# What is the better .22



## Flynhghr2001 (Oct 18, 2014)

I'll be buying a .22 and have narrowed my options down to the Ruger Mk III Target and the Ruger SR 22. What are peoples experiences with these guns?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

I have the MkIII 22/45 Bull, and the SR22, and they are both great, for different reasons. What is you primary use for it?


----------



## Flynhghr2001 (Oct 18, 2014)

Targets at the range


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I have a Ruger Mark III 22/45 Hunter on which I have installed a set of Fire Sights (just the rear) and it is quite accurate and fun to shoot. I also replaced the hammer bushing with one from Sam Lam.

Now if you want a really fun .22 that is just an out and out ball to shoot, consider the Smith and Wesson M&P 22.


----------



## jtguns (Sep 25, 2011)

I have MK II's and love them, but with a ruger's you almost can't go wrong.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Flynhghr2001 said:


> Targets at the range


If you're seriously wanting to do well, the 22/45. If you just want to have fun (and still shoot better than the 45 or 9mm in the next lane) then grab the SR22. Better yet, buy the 22/45 now, and the SR later.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

The Mark III, hands down. Nothing wrong with the SR22 either, but for the .22LR, I have to go with the Mark III. :smt1099


----------



## iwilc2 (Nov 11, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> If you're seriously wanting to do well, the 22/45. If you just want to have fun (and still shoot better than the 45 or 9mm in the next lane) then grab the SR22. Better yet, buy the 22/45 now, and the SR later.


This^ I have both and agree with SailDesign

Len


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

The SR22 also has controls similar to several centerfire pistols suitable for defensive use. Makes your range time with it serve double duty.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> The SR22 also has controls similar to several centerfire pistols suitable for defensive use. Makes your range time with it serve double duty.


Assuming you want to use a pistol for self-defense to begin with.  I just like making holes in paper.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

I have a MK III Hunter and an older MK II stainless - both are absolutely great. Never shot an SR22 and never had the urge to do so...


----------



## Flynhghr2001 (Oct 18, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> If you're seriously wanting to do well, the 22/45. If you just want to have fun (and still shoot better than the 45 or 9mm in the next lane) then grab the SR22. Better yet, buy the 22/45 now, and the SR later.


How does the 22/45 compare to the Mk III Hunter accuracy wise


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Flynhghr2001 said:


> How does the 22/45 compare to the Mk III Hunter accuracy wise


I have nothing to compare, but since they are basically the same gun with a different grip-frame and the Hunter having a 1.25" longer barrel (and therefore sight radius) than my 22/45 Target, I would imagine the answer is "not much, but the Hunter probably has the edge." The fluted barrel on the Hunter hopefully makes it less front-heavy than the extra length would imply. Clamped in a Ransom-Rest, I would imagine it would be tough to decide.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

Accuracy is generally the shooter not the gun...


----------



## Flynhghr2001 (Oct 18, 2014)

NGIB said:


> Accuracy is generally the shooter not the gun...


To a point yes, but then again you don't see Lorcins or Jennings winning competition matches now do you?

If I'm going to sink $500+ on a gun, I want to know I am getting the most for my money. So I ask questions to get real world feedback.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Flynhghr2001 said:


> To a point yes, but then again you don't see Lorcins or Jennings winning competition matches now do you?
> 
> If I'm going to sink $500+ on a gun, I want to know I am getting the most for my money. So I ask questions to get real world feedback.


Bottom line, then, I can get tighter groups with the 22/45 than with the SR22 (but the SR22 is pure fun!)


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

Flynhghr2001 said:


> To a point yes, but then again you don't see Lorcins or Jennings winning competition matches now do you?
> 
> If I'm going to sink $500+ on a gun, I want to know I am getting the most for my money. So I ask questions to get real world feedback.


Lorcins and Jennings are not guns to me, they are junk, so I don't even consider them when I discuss guns.

I gave you real world feedback as I don't discuss guns I do not own and I've been shooting for a while...


----------



## KeithC. (Dec 24, 2013)

I just came from renting the Ruger SR22 and the Walther P22 tonight. The Ruger was a blast! Much more accurate than the Walther.

The accuracy was better than I expected. But no where near as good as my Mark 2.


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

Browning 1911-22, try it, you'll like it!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

shootbrownelk said:


> Browning 1911-22, try it, you'll like it!


I looked at that carefully before the SR22 purchase, but decided that a 22/45 as well as the 85% replica might be too confuddling for my little brain.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

The Mark III is the "Better" gun, in that you are less likely to have issues and it will be more accurate. That being said - when I was in the market for a target 22 years ago, I went with a Buckmark over the MK III Ruger. When you very, very first try to take apart and reassemble those Ruger Mark III guns, they are a major pain in the butt until you get the hand of it. Also, I'd seen many, many online comments about people needing rubber mallets to get it apart the first few times until the gun gets broken in and loosened up. I didn't need that headache - So, I got the Buckmark.

My Buckmark has some feeding issues, but once I sent it back to the factory, it came back 100% after that. The one negative about the buckmark is that you have to take off the rear sight everytime to take it apart. It's much easier to take apart than the Ruger - but if you mount a scope on a Buckmark, you may have to make minor zeroing adjustments everytime you put it back together. 

I am enjoying my 15-22 S&W carbine. But out of a pistol, 22 never did anything for me. I eventually sold my Buckmark to use the $$ for another gun I wanted. When my son gets older, if I buy another 22 pistol, I'd honestly buy the SR22, though. It's seems easier to maintain and clean than the MK III. Pure accuracy at longer distances isn't as important to me, as it would likely only be my son shooting it at 7-10 yards, and the SR22 would be good enough. It's likely cheaper too...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Shipwreck said:


> The Mark III is the "Better" gun, in that you are less likely to have issues and it will be more accurate. That being said - when I was in the market for a target 22 years ago, I went with a Buckmark over the MK III Ruger. When you very, very first try to take apart and reassemble those Ruger Mark III guns, they are a major pain in the butt until you get the hand of it. Also, I'd seen many, many online comments about people needing rubber mallets to get it apart the first few times until the gun gets broken in and loosened up. I didn't need that headache - So, I got the Buckmark.
> 
> My Buckmark has some feeding issues, but once I sent it back to the factory, it came back 100% after that. The one negative about the buckmark is that you have to take off the rear sight everytime to take it apart. It's much easier to take apart than the Ruger - but if you mount a scope on a Buckmark, you may have to make minor zeroing adjustments everytime you put it back together.
> 
> I am enjoying my 15-22 S&W carbine. But out of a pistol, 22 never did anything for me. I eventually sold my Buckmark to use the $$ for another gun I wanted. When my son gets older, if I buy another 22 pistol, I'd honestly buy the SR22, though. It's seems easier to maintain and clean than the MK III. Pure accuracy at longer distances isn't as important to me, as it would likely only be my son shooting it at 7-10 yards, and the SR22 would be good enough. It's likely cheaper too...


The SR22 is a hoot at 25 yards. Can you keep all the shots on the paper? Sometimes... my best group has been 10.5" at that range. once. Never repeated, despite lots of trying. Gonna try again this Sunday.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

KeithC. said:


> I just came from renting the Ruger SR22 and the Walther P22 tonight. The Ruger was a blast! Much more accurate than the Walther.
> 
> The accuracy was better than I expected. But no where near as good as my Mark 2.


I bought a Walther P-22 long before the Ruger came out, and I'm not surprised that your perception would be that the Ruger is more accurate - it very well may be. The Walther just has some weirdness about it that I don't care for, mostly to do with the safety features and take-down. But it is still a fun pistol with which to sharpen your compact pistol shooting skills. I use a CZ Kadet for my accuracy shooting, so I can't testify on the Mark III, but it would make sense that it would beat the compact model.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Bisley said:


> I bought a Walther P-22 long before the Ruger came out, and I'm not surprised that your perception would be that the Ruger is more accurate - it very well may be. The Walther just has some weirdness about it that I don't care for, mostly to do with the safety features and take-down. But it is still a fun pistol with which to sharpen your compact pistol shooting skills. I use a CZ Kadet for my accuracy shooting, so I can't testify on the Mark III, but it would make sense that it would beat the compact model.


Definitely the Mk III (or MkII or I) is the more accurate. Its groups are consistently 60% of those I can get from the SR22 - at any range. Considering the SR22 barrel is about 60% of the length of the MkIII (3.5-ish vs 5.5-ish) that rings true. There are those who will tell you that barrel length has nothing to do with it, but since barrel length is roughly equal to sight-radius, the truth is that a longer barrel is better.


----------



## Cannon (May 1, 2016)

Okay you need to ask yourself a few questions before you pick one.

How important is accuracy to you?
If its the only thing important in your decision the MK III wins hands down. Not saying the SR22 isn't accurate but its not the tack driver the MK III is.

Ease of care?
Here the SR22 wins hands down! Simple to field strip & clean, the MK III can be a nightmare both to disassemble & re-assemble... Notice I didn't say field strip, there is no one I know who would ever try to field strip the MK it can be a nightmare!

Why are you considering either gun?
If you buying a 22 for accuracy and want a gun that will accept aftermarket options, again the MK III is better suited for the job. But if you buying the gun to use as a low cost shooting alternative instead of using your 9,40,or 45 compact then it my belief that the SR22 wins hands down! Its very similar to most CC guns IMO.

So the choice is yours to make both the basic MK III and SR22 are very close in price, its just a matter of deciding what will work best for you.


----------



## joepolo (Mar 28, 2016)

Accuracy with any pistol is usually dependent on the shooters ability.


----------



## Cannon (May 1, 2016)

Couldn't agree more Joe.


----------



## susancollin (Jun 6, 2016)

Browning 1911-22, try it, you'll like it!


----------



## Indigowolf (Apr 9, 2015)

I picked up a Ruger 22/45 LITE about a year and a half ago. I bought it as used but in all reality it was in virtually pristine shape, likely never fired after leaving the factory. It is one of the nicest little guns I've owned. Extremely accurate and reliable with High Velocity ammo. It is amazing in the fun factor category down on the range and in the woods its light weight makes it a breeze to carry around. I have done a few mods to it to make it serve me better. It is a keeper.


----------

