# .22 LR Target Models



## Tactical Tom (Sep 19, 2007)

Which .22LR Target Model & Why
Ruger MKII
Ruger MKIII
S&W 22A
Browning BuckMark
Beretta Neos


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

I have a Buck Mark. Great price (the basic gun), and simple to clean/maintain verses other models, I've heard.

Of course, it's now my most expensive gun... Post Mods...

But it shoots sub 1" groups at 25yds...

It now wears a Tac Sol barel and a Red Dot 4 MOA scope.

JeffWard


----------



## Dsig1 (Dec 23, 2007)

I have a Buckmark Camper. Low cost to enter and light consistent trigger are a big plus. Lot's of potential to add on as seen in JeffWard's pic which is in a word, AWESOME :mrgreen:. Now I have a new reason to like my Buckmark, for it's potential to be something more.


----------



## Hairtrigger (Oct 29, 2007)

I own a couple of Buckmarks and several Rugers. I voted Browning as I assumed everyone would vore Ruger MK2.
If you want to shoot a stock gun I say Browning, If you like to buy aftermarket parts like trigger, mag release ect then Ruger MK2 is easily my vote


----------



## PhilR. (Apr 25, 2007)

None of the models listed are "target" models. That's not saying you can't shoot at a target with one, but those models are best suited for informal shooting/plinking or hunting.

Some of them can be made into fairly decent target models with some modification. None of them will be as good as a true target model such as a Hammerli or S&W 41 or similar.

PhilR.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I voted for the Buckmark, but *PhilR.* is correct as usual. These are really all basically plinking guns and not true target pistols.


----------



## Ram Rod (Jan 16, 2008)

I have two 10/22 target models. I wasn't able to post in the poll.


> .22 LR Target Models


That's what I read. One is all carbon fiber, the other stainless heavy barrel for silhouette.


----------



## Tactical Tom (Sep 19, 2007)

*Target Model*



PhilR. said:


> None of the models listed are "target" models. That's not saying you can't shoot at a target with one, but those models are best suited for informal shooting/plinking or hunting.
> 
> Some of them can be made into fairly decent target models with some modification. None of them will be as good as a true target model such as a Hammerli or S&W 41 or similar.
> 
> PhilR.


Sorry phil, I was meaning heavy bbl . Where I got the target model from is on the MKII hvy bbl its marked .22LR "target" so I guess that makse it a target model


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

I'd recommend the RMII over the III just because I'd rather do without the extra gadgetry of a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect. That's just personal preference though.

I have no complaints about mine (a Competition Target model) aside from the steep price. The breakdown is not straightforward, but far from difficult.

I have also tried out the S&W Mod 41 which is a fine firearm.


----------



## hideit (Oct 3, 2007)

why wasn't the S&W model 41 on the list
if $$ is no object that is the hands down winner


----------



## PhilR. (Apr 25, 2007)

Tactical Tom said:


> Sorry phil, I was meaning heavy bbl . Where I got the target model from is on the MKII hvy bbl its marked .22LR "target" so I guess that makse it a target model


I gotcha. IMO this would fall into the "with modifications" area that I mentioned. Still though, putting a heavy barrel on a MK and then calling it "target" is more marketing than anything else. Although it might be a bit more accurate than a normal MK, it still wouldn't be in the same area as a true target pistol. Fun to shoot? I would think so, but you won't find any on the firing line at a high-level ISSF competition.

That being said, you can find modified versions of the MK's on the firing line at a metallic silhouette competition....

PhilR.


----------



## Tactical Tom (Sep 19, 2007)

hideit said:


> why wasn't the S&W model 41 on the list
> if $$ is no object that is the hands down winner


I agree w/ you on the 41 , I don't think alot of people have or will have this $$$$ .22LR. I was going for the models most people plink with.


----------



## WWhunter (Feb 14, 2008)

I just can't understand why its not listed, but....I use a Walther GPS.
Clay pigeons at 100 yards are dust!!!:anim_lol:


----------



## hopper810 (Jan 30, 2007)

i have a 22a and a MKIII,they are both way more accurate than i am.check the groups each one is 10 shots.


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

Voted with the Buckmark mainly cause I have one and I really like shooting it. I have a Mk III but have not got it dirty yet. I love the Mk II and it would have been my #1 until I shot the Browning. I just like the way it feels a little more. 

Can't wait to make that Mark III dirty though. It have a pretty nice feel. I do not like the front sight much but I usually always fine at least one thing to gripe about so I can tinker with em:smt082


----------



## Benzbuilder (Sep 7, 2006)

Voted for the Buckmark, because it is my backup bullseye rimfire. My primary is an old High Standard Victor, which, with the right ammo, will shoot sub inch @ 50 yds.


----------



## bluehandgun (Jul 13, 2007)

i voted buckmark. it is an accurate pistol at a great price. seems better made than a ruger (and i am a ruger fan)... i went into the gun shop to buy a ruger 22 and left with a buckmark. i have not been disappointed.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Well I just bought this over the weekend (my first gun).










Ruger Mark III Competition Target. 5.5" Slabside Bull Barrel.

Got it to compete in a local mens league that primarily shoots Bullseye. I will be adding a red dot in the future but I want to learn how to shoot it well with the stock sites first.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

PhilR. said:


> I gotcha. IMO this would fall into the "with modifications" area that I mentioned. Still though, putting a heavy barrel on a MK and then calling it "target" is more marketing than anything else. Although it might be a bit more accurate than a normal MK, it still wouldn't be in the same area as a true target pistol. Fun to shoot? I would think so, but you won't find any on the firing line at a high-level ISSF competition.
> 
> That being said, you can find modified versions of the MK's on the firing line at a metallic silhouette competition....
> 
> PhilR.


It wouldn't take much modifying either. I know the Ruger competition target models are capable (with the right ammo) of shooting 1" groups at 50 yards. Most need a little trigger work to be competitive......but I think that's all they would really NEED. Certainly you can do a lot more.....anatomical grips, all new barrels and I'll assume that most would add a good red dot. Still, a ruger with a trigger job is A LOT cheaper than a Hammerli 208.......or even a S&W 41 for that matter.


----------



## lumbermill (Jan 5, 2007)

I voted browning. I have had experience with all of these. They are all good pistols. The Beretta just seemed a bit wierd. My brother loved it so it's his now. The Buckmark was fantastic. It took a lot of squirrels this year, but my dad loved it. It now belongs to him. I sold my 22A to get a M41 7"bbl. Nobody is getting this one! I scored several squirrels with this one. Many at 40+yards. I've shot it at 100 yards and it seems to just yawn at this distance. Clay flys every time the trigger is pulled. I took the Leupold FX2 off my SRH and put it on the M41. This is quite possibly the finest small game pistol I've ever owned. My all-time favorite is still the old Colt Woodsman series. There's just something about them that makes me feel all warm inside


----------



## AZ Outlaws (Dec 3, 2007)

My vote is for the Ruger MarkIII. They are a tad difficult to field strip the first time, but once you do it and the gun loosens up, it's not a problem. 
They come in several different models. Mine is the Mark III Standard with fixed sights and a 4 3/4" barrel....


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Ok I will be contrary as usual. Sorry but i still gravitate towards the High Standard Target Model in a semi auto.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

niadhf said:


> Ok I will be contrary as usual. Sorry but i still gravitate towards the High Standard Target Model in a semi auto.


That is another excellent choice.....although it to was out of my price range to start. Good used ones go for $600+


----------



## nicknitro71 (Oct 15, 2007)

I have a Mark II, a Charger, and a Neos.

I have shot the Buckmark.

The Buckmark is the best out of the box. However the Mark II/III with a few mods (w/out even changing parts) can be just as good.

The Neos stock trigger is very bad and gunsmithing the Neos is not trivial due to the design of the retaining pins. It's actually a very simple and elengant design...just those damn pins!!! However I was able to get a nice 2 LBS trigger on it with no creep and I also installed an over-travel screw on it and the accuracy is excellent.

If I was to buy just one rimfire it would be a Ruger Mark III Competition or a 22/45 Hunter depending on what style grip you like better.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Current form of my BM...

High-speed tack-driver...

JW


----------



## skippy783 (Feb 16, 2008)

I had to vote for the S&W 22A. Have yet to shoot one, but since I just brought one home tonight (first handgun) I better be voting for it.


----------



## sfmittels (May 3, 2007)

Sorry, I didn't vote. You didn't include a "None of the above" choice. I'll take my 25-yr old S&W Model 41 over anything.


----------



## texgunner (Jul 25, 2006)

I bought a Ruger Mk III Hunter last summer and I have found it to be very accurate in my hands. 

Tex


----------



## RevDerb (Jun 4, 2008)

Apparently when people decide to post polls they also decide to limit the selections because they are already biased toward some mfg's & models and against others. Why not an "other" option. I like my Mosquito for "target" and plinking.
:draw:


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

RevDerb said:


> Apparently when people decide to post polls they also decide to limit the selections because they are already biased toward some mfg's & models and against others. Why not an "other" option. I like my Mosquito for "target" and plinking.
> :draw:


So let's have an "unbiased" poll so that everyone can vote for their "biased" choice.:mrgreen:


----------



## JONSCH (Jun 13, 2008)

walther makes the best 22 target pistols but they are more expensive. Just like a porsche vs a corvette

http://www.frankonia.de/images/products/catlist/hero/1/aaa123x01.jpg


----------



## undrgrnd (Jul 10, 2008)

RevDerb said:


> Apparently when people decide to post polls they also decide to limit the selections because they are already biased toward some mfg's & models and against others. Why not an "other" option. I like my Mosquito for "target" and plinking.
> :draw:


thats what i use mine for... a great little pistol IMO..


----------



## dannyb (Jun 17, 2008)

For target shooting I have a model 41. I've had it for years. If I'd known it was that good and that prices would go this high, I'd have bought two when I got it.

For plinking I have a Sig Mosquito. Yeah, I know what they say about it. It really is finicky regarding ammo, but mine seems to favor CCI standard velocity lead heads so I can't complain about the price. 900 rounds plus of CCI SV and not a single failure.


----------



## hideit (Oct 3, 2007)

upon further review
given your choice only the ruger mkiii in TARGET version
these are entry level 22's
if serious then the S&W m41 or
Kimber's RIMFIRE SUPER 1911 style that is suppose to be very accurate


----------



## mtlmgc (May 3, 2008)

I originally had a MKII 6" Bull barrel blued that shot good enough to leave the rifle in the safe, I traded it in on the MKII SS Competition Series I have now. I never shot them side by side but the Comp series is definitely the better gun. It likes the cheap Federal ammo but is scary accurate with Eley.


----------



## CAMAROMAN (Jun 1, 2008)

My vote goes to the Ruger MK II


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

Hairtrigger said:


> I own a couple of Buckmarks and several Rugers. I voted Browning as I assumed everyone would vore Ruger MK2.
> If you want to shoot a stock gun I say Browning, If you like to buy aftermarket parts like trigger, mag release ect then Ruger MK2 is easily my vote


Within your choices,look for a good Ruger MKII like that 10" bull barrel,my old one grouped a bowlingpin head at 100yds (300ft,yes).Ammo changes things but in general a 25yd zero put the cutline of the partrige front sight cut just under the top of the rear sight and the bullet hit on top of the front,P'd off a few rifle shooters.Like a Dumas I parted with it and later replaced it with a generic Hammerli called the Sig Trailside.Good shootin' pistol for the money too but it isn't awesome.

OK,WTH? This thread said it was running but now the dates are 3 1/2 years off,don't know what's up with that.


----------



## dondavis3 (Aug 2, 2009)

I love my Browning Buck Mark w/ optic's.










It's a tack driver.

:smt1099


----------



## aarondhgraham (Mar 17, 2011)

*Any of those five will do you just fine,,,*

The thing that should be the determining factor is,,,
Which one fits your hand the best.

I don't care how inherently accurate a handgun is,,,
If it doesn't fit your hand you won't hit well.

The Ruger MK series (either MK-II or MK-III) have a grip angle very similar to a Luger,,,
Somewhat skinny grip at a severe angle to the barrel,,,
The guns usually have very nice sights.

The Ruger 22/45 series (either MK-II or MK-III) have a grip angle similar to a 1911,,,
Somewhat skinny grip at a less severe angle to the barrel,,,
The guns usually have very nice sights.

The Browning Buckmark (all models) has a grip angle similar to a 1911,,,
The grip varies but is moderate like the Ruger 22/45's,,,
The guns usually have very nice sights.

The S&W 22A has a grip angle similar to all of the Wonder-Nine pistols out there,,,
They are the fattest of these five common pistols,,,
I find the sights to be adequate but "clunky".

The Beretta NEOS has a grip angle not as severe as a Ruger MK series,,,
But more of an angle than the Ruger 22/45 series pistols,,,
They are extremely slender grips but nicely contoured,,,
The stock sights are dismal at best,,,
Best magazines though by far.

Now having said all that I own 3 Ruger 22/45 pistols,,,
Two are a matched set of 5.5" barrel slab-side stainless target models,,,
I've purposefully left these guns stock as their sights are fine and they balance well.

I also own two Beretta NEOS pistols,,,
I couldn't hit the ground with these guns until I installed inexpensive holographic sights,,,
Now with the 6" barreled gun I pop clay pigeons at 50-75 yards and with the 4.5" barreled gun I terrorize tin cans at 50 yards.

For some reason I've never warmed up to any of the Buckmarks my friends have,,,
But they hit very well at 50 yard plinking targets with theirs,,,
The same with my friends who shoot the S&W 22A's.

The point I am trying to make here is that all five of the guns you mentioned are good shooters,,,
Each has their own little quirks that make them different but not necessarily worse.

You really should go to as many gun stores as necessary and handle all five guns,,,
Until you actually hold them you won't know which is *best for you*

Aarond

.


----------



## prof_fate (Jan 2, 2012)

I have a ruger mk1, 5" bull target model. nice gun, very accurate. Just doesn't 'inspire' me so I'm going to sell it and get a S&W 22. Almost got the 9mm smith as i liked how it felt in my hand better than the XDm (but a small amount) but the XDm got better reviews.


----------



## TomC (Sep 5, 2006)

Of the inexpensive target guns, I favor the Rugers. I have a MK II, a couple of MK IIIs and a MK III 22/45. I guess I like the grip of the 22/45 the best, then I prefer the MK IIIs if only for the button mag release. All are good.


----------



## ronmail65 (Jan 18, 2011)

I got a Ruger Mk III Target model with a 5.5 inch bull barrell and I really like it. I didn't vote because I don't have experience with any of the others listed. I have not done any upgrades or added any after-market parts/accessories.

Positives... I find the the Ruger to be a very solid, well balanced, accurate gun that feels like it will last a lifetime. I really like the trigger pull and there's almost no recoil to speak of. It has shot every type of ammo I tried with it - 100% reliable. It was reasonably priced at around $350. Ruger is a great brand / company.

Negatives... It is a pain in the neck to field strip and re-assemble for cleaning. It has gotten easier, but relative to every other gun I have -- it is still the worst.


----------



## usmcj (Sep 23, 2011)

S&W model 41










or, the Buckmarks...










or the Rugers










or my newly acquired Colt Woodsman Match Target.... it shoots real well for me not having it for over a week...


----------

