TargetTalk

I guess I can't resist this discussion... I've owned a few pistols over the years, and my safe currently holds a Ruger MKII, a pair of S&W 41's, a Pardini SP1 Electronic and a pair of Matchguns MG-2's. Now, with all that inventory one would think I shoot a lot of Standard Pistol or similar, but I don't. In fact, I shoot that game pretty infrequently.

So why would I mention the fact that I shoot semi-auto 22's in sustained fire only infrequently? It's only to highlight one point - that you get what you pay for.

In Standard Pistol I worked my buns off to make an average score around 80% when shooting the S&W 41. I never got close to that score with the Ruger. When I bought my first MG-2 the first night i took it to the range happened to be a league match so I had little option but to shoot the Standard Pistol match if I wanted to shoot my new toy.

Man, was I surprised when I discovered that in slow fire I was running scores in excess of 95%! Then came timed fire, and I still shot better than 90%. This was hard for me to believe. Of course, the proof is always in the pudding, and in the rapid fire section of the match I succeeded in barely breaking 80%. Overall I shot an average score just a hair over 90%, with a brand-new pistol.

So here I was with a pistol that cost twice as much as my Model 41, but which seemed more like a shooting wand than a pistol, turning in scores that amazed me. After this session at the range I spent a long time wondering why I had allowed myself to suffer for so long with a pistol that, although of excellent quality, didn't posess the necessary design features to make it successful in achieving high scores in my hands.

In retrospect, I wish I had hung in there with the Ruger for a while longer and saved enough money to go from it straight to a higher-end Euro pistol. While the Ruger was a great starter gun, I found it so frustrating that I moved up to something more "shoot-able" fairly quickly. Once again, some folks will find the Ruger to be just fine and will shoot it forever. Unfortunately the Ruger just doesn't fit me very well.

One other issue with the Ruger is that it is unlikely that you "will shoot it forever". MIT used them for the physical education pistol classes many years ago, and they wore out much faster than the High Standards and Model 41's they have used at other periods. Maybe the new ones are better, and I don't recall what died on them, but they lasted about 4 years, admittedly with very heavy use. The High Standards they replaced easily lasted two to three times that long, and they have been shooting Model 41's for over 20 years (admittedly with occasional overhauls by S&W).

I view the Ruger as a good beginner's pistol, but most people around here seem to go for the Buckmark instead. I haven't paid enough attention to either the Buckmark or the new Rugers to know what the differences are. Certainly the Ruger seems more common in shops and I suspect there are a lot more aftermarket gadgets available for them.

I had been looking for an entry level 22 for quite some time. I asked a lot of questions here, and did my homework. For my first 22 I got an IZH 35m. The primary reason was the price. After shooting a Ruger, Buckmark, High standard and Trailside, I couldn't be happier. If I had the Money, I'd go ahead and take Nichole Hamiltons advice and go directly to the Pardini!