Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Semi-Auto Handguns' started by keas3, Nov 17, 2012.
Pondering which would be a better gun for target shooting!?
I have never shot the Smith and Wesson but I have a Mark iii 22/45 and love it.
Tastes great, less filling. Both are good guns.
The Smith is a bit cheaper, and you can switch barrels. Downside- aluminum frame. If you go with the 22A, get the 5.5 inch barrel. Balances much better.
The Mk III has a frame mounted mag release, unlike the earlier ones that were "toe-of-the mag" releases.
You pays yer money, you takes yer pick.
Course i'm not a S&W auto kinda guy---
But I've heard that the S&W very ammo specific but the Ruger will eat anything! Anyone that has one or the other have a take on that??
I have the s&w it will shoot anything. I did have the frame break (yes crazy I know) but they replaced it.
I really like my Ruger Mk II Competition Target Model
I'd go with the Ruger. I recently got a Standard.
I bought a Ruger because the other '1911' looking' 22s all seemed to have feeding, firing or ejecting problems and were fussy with ammo. The NRA Basic class I took had Walther p22s. No one was ever was able to get through a magazine without a problem, but that also might have been due to the very cheap ammo they no doubt used for the class.
The Rugers do have a reputation to work with anything. Once in a while I'll get an ammo feed failure. I think they're more magazine spring related.
It seemed to me at the time either you got a Ruger, which fired anything but was a pain to strip & clean (it's a little tricky), or you got one of the others which were easier to field strip, but jammed ALL the time.
I got a 'Speed Strip' for mine. It works great. I'd think you'd be able to change the barrel on a Ruger. They come right off. There's LOTS of aftermarket for the Rugers.
I don't think the S&W M&P 22 had been out yet when I bought mine. It does have a good reputation for functioning with lots of brands of ammo.
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.
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.
my S&W 22a EATS ANYTHING AND IS A TACK DRIVER. But its hard to beat a Ruger MK.
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.
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.
I like the MKII series of Rugers a lot, not a fan of the S&W 22a. I'd go the MKIII.
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.
I have a 22A that I got for a ridiculous price. Extremely accurate. Never a problem with reliabilty.
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.
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!