Gun n00b here

not for wilderness survival. nope. no way. expensive to shoot unless you handload and cast bullets.

If you want centerfire look at a packable and larger longer barrel one in .32, .380, 9mm mak- plenty of imported used gun like the CZ-50 and CZ-70 that are reliable. But if you want game at 25+ yards with one, get a revolver with a 6 inch barrel- a K-32, say.
 
If you can afford the S&W 317, it is a great little gun. When you 1st pick one up it's hard to believe it's real. The Ruger Mark II is more affordable and just as reliable although a bit heavier.
 
I like the Rugers. Dead on reliability and consistent shooting. I use a Single Six because of the reliability of a revolver. Quality is needed and well worth the money.
 
fishiker said:
If you can afford the S&W 317, it is a great little gun. When you 1st pick one up it's hard to believe it's real. The Ruger Mark II is more affordable and just as reliable although a bit heavier.
Click to expand...

I have several Mark IIs. One of my all time favorite handguns, however, I carry a 317 with a 3in barrel and adjustable sights in my bag. They are expensive. I got mine several years ago and it wasn't near as much as they are now. The gun, 50 rounds of ammo, and holster combined weigh a LOT less than any of my Mark IIs. I believe a standard Mark III with the tapered 4 3/4 in . barrel weighs a tad over two pounds empty. My 317 weighs right at 12 oz. With a revolver, you open up a greater selection of functioning ammo. Around camp, we plink with shorts or, even better, Aguial Super Colibris, and it is as quiet as a pellet gun. Maybe quieter with the Aguila stuff. A chono'd the Stingers as the fastest overall, but the gun groups the Mini-mags and Velocitors (when I can find them) better, so that's what I usually carry with it, along with some shorts and shot.
 
I have a MarkII with the Bull Barrel. It is heavy ,still a blast to shoot. Its not my choice for packing around.
 
If you check out the Mark IIIs, just be aware they are equiped with a magazine disconnect. So if you lose or bugger up the mag, you don't have the option of using the weapon as a single shot, like you can with the older Mark IIs.
 
koyote said:
not for wilderness survival. nope. no way. expensive to shoot unless you handload and cast bullets.

If you want centerfire look at a packable and larger longer barrel one in .32, .380, 9mm mak- plenty of imported used gun like the CZ-50 and CZ-70 that are reliable. But if you want game at 25+ yards with one, get a revolver with a 6 inch barrel- a K-32, say.
Click to expand...

The Makarovs/CZ82s etc are great little guns and as Koyote said you can buy ammo real cheap. 22WMR does give you a considerable power boost over 22LR if you want to try taking deer with it or something... It's just not as inherently accurate.
 
I don't care for the true mini-revolvers for any use except as deep concealment back up weapons.

For the OPs stated use, I would pick a Taurus ULTRA-LITE MODEL 94 .22 LR REVOLVER

94SS2UL.jpg


Small (6-3/8" LOA), light weight (18 oz), stainless, adjustable sights and relativly inexpensive (street price around $350 new). IMO a perfect .22 "pack gun" :thumbup:
 
Mike-

I recognize that the 94 is a full swing out cylinder and has more shots, but given that the mini-master has adjustable sights, large grips, a longer sight radius, considerably more barrel length, and exchangable cylinders for .22LR and .22WMR, what's wrong with it?

I agree whole heartedly with you regarding the REALLY small deep concealment mini revolvers, but the mini-master is a good trail gun, and not small enough to be a deep concealment wallet gun.

The 94 looks nice, but how is it at bunny ranges?
 
The Ruger and Browning are my choice. Right now I am using a Browning Buckmark Camper. It functions 100 percent and is not at all picky about ammo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top