Which .22?

M

msiley

Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
542
So I'm thinking of getting my first .22 handgun.
The reason are as follows:
1) I'm spending a lot of money on .40 ammo and would
like to shoot even more but for less money.
2) I want a 'survival' gun and figure some type of .22 is best
due to the ability to carry a ton of ammo and targets would
be small game.
3) I'm more likely to pack or open carry a handgun then a rifle.
(esp. when I'm not planning on shooting something)
4) I eventually would like to hunt small game with it.

I'm debating between the Ruger Mark III .22LR or
the Ruger Single Six .22LR/.22 Magnum.

I'm leaning towards the Single Six because I may like
the versatility of having the .22 Magnum round.
Also, I have this idea (whether justified or not)
of a revolver being better in a survival
situation since they require less maintainance and you don't
have to worry about broken mags or jams.
The downside of the Single Six is that it is an SA, although
for hunting small game that might not be much of a downside.

What do you guys think?
 
I have two .22 handguns.

One is Browning Buckmark. Accurate, faultless so far...5,000+ rounds. Got an extra clip.

The other is the 6.5 in barrelled Ruger Single Six, with the extra cylinder. Love it.

Had a Ruger SS in the 5.5 in barrel and was terrible with it. Either I got better (unlikely) or the 6.5 gives a better sighting plane for me.

YMMV.
 
The Single Six is super rugged and will serve you well. It has nice classic lines, appears inexpensive to others and it's slow reloading time and SA is of no consequence for plinking. Downside is that it is a tad heavy. Mine has always served me well.

The Ruger Series of mark 2 or 3 is a super reliable firearm. I like mine a lot and it is of equal weight. I see the only major upside in it is more modable if you were to deceide to upgrade to a pac-lite tactical solutions barrel. Then the weapon is scope/red dot capable if your interested in that and the weight is drastically reduced. The uppers are incredible accurate.

My ruger used was 125.

Ruger MK III with Tac upper was like 550 total not including red dot.

My choice would be the single six. But you can always but a MK III now and switch to a pac lite later to help with the cost. If you don't mind the weight than it wouldn't matter anyway. Sorry random ramblings from a tired old cop who hasn't slept in a while.

.02
 
The Ruger .22 auto's are the bomb. It's just one of those things 'they' figured out how to do right.
100_0436.jpg
 
Ruger's are bombproof .22 pistols so I don't think can go wrong.

I have a single six with the LR/mag cylinders and its great. As you said it is dirt cheap to shoot, available with adjustable or fixed sights and the cowboy single action is always fun. For most shooting I use the LR and can plink for hours on a few dollars but the magnums are only slightly more expensive and were surprisingly powerful. Don't get me wrong they wont drop a large animal but the 4 inches of flame out the end of the barrel is fun.
 
The Ruger MK pistols are great guns and more accurate than most people can shoot. The Browning BuckMarks are also super guns. For me anyway, the BuckMarks are the easiest to shoot accurately than any other handgun. I can hit a soup can at 50 yds 3 out of 5 times when plinking with a BuckMark. It's 1 or 2 out of 5 with a Mk II.

I don't have a Ruger SS, but I've always wanted one. I used to use one of my uncles SS's to hunt rats in a corn crib. A box of rat shot would = hours of fun. I do have a Taurus 9 shot revolver. It's decent, but not comparable to a Ruger SS.

I'm not a big fan of the .22 mag in a handgun. Out of a handgun, without hearing protection, .22 L.R. is painful; .22 mag is "Oh frig! I think I'm deaf!" Besides that, I don't think you're getting a big gain out of a short barrel.
 
The Ruger 22 revolvers are higher maintence than their semi-auto 22 pistols.

The powder residue builds up in the revolver making spent cartrigdes difficult to eject. I had the new model single six with extra 22 mag cylinder and gave up on them. Needed cleaning too often to enjoy even a single visit to the range. No advantage to a 22 mag imo.

The semi is the more reliable, convienent, easier to maintain and because of all that, it's more fun to shoot and own.

MKIII or 22/45.
 
I've had great luck with my 9 shot Taurus Model 94 but it is heavy. I've had it about 15 years and it has hundred of rounds through it. Being stainless makes it a good outdoor gun. The thing is, for the weight, I tend to carry a .45 (like a Glock 36) or a Kahr PM9 or Glock 26 (both 9mm).

I think the Ruger and Browning autoloaders would be excellent choices too.
 
There's one thing about the single six you should consider. The bore is sized more for the slightly larger .22 mag bullet than the long rifle. It's a case of a compromise bore for two different size bullets. Not much difference, but its there, and it does affect the accuracy a little. Alot of the single sixes don't shoot as well with .22 long rifle as the magnums. More in some guns than others. I've had two single sixes, sold off both of them, but I still have the old Ruger standard model I bought when they were going for 39.95. Wouldn't part with it for all the tea in China. And I like tea.

The Ruger auto is a rugged, extremly reliable and accurite gun. Easy to field strip and clean, once you get used to it. Like has been said, theres a ton of aftermarket stuff for it. Get one with a longer barrel for the better sighting radius, and you'll have a great plinking/survival/target gun. And it won't be as damamging to your hearing if you have to shoot without ear plugs on a hunt. The magnums will leave you with a deffinate ringing in your ears.

Look around for a clean used mk2 in your neck of the woods.
 
I have a Ruger Single Six with 5.5" barrel. Nice gun if you like the western style but I could not shoot as well with it as compared to S&W's due to the long hammer drop. Also a little heavy and slow to reload. I love 22mag in rifles but in short barrels not too much advantage for the cost unless you want to carry both and shoot the same ammo. I just bought a stainless Ruger Mark III with 6+" fluted barrel. The hunter model. I really like the sights which are a shallow V with red light tube front sight. Much easier to align in hunting conditions, especially with my old eyes. I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet but I think it will be a really nice field gun. If you go for a Ruger check the Mark III verses the 45/22 as the grip is very different. I found the 45/22 too thin and not very comfortable. My experience is that Rugers are not a accurate as Smiths but I wanted a rugged field gun that's not too expensive. I have a S&W Model 41 with long barrel that is a tack driver, but it costs over $1000, so it only goes to the range.
 
What kind of .40S&W are you using? Glock and now Sig have great .22 conversion units...another option.

I have the Buckmark and love it, but it is kind of big. I also have an older J.C. Higgins Ranger, it's a 9-shot SA/DA revolver with a 5.5" barrel; very smooth action and accurate. I want to get a Ruger 22/45 Hunter, the one with the 4.5" barrel as I think that would be a great packing size for the accuracy you can get. Another option is the Single Six; the .22 mag will give you a better game-getting round. I read that pistols have about the same velocity as rifles in .22 mag...that's pretty impressive.

ROCK6
 
I've got a Ruger MK III 45/22. Great little gun. I got the 4 inch barrel so it would be a little easier to carry or pack, but I kind of wish I would have gotten the 5 1/2 for a little better accuracy. I also kind of wish I would have gotten one of the ones with either the slab sided or fluted barrels. With the light polymer frame and big heavy bull barrel the pistol feels kind of top heavy. It was my first pistol and it's been a learning experience. I'll probably trade up for one of the regular MK IIIs with the metal frame and a longer barrel eventually.

I seriously considered the Single Six when I was shopping around, but for some reason .22 revolvers just don't appeal to me despite the fact that I kind of like revolvers better than autos in general. Besides that, when you're out plinking it's fun to just squeeze off 10 rounds as fast as you can sometimes. Of course, when you're focusing on accuracy the SA revolver kind of forces you to slow down and take your time between shots. I sometimes find myself rushing a bit when all I have to do is pull the trigger for my next shot.
 
A case can be made for either one. (as evidenced by the previous posts!)

A Single Six isn't as accurate as the semi-auto. You won't use the magnums very much and you won't carry both cylinders with both kinds of ammo afield.

The revolver allows you to shoot bb caps, CB caps, shotshells, shorts, longs, long rifle and magnums. But does it really matter? Probably not, but if so, then the revolver is the one for you.

The Single Six is slow to unload, due to the New Model lockwork not allowing the chambers to perfectly align with the ejector rod, so you have to hunt for the chamber mouth nearly each time. Loading isn't quite as bad, but once you handle one that DOES align properly, you'll be all the more frustrated with the Single Six.

Should you have to use the gun as a defensive arm, the semi-auto again wins. It has 10+1 quick shots, as opposed to 6 slow ones.

A single action is tougher than a double action when it comes to abuse, but a semi-auto beats both of them. Revolvers handle neglect better, but that's a moot point, right? ;)

If you dropped your gun into the muck, the revolver has all kinds of holes for dirt to get into, while the semi-auto just has the barrel. It'd be easier to clean the semi-auto than the revolver afield.

Since you already own a .40, I'd suggest looking at the .22 as an understudy gun, so the handling skills will easily transfer over either way.

A case can also be made for the conversion kit, but if you only have the one gun (your .40) then it will likely be set up in the wrong caliber at the wrong time.

.
 
I own 3 Ruger MKII's and 1 single-six. The MKII's are much easier to shoot accurately and they are intrinsically more accurate than the single-six. Also there are a ton of after-market accessories available for them.
 
Awesome guys! The information here was priceless. I currently have
an XD40 and it doesn't have a .22 conversion kit that I know of.

So, it looks like it's going to be the Mark III. Looks like its more accurate,
easier to operate and now that I think about it it's more likely I'll be
using the LRs then the Magnums.
If I want a more powerful round I'll use a bigger gun. ;-)
 
msiley said:
Awesome guys! The information here was priceless. I currently have
an XD40 and it doesn't have a .22 conversion kit that I know of.

So, it looks like it's going to be the Mark III. Looks like its more accurate,
easier to operate and now that I think about it it's more likely I'll be
using the LRs then the Magnums.
If I want a more powerful round I'll use a bigger gun. ;-)
Click to expand...

A few people have mentioned the MKII's and I will have to agree with them. Find a good clean MKII unless you just want to have a new gun.

I have shot dozens of standards and MKII's and not had more then three or four issues and those where either dirty gun or light strikes. This is over 30 some years of shooting. Since the release of the MKIII's I have handled and shoot half a dozen and have had issues most of them. Two had to go back to Ruger and the others was traded off. I don't care for the loaded chamber indicator or the placement of the magazine release.

If you decide on the Ruger auto, I vote for a MKII over the MKIII.
John
 
I've had a couple of Mark II's - one tapered barrel, and one bull. Make sure you get a heavy barrel model, not a tapered barrel. The extra weight make a lot of difference in the ability to keep the sights on target. The lighter barrel wobbles around too much for me. The heavy one settles in just fine. It's worth the extra weight in the holster - well, to me, at least.
 
DiverDn said:
A few people have mentioned the MKII's and I will have to agree with them. Find a good clean MKII unless you just want to have a new gun.

I have shot dozens of standards and MKII's and not had more then three or four issues and those where either dirty gun or light strikes. This is over 30 some years of shooting. Since the release of the MKIII's I have handled and shoot half a dozen and have had issues most of them. Two had to go back to Ruger and the others was traded off. I don't care for the loaded chamber indicator or the placement of the magazine release.

If you decide on the Ruger auto, I vote for a MKII over the MKIII.
John
Click to expand...

Ya, I've heard of some issues with the MKIII on another forum.
Maybe I can find a dealer in the area that still has some MKIIs.
Or maybe I'll take a look at the Buckmark. I'm hoping/planning to shoot
before I buy. I know my range has a Ruger not sure about a Browning.
 
The Buckmark has the same grip angle as the XD, unless you get the Ruger 22/45 Mark II or III, but I find that grip a bit thin.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top