In a follow-on to yesterday's chat, I've done some more reading . . . and can use some input. Choices:1) Ruger 22/452) Ruger Mark-III3) Smith 22a
- Fact, there's a "trick" to breaking down Ruger .22 pistols that does not exist in the smith 22a. Lots of rave reviews about how easy it is to break down and clean / oil the smith.
- Fact, all three are quite good and are all available for about $300, give or take. Therefore, price is not much of a factor.
- Fact, I've seen some spotty opinions on all three, but I'm guessing these are "jaded" somewhat by personal preference. Could also be due to how sensitive each particular piece is to varying brands of ammo.
Also just read something about the smith trigger components being plastic? You know anything about this? All else being equal ... wouldn't a plastic trigger component be less durable than steel?I'm guessing that I can't go wrong with any of the three . . . . and the final choice will come down to the intangibles . . . like how well each fits my hand, etc.
Here are the players:
Ruger 22/45
Ruger Mark III
Smith & Wesson 22A-1
To be perfectly frank, I'm stumped. I really like all three; in fact, the single biggest reason I haven't bought another .22LR semi-auto is because *I* can't decide which one I want. All three are MA legal; all three are excellent values for the money; all three will shoot far better than my meager skills can muster.The Ruger Mark III is the most expensive of the group with an MSRP of $362; the 22/45 is in the middle with an MSRP of $335 for the plain jane blued version (although, really, drop an extra $45 for the model with replaceable grips...), and the Smith & Wesson 22A is at the low end with an MSRP of only $319 for the model with the bull barrel. Less than $50 separate all three guns, and the "off-the-shelf" price is decidedly lower than that.
So, of the three, which would you choose and why?
That is all.
30 comments:
I'm a Buckmark guy myself.
Having said that, my choices would reflect:
1- Do I like the looks and feel?
2- Can I afford it?
Using this criteria, I'd pick the 22/45.
I would take one of the Rugers over the Smith. My experience has been that the 22A wil start to malfunction and jam long before the Mark series guns. If the takedown on the Ruger is a pain for you there is a nifty kit out on the market to address that. Between the two Rugers? Pick whichever feels best in your hand.
With the cost of each so close, money is a wash, which to me means I can concentrate on how the weapon feels. I own a 22/45 and am very happy with it, and it matches the ergonomics of the 1911. I cannot comment on the 22a, as I've never even held one much less fired one (although I'd be more than happy to correct that deficiency and get back to you...).
Given the above, I would pick the 22/45 as well.
My son owns a 22A and I was so impressed by how well it shot I went to Academy to buy one. While there I discovered a Browning Buckmark for $80 off and went home with it.
I have owned Rugers and they are nice but I loved the accuracy of the 22A. I love the Buckmark more.
I like the Ruger 10/45.
Cost in the end is not that big a variance.
If you have a 1911 the feel transfers.
All good choices though.
I have a ruger 22/45 - nice gun - but i will concede that the takedown & reassembly is a "stand on your head and clap" type of thing.
I use it as a training gun for my 1911 as the controls are all in the same place.
My recommendation on buying a gun is go with what feels most comfortable.
If he has a 1911 already, or plans on getting one in the future, I'd go with the 22/45.
I own a S&W 22a and I have to say I have been less than thrilled. Lots and lots of FTE, as in at least one out of every twenty shots.
I've got a 22A, and it's worked flawlessly so far (about a thousand rounds through it so far.) I have, however, noticed that the extractor is showing wear already.
RollsCanardly
You left out the Browning.
And the "Ruger Dance" isn't hard to learn, and once you do, it is as easy to disassemble as a AK or an AR. Don't let the disassembly/reassembly issue affect your decision, as it is just something you have to learn. And it isn't hard to do, if you DO IT IN ORDER.
While I don't own a 22, no serious shooter keeps his for long. Reliability and accuracy seem to be the issues. Nice guns, at first, but they don't seem to last.
You can accessorize the Rugers more easily than any others, as there are more aftermarket parts for them.
I have tens of thousands of rounds through both my Ruger and my Browning, and each has been very reliable. The Browning nneds the buffer replaced every 4k rounds or so, but that takes seconds. Ruger has needed nothing but cleaning.
YMMV
I'm an NRA instructor and teach at Airfield Shooting Club regularly. I use my smith 22A for teaching, shooting pins and just for fun and I've never had a problem with it.
Couldn't even guess how many rounds over the past three years or so I've owned it. Maybe 5k?
First thing I did after getting it was try every brand and style of ammo I could find.
It likes CCI Blazer. Never malfunctions and is the most accurate with that...even more accurate with it than some of the more expensive target ammo.
I'd recommend doing the same with any .22lr as they can be quite finicky about ammo.
Not saying that the 22A is the be-all and end-all, or better than any other, but that's what I've got and I like it a lot. Easy to take down, easy to clean, rock solid reliable, great trigger and very accurate with the right ammo.
Two things to be aware of: the mag release is in a location unlike any other gun I've ever seen.
I actually like the setup because its ambi, without having to have extra buttons or complicated mechanisms.
The mag release is in the center of the front of the grip, rather than on the side(s). Takes a little getting used to, and if you're planning on using this to train to use your carry gun, not recommended, but, as a lefty myself, I wish more guns were set up that way. It's very convenient for me.
Second: It does come with a built-in rail...but I have yet to find any off the shelf optics that fit the slots in that rail. I don't know what they were thinking when they decided on the spacing of the slots, but if you're going to try to fit a red-dot or other optic, you'll probably have to file or mill an additional cross-slot into the rail to get it to work.
Food for thought.
Ruger Mk III. If you can find a Mk I or Mk II, that would be even better, since those don't have the lawyer features. It's a rock-solid reliable platform that will outlive your great-grandchildren. I've never had ammo issues with my Mk III, and Dad has (AFAIK) never had issues with his Mk I, which is older than I am. Both are dead accurate and consistent. There is a wide variety of accessories, and they are easy to find.
If you like the grip angle better, the 22/45 would be nearly as good, but it does have a polymer frame rather than steel. Also, accessories are a little less common than for the Mk I/II/III series, but still fairly easy to find.
The Ruger disassembly does takes little practice, but it's not really that difficult. I wouldn't let that affect your decision.
Caveat: Dad's Mk I is the gun I learned to shoot with almost 30 years ago, so I may be a bit biased on the subject. :)
Thanks for the comments everyone.
The reason the Buckmark is not on the list is because it's not safe.
And by that, of course I mean that our Betters have decreed that it cannot be sold in Massachusetts because it is not on the Approved Firearms Roster {spit}.
Like I said, I still can't decide which of the three to get - they've all got their good points and little-to-no bad points.
I like the Smith because it's crazy accurate, very affordable, and it comes with a Weaver rail integral to the pistol. That's a neat feature. The bull barrel version is insanely accurate - certainly more accurate that I can wring out of it.
The 22/45 has the grip angle of the 1911 going for it, so it makes a natural trainer for a 1911, which I know Brad wants to get down thre road.
The Mark III is just a classy looking gun, with a hint of the Luger styling for way-cool retro rimfire goodness. Plus they're well-built (albeit a bit over-lawyered) and will last a lifetime and then some.
I know! Buy all three! :)
Hey Jay I have all three-
The 22A is very accurate but somewhat cheaply contructed.
The MkIII and the 22/45 comes down to grip choice and if a composite lower bothers you...
My preference:
1-22/45
2-MKIII
3- 22A
all good choices!
The MKIII or 22/45 are better choices because of the ease of customization and potential use as Bullseye target pistols.
The 22/45 has different mags than the standard ruger 22's.
Right now with the 100 year anniversary anything to do with 1911is a hot item. Mags and parts may get harder to find in the future if Ruger stops production a year or two down the road.
Jay, re: the rail on the Smith.
Most, if not all, of the Mk III variants come pre-drilled and tapped, so you can use either a conventional optic mounting or the weaver rail that is included with it. The rail isn't pre-mounted, but does come with it in the box.
Of the four variants, only the "Standard" has a tapered barrel - all the others are bull barrels. I wouldn't recommend the Standard anyway, since it comes with fixed sights. The Target and higher all have adjustable sights.
Another one for the 22/45, though I wish the model with replaceable grips was around when I got mine. The breakdown is made 10x easier if you do away with the mag disconnect. All it requires is changing the hammer bushings to Mk II bushings and tossing away the disconnect. However, doing that would make it "unsafe" by MA standards.
All Good Choices, a bad choice can't be made really. Tho I'd pick the S&W just because I HATE guns that come apart with difficulty.
Still to be different I'll mention my S&W617. Holds 10 shots like the other boys. Sick accurate. Also works very well as a "trainer" for .38 or .357 Magnum smiths.
The reason why I have one (and stomached the twice the New MSRP of the guns listed...got mine used for a much better deal) is because it will digest ANY ammo you feed it.
High Velocity, low velocity, the Wolf Match ammo that feels like it was dipped in roofing tar, to ammo a buddy of mine found in his attic where the wax on the bullets was starting to oxidize into white dust.
Bang Bang Bang (OK a few of those old crappy rounds had bad primers)
And you can easily shoot 500 rounds without your fingers being a bloody pulp from those sharp magazine lips.
Just sayin'
Oh, and the one MAJOR dif betweeen either Ruger and the Smith (or the Sig for that matter) is it will eat just about any ammo you can find, and spit it right out the barrel.
I happen to be of the opinion that a .22 is not entitled to add to the ever-lengthening list of things I can't get through life without knowing how to do. There's a Ruger MkII (or rather, a complete, partially-assembled set of the components of one) sitting on one of my less-useful kitchen counters. It's been there since 2007. It's not likely to ever be anywhere else, seeing as how my .22 needs are quite adequately met by guns that _don't_ require me to learn to do tricks.
Not to mention that the whole reason I took it apart to begin with is because it never fed reliably. And I found the magazines annoying to work with.
Sorry you can't buy a Buckmark...I love mine. Of the three on that list, though, I'd go with the Smith, definitely.
Oh, and one last plug for the Rugers. Not only do they feed damn near any .22lr ammo, you can use the ubercool (though poorly named) Ultimate Clip Loader. http://www.mcfaden.com/cliploader.html
Loads a ruger mag in seconds, no sore (or cut, Weerd) thumb. Best thing since sliced bread.
A used MkII is the way to go. A stainless steel one can be kept running by blowing it clean with Bore Blaster or equivalent then oiled. Reduces the number of times you have to strip it. There are several videos on the web that show how to strip and reassemble a MkXX or 22/45. Watch them closely 3-4 times and you'll have no problem. There are several magazine loaders that will save your thumbs from sharp magazine lips. None cost more than $5 and well worth it.
And to muddy the waters ... Ruger just introduced the Single Ten. A Single Six revolver with a 10 round cylinder.
Jay,
Thx for the post and to all those who answered, thank you for the insight.
I've already handled all three of my choices, and do like the way the 22/45 fits my hand. All three point reasonably well for me and feel natural. If I get the Smith 22a, I'd almost immediately dispatch the target grips to more narrow ones. I have small-ish hands so the width of the target grips would be a hinderance to me.
At this point I think my choice will the Ruger 22/45, for fit, for similarity of controls to the 1911 and cost. I got an email blast from a local "fun store" that was offering the 22/45 for the whopping good price of $269.99.
So again to Jay and all who responded . . Thank You & see you at the range.
- Brad
I chose the Ruger 22/45 with the replaceable panels mainly on looks and feel. I hate the feel of the standard 22/45. It's too slick for my sweaty palms and too narrow for my hands. The S&W 22a suffers from too close a resemblance to the Sigma which I can't get past. I really like the Ruger MkIII Hunter in stainless for overall great looks and feel, but it's $150 more than the 22/45RP.
I prefer the Mk III to the 22/45 because of the difference in the slide release. The 22/45 release is a small button that must be pushed down after a magazine change, and it is difficult for elderly arthritic fingers to operate. I put an extension on my mother's 22/45, and it is now easy for her to work. The Mk III bolt can be slingshotted down, or you can use the slide release, which is easier to press than on the 22/45.
Complaints about the reassembly of these pistols made me nervous, but if you read and follow the instructions, and THINK about what the hidden hammer is doing, you will master the skills needed quickly. It really should not be a big deal for anyone to learn. Ruger has some excellent instructional videos on YouTube that demonstrate the takedown and reassmbly.
Just to throw a rench into the decision making process, is the Browning Buckmark MA compliant?
Reese,
Buckmarks are not on the MA approved handgun roster. The state considers them too unsafe for use subjects to own. There are two ways for me to get a buckmark, both with very low probability of success:
1) Buckmark owner moves into MA from another state, and using state form FA-10, enact a private transaction to purchase the pistol.
2) The buckmark in question was registered in the state prior to October 1998 -- that's when the current law was enacted -- and buy it from an FFL who can document the gun's history or buy it from the owner again using MA FA-10.
Neither makes much sense to me.
- Brad
The 22/45 runs about $211 wholesale. You can find one for well under $300 in perfect shape. It also has the advantage of grip, which I think is excellent and mirrors the rake of the 1911.
I have two that I use for teaching guns and most of my students love them. (Some prefer the Smith and Wesson model 17).
I had this exact dilemma less than a year ago when I bought my first firearm, and I ended up with a MK 3, target version (bull barrel).
My rationale with the 22A was that it was an inferior Model 41, and that while I wanted inexpensive, I didn't want "cheap." There may be no truth to that, but that's what I felt.
So I handled the 22/45 and the Mk 3, and the Mk 3 seemed more "natural."
I hated the field strip the first few times I did it, but after a half-dozen times it's "just" mildly annoying. Pro tip: as you watch videos explaining how to do it, realize they are doing it with well-broken-in firearms. Your new model will be much more snug and require a LOT more elbow grease at first.
Post a Comment