Small .22 pistol I'm thinking about

I tried my .22 WMR Charter Arms Pathfinder some better. I think you could hit a squirrel with this one at 15, cause this squirrel is probably half the size of a real one.

path.jpg


Finally I used my .22 Ruger Mark 1
mk1.jpg


My conclusion. I like the Mini Master it's my trail gun but if I was really going to take a pistol to harvest game with rather than just have it for security I'd bite the bullet on the weight and take the Mark 1.:thumbdn:
 
Ruger "Convertible" revolver: (.22 and .22 wmr)

"Very interesting for hunting and general field use are the "convertible" .22 single action revolvers, which come with a cylinder chambered for the .22 LR, and a second cylinder chambered for the .22 WMR. "

OMT
 
task force k said:
Doc, Are yours the mini's or the four-inch barreled Mini-Master that Shotgun was asking about?
Click to expand...

My two .22 Mag. NAA minis have 1-5/8" barrels and the bare minimum sights. My .22 LR version has the shortest barrel length and the same sights. It's about a 5 foot shooter I'd say. :D
 
Dylside said:
For that price, I think you could hire a professional hunter for a few hours to kill everything within a 10 mile radius and you could pay someone to clean and cook it all for you. Might even be able to afford someone to chew it for you..
Click to expand...

Yeah, the standard rule of thumb with Smiths is that the model number is the MSRP.

Have owned damned near every .22 pistol out there over the last 35 years or so.

First and foremost, not a single one of them even remotely qualifies as a "self-defense" gun.

Second, yeah, a good gun is heavy. Yeah, deal with it. I have climbed 14,000-footers, know all about how heavy every ounce can become. My current choice: a Smith 629, 6" ported barrel. Good bear gun, good self-defense gun, and with light handloads, a good all-around gun.

Expense. Yeah, a food, quality gun will set you back a chunk of change. Deal with it. What's your life worth?

If you insist on a .22, I agree with most that the Ruger MKII is the way to go.
 
Robert H said:
I just picked up a Ruger 22/45 with a 4" barrel for 209.00, brand new. You could shoot it at 25' all day long and hit every time.
Click to expand...

You can't go wrong with Ruger! I have been shooting my old mark 1 for 15+ years and it was old when I bought it. The 22/45's are even lighter than the standard handles. (buy you got to be sure to try the fit to your hand. I like the feel of the 22/45 grip, but my hand is too big, it gets in the way when I try to eject the clip.....but you won't be disapointed with any of the ruger .22 autos).......although they will weigh significantly more than that little .22 revolver you were looking at).
 
Anyone use one of these and can give opinions? http://www.naaminis.com/bwmm.html. I'm thinking of the mini-master. I want something small and lightweight that can get small game out to 25 yards or so when I'm out camping. Everything else has been either big and bulky or marginal as to it's effectiveness as a weapon.

I have a North American Arms that shoots a 22 mag. It will not work for hunting out to 25 yds. I use a Ruger Mk1 that I bought used, it shoots really well and could easily get small game out to 25 yds. It is a little heavy and bulky for hiking. As far as a weapon-- I suppose it could be a weapon since you could put several shots of 22 cal. into a target fairly quickly but a larger caliber should be considered to be effective in regards to stopping power.
 
Anyone use one of these and can give opinions?
Click to expand...

About six posts back! Last one on page 4.

Anyway here is the target with the shotshell on it too. I hit it a few times. Even missed the paper a five out of 15 times.
Click to expand...

It just isn't accurate at all. This guy's post mirrors what I heard when I asked the same questions on a gun forum about a year ago. I ended up with a new Ruger Mark III.
 
I agree with Robert H–the 22/45 Ruger would be an excellent choice. To hit requires sights. Sights require a barrel. Survival requires dependabiity. So a gun with a 3+" barrel that's dependable can only be so small. The Ruger's a good one as it's accurate and quite light. A small revolver would be good as well, and allows more ammo versatility. My 2 cents.
 
nemoaz said:
It just isn't accurate at all. This guy's post mirrors what I heard when I asked the same questions on a gun forum about a year ago. I ended up with a new Ruger Mark III.
Click to expand...

I think mine is accurate. I mean if you put it on sandbags or in a vise it would shoot decent I believe.

The problem is that it is way more difficult to shoot accurately for me anyway.

You got the little grip, and combine that with a pretty stiff trigger. So you got the potential to pull it off the target with the trigger and not a lot to hold onto to keep it steady.

When I shoot it several times a week I get better and better with it. But how many of us shoot that much.

So if I was gonna carry something pretty much to really shoot game with I'd go for something that I could pick up after a month or more of not shooting it and connect with the target in a real way.
 
Just to be clear. If I were to go out hunting I would take my scoped 10/22. This would be strictly for opportunistic shots when camping. Also, when I said weapon I meant against things smaller than a basketball. To anything else, it's just something that makes noise. I did have a Browning Buckmark 5.5 field and that thing was sweet it was just a pain to clean and seemed to rust just looking at it. Never had that bad of a problem with any other gun and I didn't even abuse that one.:D Not to mention it was an awkward shape to get a good holster for. The Rugers plain just don't fit my hand. Both the Mk3's and the .22/45's just feel awkward. So, knowing that I do well with J-frame Smith's, I think that will be the next one to try.
 
nemoaz said:
About six posts back! Last one on page 4.



It just isn't accurate at all. This guy's post mirrors what I heard when I asked the same questions on a gun forum about a year ago. I ended up with a new Ruger Mark III.
Click to expand...

LOL...he's just quoting the original post.
 
tyr_shadowblade said:
A pocket-sized, single-action, .22 magnum revolver/derringer certainly isn't for everyone . . . but it works VERY well for its intended purpose (when fired by someone who knows what they're doing). It is used to gut shoot an attacker at point blank range. The tiny high-velocity slug is also well capable of penetrating the brain pan of a human or canine. And, for such a tiny gun, it is LOUD.
Click to expand...

If the attacker has sensitive ear drums, it just might work ! :rolleyes:

I cannot fathom how a sensible case can be made for one of these guns. Is it better than NO gun? Of course, but I didn't think that was the issue being discussed. I thought a gun choice could be made in advance.

Has a gun like this worked before? Yes. I know of at least one incident where it did work sufficiently. (the badguy ran away) But that's like saying you drove a car cross-country on bald tires once......sure, it can be done but it's not recommended.

A .22 magnum in the gut would certainly hurt....if the badguy was feeling any pain at all. Even if he could, a gut shot won't likely stop someone from completing the act you just shot them for. In fact, you probably just triggered some major rage on his part. :eek:

Shoot them in the eye/head? Sure......if you can hit a dodging, darting, weaving bobbing target with a hard to shoot and hit with mini gun......presuming you got it cocked and aimed in time to attempt the shot.

Not to burst anyone's bubble, as "everyone knows what they're doing with their gun" (online, at least !) but do they really? To what standard are they comparing to? For example, from a standing position, hands at sides, could you draw, fire and hit a sheet of typing paper at 5 yds in 1.5 seconds? How about if the sheet of paper was bobbing up and down? Let's say you ass-ume that you'll be able to start with gun in hand, hidden from view....uncocked, can you do the above in one second or less? Less than 3/4 of a second?

How about adding a second target? Can you hit the second one (presuming you hit the first) in under an additional 1/2 second? Add a third.......etc, etc.

Choose it if you wish, but I've never heard of anyone wishing they had a smaller, lighter gun when shooting for their life.

.
 
I have a Ruger 22/45, which is highly recommeded. Another neat trail gun is one that Kimber used to import; the Daewoo DP-52. It is a very well-made, quality handgun that is compact, reliable and accurate. You might find one somewhere, used....

DP52.jpg


Stay sharp,
desmobob
 
What about the Ruger Bearcat? its light and small, the only possible drawback is the lack of adjustable sights.
However one of the name gunsmithing shops do offer installation of adjustable sights for the Bearcat.
 
tyr_shadowblade said:
A .22 magnum firing a +P TNT round at over 1000 fps will transfer 100% of its energy into the target upon penetration and subsequent fragmentation.
Click to expand...
Hollow points often won't expand when fired out of a NAA or even a longer barrel pistol. Here's a well known cite showing the lack of expansion when fired into ballistic gellatin (scientifically simulates flesh) http://www.brassfetcher.com/NAAminiRevolver22Magnum.html

Not saying I want to get shot with 5 22 mags... just that they don't explode when hitting flesh like they do out of a rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top