[dragunovsks]

Actually Matt, a conversion kit for my 1911 is one thing I'm currently saving for. Maybe when I get my tax money I'll get either a conversion kit or a .22 pistol.

[Clem]

There isn't that much difference in price between a good .22 conversion for a 1911 and a good .22 like a Ruger MK III. I have a couple of MK IIIs and a Marvel No. 1 conversion for the 1911. While I like both of them, I like the Ruger MK III 512 better, but at the moment, I really prefer revolvers: S&W Model 17, 617, 63, etc. Just a matter of personal preference.

[dragunovsks]

I went to a local gunstore today and looked at a couple of semi-auto .22 pistols. I looked at the Ruger Mk III (not Hunter), Ruger 22/45, Beretta Neos, and a S&W (can't remember what model). I also looked at the Taurus .22 revolver. I started this thread looking for an automatic, but my chooses are now between the Taurus and the Ruger 22/45.

I like the Ruger 22/45 because I'm used to the 1911 and the 22/45's grips and magazine release are modeled after the 1911.

[bgeddes]

First off, I like Rugers, one in my pocket right now. How ever, the two I do not like are the 10/22 and Mark III. I have seem to much BS from both models. When it was my time to buy a practice pistol in 22, the S&W 22A fit me best and shoots straight as can be. I have seen both Mark IIIs and 22/45 be so picky about ammo they won't feed anything but high end stuff. I can plink all day on $8/ 500 ammo with my Smith.

My $0.02, YMMV.

[Bighead]

Originally Posted by ScottG

Browning Buckmark Camper.

Good looking, smooth trigger, and it's accurate.

+1

The Camper model is the entry level and is an excellent all-around .22 pistol. Browning also offers many other variations of the Buckmark depending on your needs.

The Ruger MKII/MKIII pistols that you mentioned already are also excellent.

[ScottG]

Originally Posted by Bighead

+1

The Camper model is the entry level and is an excellent all-around .22 pistol. Browning also offers many other variations of the Buckmark depending on your needs.

One reason why I bought it, plus it was only $229.00....

[AsmelEduardo]

You can't go wrong with the Buckmark, any of the two is a good choice, either the Ruger or the Browning; but I do prefer the Browning Buckmark.

[stalkingbear]

The mk3 22/45 models blued, with bull barrel, and adjustable sites are selling for 239$ new. You're NOT going to come ANYWHERE close to that with comparable accuracy for that price. IMO ANY firearm should be tuned up in todays laywer proof and machined tolerance/little to no handfitting world. It's pretty funny the previous poster saying the s&w model 22a is more reliable than a Ruger as I cannot stand it when I see another 22a come in my shop (too many already). Also the s&w 22a is ergonomic nightmare.

[Txhillbilly]

I've always liked the Ruger Mk series pistols,but they feel awkward in my hands,whereas the Buckmark feels perfect. They both have quite alot of aftermarket goodies that can be added to either brand. Either one is a good pistol.

[cpttango30]

I would not buy a MkIII I dislike the "I'm Stupid" loaded chamber indicator. You should always know the status of your firearms.

THe MkII is the one I would go for in a rimfire pistol. The Browning Buckmark is another winner.. I have a Ruger MkII and a Beretta Neos. The ruger will shoot rings around the Beretta but they are two different pistols.. My ruger is deadly accurate out to 50 yards my neos is a more modern pistol that is more fun to shoot and burn up ammo with. I like the neos because it has a full length rail on it that allows me to mount my red dot on it.