Of course getting a consensus on anything is about as likely as Paris Hilton graduating summa cum laude - But I'll give it a try anyway.
Is there a consensus on what's the best sub $500 .22 target pistol for 50' bullseye shooting? My guess is that it's still a Ruger (MKIII512 with 5 1/2" bull barrel). But possibly with release of the newer Ruger MKIII's with their questionable 'improvements', are experts now recommending an alternative? For example, is there an obscure low cost import .22 Target pistol that not many know about.
Mike M. wrote:Baikal Izh-35. Nothing else under $1K touches it.
I would agree with that. But EAA has stopped importing them into the US, meaning it's becoming difficult to find them.
So what's left? For my money, the best choice and best value in an inexpensive target pistol still available new in the US is the S&W 22A, about $330 with the bull barrel or $230 with the light barrel.
The biggest reason I favor it over the Ruger is that it's actually possible to reassemble the 22A after stripping and cleaning. The Ruger is true pain in the neck: You have to turn it upside down and get things lined up just right and even with the manual there in front of you, it's still nearly impossible. It's so bad, most instructors I know flat-out refuse to use them when demonstrating how to clean a gun in a Basic Pistol class. (And note: This is the instructor refusing to try to do it himself in front of the class, not the instructor refusing to try to coach the students while they attempt it; that's just simply out of the question! :)
Now that's a new one - choose a match gun based on ease of field stripping!?!?
For sure the Ruger is tedious but you develop the skills after a few takedowns.
You know what would be less likely than Paris earning a college degree?? A gunsmith willing (or even able) to do a trigger job on a SW22A. The Smith is a piece of crap suitable only for plinking.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with competing with one if that's what you already have. However, spending $500 on buying one for competition purposes is a total waste of good money and a very poor choice.
Can you even purchase any kind of fitted or anatomical grips for a 22A??
Guest wrote:The Smith is a piece of crap suitable only for plinking. ... However, spending $500 on buying one for competition purposes is a total waste of good money and a very poor choice. Can you even purchase any kind of fitted or anatomical grips for a 22A??
A. Tell us what you really think.
B. Why would you pay $500 when the going price is half that?
C. Why would you waste money putting an anatomical grip on any entry level gun?
Correction - spending ANY PART of $500 on a SW22A is crappy advice.
The beauty of the Ruger MKII or III it that it will take you well beyond entry level scores with some practice and the vast number of upgrades you can make to it - like anatomical grips.
Yeah - every once in awhile you have to take it apart and clean it.
Most economical and serviceable:
Ruger
Used S&W 41
Very competitive but service and magazines not easy to find
Used High Standard
Fairly economical, but longevity is suspect IMO
Trailside/Xesse
All these are competitive for bullseye. What fits you is a deciding factor. Every one of them will probably need accessories and upgrades to really suit you as you progress in skill.
The Ruger reassembly is NOT hard at all if you just look inside and see what the hammer strut is doing.
The Ruger takes real well to an added BoMar rear sight. The sight picture is much improved.
Guest wrote:The beauty of the Ruger MKII or III it that it will take you well beyond entry level scores with some practice and the vast number of upgrades you can make to it - like anatomical grips.
Don't be silly. No serious shooter does that in international shooting, though maybe you see it in NRA bullseye. Within a couple seasons in international, most folks go directly to a European target pistol.
jackh wrote:Thats quite a leap from the topic question on "best sub $500 .22 target pistol for 50' bullseye shooting"
The forum is Olympic Pistol and my point was that spending a lot of money upgrading an entry level gun tends to be the mark of cluelessness. You see it occasionally in NRA BE, where there's more of a "buy American" attitude and, historically, less familiarity with really fine European guns. But you almost never see it in international shooting, even in a 50' league, because in those circles, shooters are usually much more aware that moving up to a European target gun is a better choice.
Bear in mind there's a limit to what you can upgrade on an entry-level gun: The most important upgrade would be to a fully-adjustable 2-stage trigger but that's the one thing you can't do. And whatever you spend, you'll never get it back in resale. This is why I recommend to beginners, buy an inexpensive gun and lots of ammo, shoot it a lot, go into competition and have fun and when you're ready (i.e., your skills are there and you know what you like), go straight to a Pardini or similar-quality gun.
I favor the Browning Buckmark as an entry-level gun for <$500. The trigers tend to be much better than the Ruger.
And, on a side note: There's nothing wrong with rejecting an entry level gun because of its takedown. If you spend more time putting it back together than you do at the range with it, or any signifigant portion thereof, it's not a good choice.
Fred Mannis wrote:So what Joe has learned from this thread, is not to ask questions about BE shooting on this forum
I don't think so. I think what we've learned is that Fred doesn't realize that there's really no difference in how you choose an entry-level gun for BE versus international.
Guest wrote:The beauty of the Ruger MKII or III it that it will take you well beyond entry level scores with some practice and the vast number of upgrades you can make to it - like anatomical grips.
Don't be silly. No serious shooter does that in international shooting, though maybe you see it in NRA bullseye. Within a couple seasons in international, most folks go directly to a European target pistol.
I also own a S&W 22A and a Ruger MKII. The 22A is easily the better of the MKII out of the box. It also comes with a readily modifiable wood laminate grip. I just have to replace firing pins every couple of thousand rounds. If I was more serious about pistol shooting a Hammerli or Pardini would be in the works as I am an equipment junkie. I agree that entry level is entry level. You don't add a $300 Anschutz 5018 trigger to a Marlin 2000. Neither should you try to make an international style pistol out of an entry level target pistol. Too many people I know try to buy themselves into better shooting when all they need is more range time and ammo.
I have been coaching collegiate pistol for 30+ years. As you may know we shoot Free, Standard and Air Pistol in college competition. We use Ruger MkIIs and old High Standard's (>25 years old) for our initial training. We find that these both work fine for 50' courses. I actually prefer the Ruger as the "first gun" because it is so easy to cock and can be dryfired forever whereas you better not dryfire the old High Standards without a dryfire plug if you don't want to destroy the barrel. I also find that these guns give us few malfunctions even though they are so old. For collegiate competition after initial training we use Pardini's, Walther's, Hammerli's and Unique's for Standard Pistol.
jackh wrote:Thats quite a leap from the topic question on "best sub $500 .22 target pistol for 50' bullseye shooting"
The forum is Olympic Pistol.....
So what Joe has learned from this thread, is not to ask questions about BE shooting on this forum
Sorry, but I'm just a poor speller. I thought that Bullseye was spelled O l y m p i c :)
Thanks for the suggestions. I was hoping that there was a 'readily available' but still somewhat obscure .22 Target pistol that those in the international/Olympic community knew all about. The Baikal looked like a great suggestion - but they seem to be hard to come by now - plus I have my doubts about having one serviced. I guess that new High Standards are also frowned upon.
Maybe I should apply another common rule-of-thumb for gun buying and that is just to pick the one that looks the best :)
Actually, would ergonomics be an important factor in the decision since there doesn't appear to be a hands down <$500 favorite? For example, my accuracy seems to be noticiably better shooting pistols with a steeper grip angle (i.e., GLOCK) than just about everything else.
Hence, would the Ruger MKIII with it's steeper grip angle be a better choice than a Browning Buckmark or S&W 22A?
"Best" grip angle needs to be determined by each person. The "best" angle needs to be determined by trial and error. Too steep an angle can cause some people severe elbow pain after a very short time due to hyperextension. Try as many different guns as you can get your hands on and see what works. Do lots of "natural point of aim determination" exercises.
PaulB wrote:Try as many different guns as you can get your hands on and see what works. Do lots of "natural point of aim determination" exercises.
Paul is giving you some really good advice here. If you're contemplating shooting in a local league, go out there when they're getting ready for a match and ask if you can handle (and maybe dry fire) some of the guns people have brought. Most shooters are really proud of their guns and delighted to show them off to new shooters. Who knows? If they're running several relays, you might even find someone will volunteer to loan you their gun to shoot the match. The gun community has a lot of really nice people.
Also, you're smart to pick up on grip angle as an important part of the ergonomics that will distinguish one gun from another. For example, when I moved up from my own 22A to a Pardini, not a Hammerli, it was because the angle on the Pardini was a better fit for me (more vertical.)
