Ruger Mark III or Smith & Wesson 22a?? - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns >

Ruger Mark III or Smith & Wesson 22a??


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-24-2012, 02:02 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
twobilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 35
Liked 7 Times on 7 Posts
Likes Given: 38

Default

I have both the MkIII and the S&W 22A personally I like the balance and the way the Ruger shoots but that is just me both are good pistols.
twobilly is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 03:28 PM   #12
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7
Liked 22315 Times on 12477 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

having handled both, i found the ergonomics on the Ruger Mk III 22/45 much better that the 22A. so i ended up buying the Ruger. personally i like the Ruger much better, but it comes down to what feels more comfortable to you. and if you decide on the 22A, Smith & Wesson has an excellent reputation for quality as well.
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 10:26 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 69
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

my S&W 22a EATS ANYTHING AND IS A TACK DRIVER. But its hard to beat a Ruger MK.
druryj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 10:49 AM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bedford Texas
Posts: 2,893
Liked 73 Times on 47 Posts
Likes Given: 16

Default

The grip on the 22A leaves a lot to desire. I bought my wife a Bull Barrel MKII about 20 years ago, and probably 30,000 rounds through it and it still shoots like new. GET A RUGER.
mark_ii.jpg  
__________________
*** Don't Mess With TEXAS ***
Μολὼν λάβε
Mark F is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 01:38 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 848
Liked 520 Times on 279 Posts
Likes Given: 114

Default

I used to own the 22A and hated it. There is a recoil buffer in the gun that is little more than a plastic pad. They crack so often that I'm told new guns come with several. Mine was an early release and it only had what was in the gun. Once the recoil buffer cracked it became a jam-o-matic.

Shame because other than the lack of reliability, it's a good gun. Except even in a .22 auto I expect to get through a whole magazine at least on occasion with jamming. My brother-in-law has it now and got replacement parts. He says it works much better but I've moved on to other guns.

If you're choice is a Ruger vs. S&W, go with the Ruger.
CrazedJava is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:57 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Morgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 299
Liked 35 Times on 26 Posts
Likes Given: 10

Default

I like the MKII series of Rugers a lot, not a fan of the S&W 22a. I'd go the MKIII.
Morgo is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 05:11 AM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 238
Liked 41 Times on 26 Posts
Likes Given: 14

Default

The 22a is a economy smith and wesson. It is desighned for people who cannot afford a model 41.The early 22a models had cracking problems that have been fixed. They are desighned to have the quick change barrels so you can have various barrels for them like a model 41.
I personaly would go with the ruger unless you are willing to spend the extra money for the model 41. The model 41 is definately the economy gun the ruger and 22a are but you dont get them at a economy price either. I own to model 41 smith and wessons.
onenut58 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 03:26 AM   #18
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,942
Liked 3595 Times on 1847 Posts
Likes Given: 401

Default

I have a 22A that I got for a ridiculous price. Extremely accurate. Never a problem with reliabilty.
__________________
In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball
robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 03:41 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 101
Liked 9 Times on 7 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

I am still new to handguns and I asked shooters I know what is a good first gun for target shooting and they recommended the Ruger. I got the MKIII and have been very happy with. Fun and easy to shoot and I haven't had any problems with the cheaper ammo.
I did put a different front site on mine that was easier to see and found there were a number of different upgrades available for the Ruger, both sights and other parts.

ken
kjdeut is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 03:47 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
1911love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,488
Liked 644 Times on 389 Posts
Likes Given: 12

Default

I have a MkIII with target sites, 5.5" bull barrel, blue finish. It came drilled and tapped(came with the mount too) and two 10rnd mags. Shoots like a dream. It's a tack driver and will eat anything. Best part, I picked it up NIB for $289 a couple of years ago. Get a Ruger!
1911love is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Smith and wesson 500 mtgrizzlymn Revolver Handguns 3 09-10-2012 12:00 PM
Smith & Wesson 442 vs Ruger LCR glockzombie Revolver Handguns 11 07-31-2012 02:38 AM
Smith and wesson jsinsak Revolver Handguns 4 03-02-2012 04:11 PM
Smith & wesson face1ess AR-15 Discussion 10 02-23-2012 06:06 PM
Smith & Wesson 638 Flint Rock Range Report 4 12-14-2009 11:42 AM



Newest Threads