Ulm-produced pistols bear an antler proofmark.

Umarex produces post-buyout rimfire pistols, including the P22, SP22, and the "Colt" AR replica, at a separate plant in Köln (aka Koeln / Cologne). It's my understanding that this plant was originally built to produce airguns under the Umarex badge. Köln-produced pistols bear a crown proofmark.

Some Walther purists view the Köln guns as inferior-quality counterfeits that bring shame to the vaunted Walther name. That's why you routinely see people saying that the P22 and SP22 are "not real Walthers". OTOH many shooters don't really care as long as the guns shoot OK.

Just to introduce a little more confusion, yes, Walther products are distributed in the USA by S&W, which also builds all US-market PPK and PPK/S variants at their plant in Houlton, ME to skirt the 68 GCA import regulations.

[Water-Man]

Ruger.

[Hal]

I have shot a S&W model 22A-1, I OWN 3 Ruger MKII's. There is no better rimfire .22 than a Ruger; IMO of course. They can be upgraded, if desired, without great expense. But out of the box they are great to begin with. I was told once, and I believe it, they are over engineered and will last many lifetimes.

My Ruger Mark II has, maybe (& I'll be super generous) 2500 rounds through it.

It has:
- A broken safety
- A broken extractor
- A broken firing pin spring.

The gun was not abused in any way shape or form, these parts all just failed on a gun with a somewhat low round count.

The good news is that - the gun still functions. Since it's a range only gun & one that only I shoot, the lack of a working safety isn't an issue.

I also have a Ruger .22/45 with over 150,000 rounds through it.
That gun is still 100% and 100% original.

Moral?
Everything, even a Ruger can and will break.
Rugers are very robust however & should last a long time.

Also - over engineered?
Not at all. Ruger uses cast metal and stamped steel. The feed ramp on the Mark II is a rough slice of the chamber sort of pressed out of the surrounding metal as some sort of after thought.
I've lost track of the number of Mark II's I've seen that refuse to feed hollow points because the nose digs into the bottom of the feed ramp.
IMNSHO - Ruger's are minimally engineered.

Over built probably, but, they are far from over engineered.

[9mm1033]

Another RUGER vote.

[Fishbed77]

Some Walther purists view the Köln guns as inferior-quality counterfeits that bring shame to the vaunted Walther name.

They view it this way because it's the truth.

The Ulm-manufactured guns (P99, PPQ, PPS, various Olympic target guns) are light years ahead of the Umarex-produced potmetal guns (P22, PK380, fake Colts, fake H&Ks, etc.) in terms of quality, durability, reliability, etc.

The Ulm pistols are among the best in the world. The Umarex pistols are what the are - inferior potmetal guns that are Umarex's attempt to cash in on the Walther name.

[Fishbed77]

I've lost track of the number of Mark II's I've seen that refuse to feed hollow points because the nose digs into the bottom of the feed ramp.

Actually, most Mark IIs I've encountered can have trouble feeding HP ammo. Hollow point .22LR ammo just wasn't as common back when the Mark II (and Ruger Standard/Mark I before it) was first introduced.

The Mark III has an ever-so-slightly larger feed ramp. My Mark III has never has a failure to feed HP ammo. One of several improvements from the Mark II to Mark III that folks tend to forget about when complaining about all the lawyer-junk on the Mark III.

[Marlin009]

Ruger Mark III. Very happy with mine (target).

I wish I'd kept track of the rounds, about 4000 in a year, maybe more.

[erob3]

HAL - You are absolutely correct, even the best of pistols can and do break. I'm glad to read your Ruger, even with broken parts, stills functions. So does this mean you would rather shoot a broken Ruger than load a perfectly good ________? Kinda sounds like some of the bumper stickers you see on the road; "I would rather push my _______ than drive a ______." Gotta try to keep some humor in this. I own 3 MKII's and all have been flawless, is that to say the next time I shoot one of them it will not break, not at all. But if someone asks me what .22 I would recommend they buy, depending on use and price - Buy a Ruger. Overall best bang for the buck. (no pun intended)By the way, you failed to address the OP issue; What .22 rimfire would you recommend, if any?

[Dennis6474]

The Ruger MK ll/lll is more accurate than me. As far as tearing it down for cleaning, it is a pain so I havn't done it in years. Just a spray of carb cleaner every so often and a little lube. Have not had it fail to fire since I bought the gun many thousand of rounds ago.

[Hal]

I'm glad to read your Ruger, even with broken parts, stills functions. So does this mean you would rather shoot a broken Ruger than load a perfectly good ________?

In a really sick twisted sort of way - yes!

I'm really curious how many parts of the thing can break before it stops.

I shot a bunch one day @ the range w/it and only found out when I got it home and stripped it to clean it that the firing pin spring had broken into two pieces. I have no idea at what point it broke, but, it didn't bother the gun at all. I cleaned it up, put the two pieces back in and took it out again.
A few times later,again, when I got it home and stripped for cleaning, that the extractor was broken and the "hook" was gone.
Same thing, I cleaned it & on the next few trips to the range, I packed it along and fired it some.
No problems at all - it ran perfect.
Amazing!

By the way, you failed to address the OP issue; What .22 rimfire would you recommend, if any?

Whatever one he feels best with.

I'm very partial to a Ruger .22/45 and I dearly love my wife's Buckmark Micro - when I can pry her hands off it .
I like my other two Buckmarks as well - the Camper and the really beautifuly finished Plus.

The only word to describe the trigger on my High Standards is - magic.
You touch the trigger & by magic a hole appears downrange exactly where it's supposed to be.

My (broken) Mark II is ok. It's a slabside model. I took some wet/dry up to 1600 grit to the slabs and brought them up to a mirror finish. I think it looks sharp in contrast to the brushed satin on the rest of the gun.

I believe Ruger or Browning both make a good gun for casual use.

[erob3]

HAL - I have never shot a High Standard but I hear more and more how nice of a pistol they are. About 2-3 months ago I had the opportunity to buy an older Trophy High Standard; I believe that's the correct model. Anyway, it was perfect and in the correct box - the guy was asking in the $700 range. Is that reasonable? If so, I can probably get my hands on it. I am in no way a competition shooter nor will I ever be, however, I do enjoy shooting different pistols. With the cost of ammo these days the .22 rimfire is really all a person needs as far as range shooting. Yes it's fun to shoot a 9mm or
.45 but if you don't reload yourself it can be cost prohibitive. With that said, I'm certainly not opposed to letting go of larger caliber pistol to fund the purchase of a something that is more economical to shoot. Not to mention a very nice piece. Thanks.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Fishbed77

The Ulm pistols are among the best in the world. The Umarex pistols are what the are - inferior potmetal guns that are Umarex's attempt to cash in on the Walther name.

I don't see how Umarex is trying to "cash in" on the Walther name when they don't even use it. I've shot the Colt/Umarex 1911-22 at my local range. All the slide rollmarks say "Colt", and the box says Umarex USA. The advertising plays up the fact that the guns are built under license from Colt.

That said, I don't think Umarex is trying to fool anyone. Their advertising doesn't try to make you think the frames and slides are ordnance steel. Umarex is an airgun maker that's expanding into recreational firearms. Obviously, a .22 plinker doesn't NEED an ordnance steel frame or slide ... so they don't spend the money to provide one. I don't have a problem with that.

[1-UP]

Did a LOT of research on this when I was looking to buy a .22 pistol. Basically, it boils down to the following:

Tier 1: S&W 41

But you're looking at something like double the price of the other guns, maybe more (Haven't checked the price in years).

Tier 1.5: Ruger II, III <---> Browning Buckmarks

Extremely aggressively priced with rave reviews all around. Browning probably inches out the Ruger (mostly due to disassembly/reassembly) unless you're willing (eager?) to tinker and upgrade the Rugers (Which you can do far more of). Ergonomics on the guns are dramatically different, so that could be a factor as well.

Tier 2: P22, S&W 22a, Neos, Mosquito

Had fun plinking with all three, but these aren't the guns you see in competition shooting.

I picked the Ruger Mark III and couldn't be happier with it. I'll note that I went from liking the gun to LOVING the gun after putting the Volquartsen trigger kit into it. The price of the trigger kit in the Bull Barrel model was competitive with the price of the mid-range Bucks.

Other stuff exists, but it's all pretty challenging to get a hold of due to being out of production.

[Marlin009]

Originally Posted by 1-UP

I picked the Ruger Mark III and couldn't be happier with it. I'll note that I went from liking the gun to LOVING the gun after putting the Volquartsen trigger kit into it. The price of the trigger kit in the Bull Barrel model was competitive with the price of the mid-range Bucks.

Is it a "do it yourself"? I'm mechanically inclined but have never taken any of my pistols past a field strip.

[Desertfox]

Ruger MKIII. My buddy talked me into shooting it with him. I put my S&W down and plinked with his. It has a red dot scope on it. After a couple saturdays shooting, I am plinking golf balls at 30 yards. It taught me to hold the pistol correctly and squeeze the trigger better. For target shooting, the Ruger would be my choice. Just my $.02.

[BIG P]

RUGER MKII,Great little gun.

[lcpiper]

The Beretta 87 Target is on my list but they usually run around 750 or more.

[Hal]

I have never shot a High Standard but I hear more and more how nice of a pistol they are. About 2-3 months ago I had the opportunity to buy an older Trophy High Standard; I believe that's the correct model. Anyway, it was perfect and in the correct box - the guy was asking in the $700 range. Is that reasonable?

That can be either a "Why are you wasting time asking,,,,run as fast as you can to get it" price or it can be right in the ballpark.

It all depends on when/where it was made & the actual condition.

I'd definatly take some time to visit a few of the High Standard forums and look over what similar ones are going for on the online auctions/sales boards.

The real acid test though will be to shoot it if you get the chance.
A High Standard is the type of gun that a hundred or two in either direction make very little difference once you've shot one.

[Corona]

Well, y'all convinced me! Picked up a Ruger 22/45 yesterday (Merry Christmas to me!) and can't wait to blow through a bunch of cheap bullets this weekend. I've been considering this for awhile....for a good plinker and one I can take along on camping and hiking trips.

Thanks for all the comments and insight!

[Fishbed77]

Is it a "do it yourself"? I'm mechanically inclined but have never taken any of my pistols past a field strip.

Yes - installing Volquartsen parts on a Ruger pistol is a DIY project (and well worth it, if you ask me). All parts are drop-in. Just set aside, a good clean, well-lit area and take your time. There are a few very small parts you need to be careful to keep track of (such as a few small springs and the teeny-tiny safety detent), and some of the parts are very fiddly to reinstall (the sear and sear spring was a bugger for me).

But on the whole, it a relatively easy task if you just take your time. No special tools are needed other than a screwdriver to remove the grips and a small eyeglasses screwdriver (or something similar) to depress the slide stop spring and a few other parts.


Here is an excellent guide showing how to completly strip down and reassemble a Mark III:
http://www.guntalk-online.com/detailstrip.htm

[1-UP]

Like Fish said, it's pretty easy if you're mechanically inclined. I put it in the 2nd time I took apart the Ruger, which also happened to be the 2nd time I'd taken apart ANY gun.

The videos/guides online make it pretty idiot proof. The only nasty bits are making sure the sear spring is oriented correctly (just look at pics) and a couple of small parts (Like the safety ball). It's easier than, say, rebuilding a carbuerator, harder than putting a new part into the computer.

Shoot it stock a few times and then buy yourself the Volquartsen kit - the happiest $60 you'll ever spend. Oh, and get the VQ extractor while you're at it. You'll need it sooner or later.

[Marlin009]

Thanks for the info guys.

[Fishbed77]

I don't see how Umarex is trying to "cash in" on the Walther name when they don't even use it. I've shot the Colt/Umarex 1911-22 at my local range. All the slide rollmarks say "Colt", and the box says Umarex USA. The advertising plays up the fact that the guns are built under license from Colt.

Referring to the "Walther" P22, not the Colt pistol. Umarex has been evasive in the past about how/where this P22 is made. I'm not going to dig this up, but there are a number of threads over at Waltherforums.com (a fantastic forum full of great guys, by the way) that you can search.

Basically, Umarex's responce when asked where the P22 is made is "Made in Germany by Walther." However, several forum members there have been to Walther's Ulm factory and can confirm that the P22 is not manufactured there. Furthermore, the proofmarks on P22s verify that they are proofed in Cologne, not too far from the Umarex factory in Arnsberg. All Ulm-manufactured Walther pistols are proofed in Ulm and carry the "staghorn" proofmark.

This is only one example - Umarex produces an entire line of H&K rimfires that have "Manufactured by Carl Walther/Ulm" printed on them that are not manufactured in Ulm. The proofmarks bear this out as well.

Now technically, since Umarex is the parent company of Walther, they can do all of this legally. But I for one still find it rather deceptive, since the Walther name indicates a level of quality far above what one actually receives from the potmetal P22. Of course, every industry does this - it's called "brand engineering." By definition, it means "cashing in" on an established name.

Obviously, a .22 plinker doesn't NEED an ordnance steel frame or slide ... so they don't spend the money to provide one. I don't have a problem with that.

Unfortunately, this logic is flawed by the fact that steel Ruger .22 pistols can be found for the same price or less than zinc-alloy "potmetal" P22s. Also, it would appear that higher-quality metal is indeed needed (even in a rimfire .22) if you want a pistol that will last over the long run. A steel Ruger will last a lifetime; there are many, many stories floating aound of P22s that were rendered useless after as few as a few thousand rounds. The softer alloys just do not hold up over time.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I know that many folks like the look and feel of the P22, and have a lot of fun with them. But for the price, there are more durable, reliable, and accurate guns out there. And I am certainly not a Walther-hater. I own a 9mm P99AS (the gun the P22 copies the looks of) and it is by far the most reliable and high-quality pistol I've ever owned. I think that is why the stories about the Umarex P22 aggravate me so much. Unfortunately, or many people, the P22 will be their first exposure to this great line of products, and it's low quality will no doubt cause many folks to tune out on the truly great pistols beling produced by Walther at Ulm.

[RC20]

Did a LOT of research on this when I was looking to buy a .22 pistol. Basically, it boils down to the following:

Tier 1: S&W 41

The S&W Model 41 is the finest affordable 22 you will find.

Get a used one rather than a new one (they are better quality and more affordable).

I have used mine for hunting, target shooting and it was my self defense gun for many years on trips (easier to conceal than my larger revolvers and could dissemble it and carry it in several locations on my person and in bagage so no one would get a complete gun).

for you list it is the single choice that meets all of them. Others are too much and cost, or are far lesser and not nearly as capable or good.

Its accurate, trigger is amazing, its reliable and has terrific adjustable iron sights (with a newer barrel you can add a rail for a dot or laser)