What's the best 22? - Page 4
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns > What's the best 22?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-19-2013, 05:22 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
GlockBurg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: VA
Posts: 80
Liked 5 Times on 5 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Awesome, thx!

__________________
Be the person your Dog thinks you are
GlockBurg is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 05:55 PM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sentry18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 162
Liked 32 Times on 21 Posts
Likes Given: 42

Default

Quote:
I just don't like the idea if my weapon being made from an airsoft company.
Glock used to make window fittings before entering the gun game. Tons of non-gun companies, like Smith Corona the type writer company, made 1911's and/or rifles during WWII. None of that has anything to do with their ability produce good guns. Umarex makes guns for Walther, S&W, Colt, H&K, etc. If they were not producing good guns why would all these major gun manufacturers still be contracting with them to make guns they put their own brand names on? The answer is they wouldn't.
__________________
Sentry18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 07:58 PM   #33
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fivefourfiveX39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 85
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentry18

Glock used to make window fittings before entering the gun game. Tons of non-gun companies, like Smith Corona the type writer company, made 1911's and/or rifles during WWII. None of that has anything to do with their ability produce good guns. Umarex makes guns for Walther, S&W, Colt, H&K, etc. If they were not producing good guns why would all these major gun manufacturers still be contracting with them to make guns they put their own brand names on? The answer is they wouldn't.
LOOK it's made if an inferior metal called ZAMAK a zinc alloy many people have stated and documented that there P-22's and other Uramex brands have either blew up in there face, slide cracks, stress fractures in the frame, bad magazine dimensions and not to mention some of these guns have low round count in them there is no reason for it to happen. I would understand if it was far and few between but there is a lot if cases of this happening to UMAREX products just cause a brand is stamped on the guns I.e H&K, S&W, COLT and etc does not make them a well made gun. I am sure there is great quality ones but there is to many reports of these things happening with these guns especially the P-22, I chose RUGER because of the quality materials used and the good reviews on them an I only bought it cause it is a second generation of SR-22 with its upgraded and improved parts.
__________________
fivefourfiveX39 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 08:14 PM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fivefourfiveX39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 85
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

All in all, if your going to make your own weapons then you should make them yourself not contract them to a third party because it is "CHEAPER" to manufacture solution! Everybody loves what they have because it's theirs and they cherish it so naturally there going to defend it from bias and criticism I'm just trying to give some insight into what certain weapon materials are used to manufacture guns. Most UMAREX guns use ZAMAK-2 which is the hardest of them as there is different ZAMAK strengths #2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are the qualities. ZAMAK-2 has Brinell strength if 130 and decreases as it ages to @ 80-85 Brinell it's shear strength is about 35,000 PSI so it can more than withstand the .22lr but I just prefer aluminum 7075-T6 used in my slide, but hey man the S&W 22 is a beautiful gun and I'm shure you will have tons of fun with it all I wanted to do before it became a huge argument was to tell you some specs now that you have them do with them what you will just trying to help you out on the different .22 pistols enjoy your firearms brother.

__________________
fivefourfiveX39 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 08:16 PM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Olympus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,301
Liked 430 Times on 283 Posts
Likes Given: 34

Default

I had a bad experience with a Umarex Colt Gold Cup a few weeks ago. Someone brought one to a ccw class. Good looking gun, but it was a POS in my opinion. It would not reliably feed or cycle. We tried several different kinds of ammo. It was enough to make we steer clear of them.

__________________
Olympus is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 08:18 PM   #36
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fivefourfiveX39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 85
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olympus
I had a bad experience with a Umarex Colt Gold Cup a few weeks ago. Someone brought one to a ccw class. Good looking gun, but it was a POS in my opinion. It would not reliably feed or cycle. We tried several different kinds of ammo. It was enough to make we steer clear of them.
Well glad you saw the light my friend like I stated in my comments earlier they have a bad reputation for using sub-quality materials and feeding issues could be an exact result of this!
__________________
fivefourfiveX39 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 04:27 AM   #37
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sentry18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 162
Liked 32 Times on 21 Posts
Likes Given: 42

Default

I get it, you hate Umarex and want to make sure that the OP comes to regret his purchase. Loud and clear several times over. Just the same I have an M&P 22 sitting in my safe right now with well over 1,000 rounds down range it somehow, someway it has still not blown up, shattered into a million pieces or beat up any other kids on the playground. Apparently it is just a matter of time. I will be sure and let the MANY people who own an Umarex made gun that are very pleased with them that they made a mistake and should not enjoy their guns. Thank you for rescuing us.

__________________
Sentry18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 07:26 AM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fivefourfiveX39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 85
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentry18
I get it, you hate Umarex and want to make sure that the OP comes to regret his purchase. Loud and clear several times over. Just the same I have an M&P 22 sitting in my safe right now with well over 1,000 rounds down range it somehow, someway it has still not blown up, shattered into a million pieces or beat up any other kids on the playground. Apparently it is just a matter of time. I will be sure and let the MANY people who own an Umarex made gun that are very pleased with them that they made a mistake and should not enjoy their guns. Thank you for rescuing us.
The truth only offends
__________________
fivefourfiveX39 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 10:09 AM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 460
Liked 114 Times on 88 Posts
Likes Given: 111

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivefourfiveX39 View Post
All in all, if your going to make your own weapons then you should make them yourself not contract them to a third party because it is "CHEAPER" to manufacture solution! Everybody loves what they have because it's theirs and they cherish it so naturally there going to defend it from bias and criticism I'm just trying to give some insight into what certain weapon materials are used to manufacture guns. Most UMAREX guns use ZAMAK-2 which is the hardest of them as there is different ZAMAK strengths #2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are the qualities. ZAMAK-2 has Brinell strength if 130 and decreases as it ages to @ 80-85 Brinell it's shear strength is about 35,000 PSI so it can more than withstand the .22lr but I just prefer aluminum 7075-T6 used in my slide, but hey man the S&W 22 is a beautiful gun and I'm shure you will have tons of fun with it all I wanted to do before it became a huge argument was to tell you some specs now that you have them do with them what you will just trying to help you out on the different .22 pistols enjoy your firearms brother.
Not really wanting to be anti here, but you seem to be a chicken little - running around saying the sky is falling. You seem to to trying to talk about things you don't really understand or know anything about - for the purpose of - what ? As one poster remarked - to make someone feel bad - or a bunch of someones.

Points:

One - Ruger does not specify their slide material - only that it is "aerospace aluminum" - not some specific like 7075 T6 aluminum - as you stated. You cannot know what Ruger's precise slide material is.

Two - Smith and Wesson gives their slide material of Their M&P22 as "aerospace aluminum". Sounds the same as Ruger's to me. No mention of a "Zamak". And Zamak is not an aerospace aluminum. So you have accused Smith and Wesson improperly.

Three - Your description of "Zamak" is confused - indicating that you do not understand material properties.

- Material hardness is measured in Brinell units.

- Brinell has nothing to do with strength.

- Your "look-up of Zamak shear strength is incorrect - it is 46k psi not 35k psi.

- How do you judge that 35k psi is sufficient for 22LR? This has no meaning without knowing specifics of the mechanical design. Where is shear important? What are the dimensions?

- Did you know that your 7075 T6 Al material has a shear strength of 48k psi? That is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mysterious Zamak material shear strength you are concerned about. But you say your 7075 is better. Why is it better? What is your design concern?

Four - Where is your Zamak information on all these guns coming from - it's not in the M&P22? What's with this concern?

Five - Why do you care what your slide material is made of - aluminum or any other material, for that matter? Why are you second guessing the designers of these high quality guns?

As far as concern of other companies making pistols - add the Singer Sewing Machine company to those which made Colt 1911's for the U. S. Army.

Most companies buy products made to their specifications from other companies.



Is the sky falling?
Or is it just to make people feel bad?

There are some people here that actually are engineers...
__________________
Colby is offline  
Sentry18 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 11:29 AM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
qwiksdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 366
Liked 125 Times on 90 Posts
Likes Given: 63

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivefourfiveX39 View Post
LOOK it's made if an inferior metal called ZAMAK a zinc alloy many people have stated and documented that there P-22's and other Uramex brands have either blew up in there face, slide cracks, stress fractures in the frame, bad magazine dimensions and not to mention some of these guns have low round count in them there is no reason for it to happen. I would understand if it was far and few between but there is a lot if cases of this happening to UMAREX products just cause a brand is stamped on the guns I.e H&K, S&W, COLT and etc does not make them a well made gun. I am sure there is great quality ones but there is to many reports of these things happening with these guns especially the P-22, I chose RUGER because of the quality materials used and the good reviews on them an I only bought it cause it is a second generation of SR-22 with its upgraded and improved parts.

Ditto Colby!

FivefourfiveX39, where are you getting this information? I have not read anything to the scale of catastrophe you describe. While I have read some mechanical problems in some 22 caliber guns, they certainly didn't appear to be beyond the proportions of other gun complaints, as I see it.

Also, guns don't blow up, ammo does. I have read reports of steel guns being blown apart from bad ammo. So don't blame the gun for that.
__________________
qwiksdraw is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes