GunTalk-Online.com

Maybe this has been asked before? but this is the question:
With your present day knowledge and experience, which 22lr handgun would you choose to buy?
Guidelines:
...This would be your only 22 hg you could own.
...Must be $1000 or less.
...Can be any manf./brand (I might know the ans. to this already)
...Please list specifics (barrel length, finish, sights, etc)
Pesonally this is my answer:
Ruger Mark lll Hunter
Caliber: .22 LR
Barrel Length: 6 7/8"
Grip: Half-checkered Cocobolo
Rear Sight: Adjustable
KMKIII678H

My top choice doesn't quite exist. If Beretta made it stainless, the 87 Cheetah. List is $755 for the blued one, so stainless would be more outrageous. Had the blued been less pricey, I may have bought it instead of my Mark III stainless bull barrel.

Out of what I own, it's a toss-up.

The Mark III is a bit tarnished by having to modify the LCI and mag safety, and now the cracked receivers kruzr posted don't help, either.

I love my Single Six, but it's a pain to clean.

My Bobcats are un-lawyered up jewels of compact engineering, but near useless beyond 30 feet.

So Beretta, where's my Inox 87?

Early S&W K-22 Target Masterpiece. Blue, 6", checkered grips. Closest thing to perfection I've ever seen in a .22

For the right one, I'd even consider swapping my trusty MkII straight up...

Downeaster wrote:Early S&W K-22 Target Masterpiece. Blue, 6", checkered grips. Closest thing to perfection I've ever seen in a .22

For the right one, I'd even consider swapping my trusty MkII straight up...

That's a good one to have.

If I had only one, it would be an S&W Mod 41. Since I'm not going to drop a grand on one .22, I'll just have to decide between my MKII GC, MKIII Hunter or S&W 22A w/7" barrel.

With the $1000, I would buy a Ruger MK II Target with the 6 7/8 tapered barrel. With the money left over, I would buy a VQ, sear, trigger, and extractor, a good set of grips and spend the rest on ammo.

I would also vote for the model 41. Out of the box the trigger is good enough for competition, you can get extra barrels of different lengths (with different sights), and it's the easiest .22 to clean I can think of.

It looks nice too...

Steve.

I would have to say the answer mostly depends on the intended use of the pistol in question. If you're looking for a bullseye match pistol then a M-41 is a good choice. If you're looking for a good general purpose pistol or a quality plinker than the Ruger .22 Auto is a great choice. This is not to say that the Ruger can not be a good match pistol, quite the contrary, but it does take some tweaking to tune it up for shooting conventional pistol matches. These tweaks usually will keep you under the budget limit but they do take up time to install and perfect.

Barrel length and accessories depend on the preferences of the shooter. If you are not comfortable with the pistol then you will not perform well with it. Everybody's physical make up is different, which is why there's so many variants for these pistols.

R,
Bullseye

My choice would be a Ruger. I have an old '53 4/34 Standard that I really like. No frills except for the checkered walnut grips. Looks and feels like an old pro. I also have a SS MKIII 512 full bull barrel that's outstanding. My choice would be between those two, though I have a '58 S&W mod.18 that's a beauty. One thing I don't understand is why the LCI and mag safety is so troubling to some of you. The LCI tells you you're locked and loaded, and the mag safety is not a bother at all. It's just more safe. So what's the problem? Is it just that some of you are purists and don't like the frills? If so, then why all the VQ add-ons? Just asking. TJ

Well, the LCI is a chintzy piece of plastic that has no useful purpose beyond satisfying some lawyers that the gun is safer for the average moron to handle. I can tell my LCI-less Mark III is loaded by memory, by pulling the slide back slighly and looking, or by seeing that the extractor is level with the bolt. Although I shaped my stainless replacement plug for the LCI to match the original, I seem to have fewer jams now. Also, see the thread kruzr posted in Technical about the LCI slot possibly causing cracks in three Mark IIIs. I may still wish I'd bought a Mark II.

The mag safety is somewhat pointless when it is so easy to clear a pistol. It adds drag to the hammer, increasing FTFs. And, you have to keep pulling the trigger to tear down and reassemble. Three well shaped washers replaced my mag safety and good riddance.

The only reason I went for the Mark III is I could buy new, and I love the proper magazine release they finally added. The LCI and mag safety are two negatives. I like everything else the way it came, extractor, trigger, etc.

A Mark II upper on a Mark III lower (with a Mark II hammer bushing in place of the mag safety) would be ideal !!!

Posts and photos of my mods are in Technical and Workshop.

Very good points there Ruger22. If you took away the LCI, I won't mind as it is rather chintzy. The mag safety could stay as I've owned an M1903 with one and no worries there. I always check my autos, not from memory ( I don't trust it), but by looking I do applaud the mag release. Much easier. I was just curious to why many object. I guess I found the good out weighed the bad. Thanks for your thoughts, TJ

What most people don't know (or perhaps remember) is that the original Mark II LCI was not the one in production today. It was a one-piece, all metal construction part that indexed itself directly off the rim of a loaded cartridge. The only problem was - if the solid lever was struck firmly enough, it detonated the cartridge without the operator ever interacting with the pistol's trigger. Ruger changed the design to create an indirect levering device to prevent inadvertent activation of a cartridge. I agree with most of you that they could have designed a more durable part. Is it a bad thing? No, I don't believe so but it does seem to take more individualized fitting than it is getting presently on the production line.

R,
Bullseye

I like the LCI on some pistols. The extractor sticks out beyond the slide contour, sometimes including a red spot of some sort being visible. When no round is present, the extractor is angled in below the surface of the slide. You can still see or feel a loaded indication. Neat, having a part that is already there (the extractor) do double duty.

Ruger's LCI isn't bad for letting you know there is a round in the chamber since it sticks out. They are using the same design on the SR9 except that it is on the top of the slide. S&W's LCI on my M&P is a hole in the slide/ejection port. I suppose you are supposed to peer into the hole and see brass. Ruger has a better idea if they need to have one.

Both Ruger and S&W tell you, in the manuals, not to rely on their LCI's, they tell you to pull the bolt/slide back and look into the chamber to verify.

I prefer the old-fashioned way of determining if the firearm is loaded, open the chamber and look. Helps if you have a number of different firearms to do it one way with all of them.

Just got one last year and it's a truly great pistol. Very accurate and fun to shoot. Just got a red-dot to put on it but haven't tried it out yet...should make it even better.

My choice would be a Stainless Ruger MKII with 5.5 slab side barrel and limited edition gray laminated grips with a sweet trigger. Very similar to the Olympic model. I know this gun exists because I used to own it...

22_Plinker