I am seriously considering a new .22 pistol, not revolver this time. But what one, I am thinking Ruger, but, MKIII, the new Charger? Any opinions, or other
options worth considering?
0 Kudo
New .22 pistol, but which one?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Lee1959 |
New .22 pistol, but which one? |
Lead | |
|
Tribal Spirit
Posts: 3683 (12/13/08 20:41) |
|
||
 JustsayMo |
|||
|
Scout
Posts: 122 (12/13/08 21:05) Scout |
Pretty tough to beat a ruger Mark II or III. The Charger is cool but I can't think of many practical applications for it where a carbine wouldn't be
just as handy.
|
||
|
hornfrog |
|||
|
Brave
Posts: 317 (12/14/08 06:55) Tracker |
The Charger is a fascinating design and is just cool to look at. But when considering practical use, it is hard to feature taking it into the field. Might be
great and a lot of fun at the range, though. It is a pistol because of the length of the barrel but if it was legal to have a collapsing butt stock or a
folding one or something to stablize it better when shooting and if could be carried in a holster or suspended from a shoulder sling like MP5s are carried and
without the bipod, maybe then it would more useful and could be considered a survival firearm. I still think I want one!
|
||
|
JP405 |
|||
|
Scout
Posts: 190 (12/14/08 11:45) Scout |
I have a MKIII that I absolutely love. At 25 yards, it literally shoots 5 shot 1/4" groups with a scope with CCI mini mags. I can't say enough good
about it.
405 |
||
|
rzwieg.paleoplanet69529 |
|||
|
Pilgrim
Posts: 2 (12/15/08 01:06) |
The Ruger is certainly a good piece, but may I suggest the Browning?
The Buckmark fits my hand better and is about as hard to take apart. It's sights are a bit easier on holsters and is a bit lighter. |
||
|
Stubbleduck58 |
|||
|
Tenderfoot
Posts: 34 (12/16/08 05:50) |
.
Last Edited By: Stubbleduck58
06/09/09 03:28.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
superiormind |
|||
|
Pilgrim
Posts: 1 (12/16/08 14:45) |
I learned to shoot with a Mark II.........I don't see how you can go wrong. I myself, would get the bull barrel. Pickup a Ruger 10/22 at the same time.
|
||
|
Bajatacoma |
|||
|
Brave
Posts: 314 (12/16/08 19:40) Tracker |
I'd stick to a Ruger MKI or II; I don't care for the MKIIIs. If I had the money, I'd add a threaded Pac-Lite upper (unfortunately the upper is
considered the firearm part of the Ruger .22s) and an AAC Prodigy or Aviator (around $400 + $200 tax stamp). The Browning Buckmarks are pretty nice too.
Kill your TV!
|
||
|
silverstate51 |
|||
|
Tracker
Posts: 225 (12/17/08 11:42) Tenderfoot |
I vote for the Buckmark. After 400 rounds, when it gets gummy, the pass-through slide allows for rapid cleaning in the field without field stripping.
|
||
|
Badger |
|||
|
Tenderfoot
Posts: 18 (12/17/08 18:46) |
I'd vote for the Older Ruger Mark I, I bought one new in about 1960 for I believe $42.50 and wouldn't even try to guess how many thousands of rounds
I've put through it over the years, and never had one lick of trouble with it. I did have to make one modification to it. Being a point shooter, that
tapered barrell was a slight problem, (Never liked Lugars for the same reason). So I removed the barrell put it on the leathe and turned down the chamber end,
and made a bushing for the muzzle end and slipped a piece of 1/2" black iron pipe over it, souldered a low profile front sight on it and filed the back
sight to match up. it's now got a lightweight 4" bull barrell and a great pointing gun now to boot.
Also, if your not interested in buying a new .22 pistol, the Old High Standard autos were some of the most accurate .22's ever made. In fact, the government bought a batch of these High Standard .22 autos for the O.S.S in WWII with a silenced barrell on them. The Colt Woodman is another great older auto, but collectors have pushed the price up around a thousand dollars, if you can find one. The High Standard are still going for around the $300.00 mark. But if your not an Olympic target shooter, its hard to beat the Ruger mark I and II. Like I say, I've had one since about 1960 and never had one problem with it......Other than a Ramline plastic magazine, I threw away after about the 5th loading. Stick to the Ruger magazines! Badger |
||
|
lawdog41 |
|||
|
Tribal Councilman
Posts: 739 (12/22/08 22:57) Dog Soldier |
The Ruger MkI's and MkII's are tank tough and almost impossible to wear out, I've tried.
I had a custom MkII that I finally gave up and cleaned after some 12,500 rounds had gone through it. Winchester Wildcat at that. The action had been hand lapped and that did help I'm sure but still. At the end the action had become visibly slow in closing, the recoil spring was barely getting it closed anymore despite occasional addition of oil. Chunks of carbon and gunk were falling out every time the bolt cycled and exposed the slide cuts. Literal chunks not bits. I can't say how many of the MkI's and MkII's I've owned, 25+ at least. I used to pick up used ones, work them over and resell them. There's a few tricks you can do to them that help immensely but a standard model is still a good piece. The grip angle is horrid though. The Browning Buckmark's are my current produced favorite, the trigger's are better out of the box and they're so much easier to clean that it's actually a consideration. I have an early "Field" model (rough finished target model) that will keep all of it's shots on clay pigeons at 100Y when a Leupold Gilmore 2MOA dot sight and some care it taken. Some of the early models have an occasional bug, the 10th round (top) in the mag doesn't want to feed when a loaded chamber is fired and the full mag is underneath. The easy solution, only load 9 rounds in the mags. The current models have modified bolts and recoil systems to ensure reliability. My all time favorite .22 handgun is the Colt Woodsman. Nothing is quite like them, fit, feel and accuracy were always the hallmark of the Woodsman, especially the Target models but the economy Huntsman and Targetsman (70's) still shot well. The problem with the Woodsman? The price, decent ones start @$600 and go up from there. Double the cost of the previous handguns. In all three, stick with factory magazines, the aftermarket ones stink at best. The stainless Colt Cadet mags can be used in both the 2nd and 3rd Gen Woodsman's and are only $20 at CDNN. The first gen mags, don't even ask. |
||
|
Jujen Kai |
|||
|
Tenderfoot
Posts: 34 (12/24/08 01:11) |
I snagged a MKIII a while back at a bargain price. Love it, except for one small thing. They have a 'magazine disconnect' that prevents the weapon from
firing if there is no magazine inserted. That bugs me. It's not been a deterrent to use, but it just kind of seems odd. As for the pistol in use, I
can't say enough good about it. It's heavy enough that there is NO felt recoil. It is narrow enough to actually be carried concealed if you so desired,
and - since I went for the MKIII/45 option - the safeties/mag release/grip angle are all similar to my 1911. Makes it easy to always remember where the safety
is.
|
||
|
Badger |
|||
|
Tenderfoot
Posts: 18 (12/27/08 13:39) |
Jujen Kai-
I know what your saying about not firing a round in the chamber if the magazine is removed, that also bugs the heck out of me! I picked up a Star BM 9 m/m a while back at a good price, because it had a feel close to the 1911, it's a size between a 1911 Commander, and the Colt Mustang .380, but right off I noticed you couldn't drop the hammer inless the magazine was in. that was an easy problem to solve, just remove the grips and tap the pin out that blocks the hammer. But I've never owned a MK-III so wouldn't know what to tell you on correcting the problem with that one, maybe Lawdog could advise you on that! Badger |
||
