Walther P22 versus Ruger 22/45. . .

[Oldgringo]

I want one . FWIW, Bud's wants $389.00 for the Ruger 22/45 Mk III Hunter. You did alright and I am

[boomerang]

I recently shot a P22 and don't like the trigger. The Mark II and 22/45 I previously shot were better. For me.

IMO, the mag releases for most of the .22s aren't the best when it comes to CC drills or practice.

That's true but I can practice drawing and reloading "dry" at home without spending money on range fees or ammo.

[CompVest]

I recently shot a P22 and don't like the trigger. The Mark II and 22/45 I previously shot were better. For me.

IMO, the mag releases for most of the .22s aren't the best when it comes to CC drills or practice.

That's true but I can practice drawing and reloading "dry" at home without spending money on range fees or ammo.

That's true but then you wouldn't have an excuse to buy another gun. You could just use your carry or range gun to dry practice with!

[The Annoyed Man]

Well, I got to go to the range anyway. The church event I had on the schedule for this afternoon canceled due to weather, so my son and I went to DPC and ran 400 rounds each through the pistols. On the way there, we stopped at Bass Pro, and my son and I each bought 200 rounds of Winchester Super X 40 grain high velocity (1280 fps) plated hollowpoints, and 200 rounds of Remington Target 40 grain standard velocity (1150 fps) lead round nose - for a total of 400 rounds apiece.

The Ruger:
I can't report group sizes from this trip, because we were shooting steel plates and just "beating the dust out of the carpet," so to speak. We've been too long away from the range. Distance was approximately 15-20 yards. What I can report is that, until a sight problem developed (below), my new Ruger made me look like a hero. I never missed a plate. Double taps, speed runs, whatever. . . .it was just about the best pistol shooting I've ever done. However, somewhere between rounds 300 and 400, my point of impact started to shift more and more to the left. I was pretty tired by then, and I just attributed the wandering POI to my fatigue.

That turns out not to be the case.... When I put the pistol down at the end of 400 rounds, I realized that the rear sight had shot loose and the whole sight mechanism had drifted to the left about a full 1/4" in the dovetail cut. Apparently, the little set screw located in the top left of the sight which anchors it in place had either backed out a little bit, or was not properly tightened at the factory. But until that happened, this pistol was a dream to shoot - exactly what I had been looking for. It's a keeper.

Other than the rear sight problem, this pistol functioned very reliably. I had two jams out of 400 rounds. Both were with the lower velocity Remington ammo, which also seemed to be the dirtier burning of the two. The first jam was a failure to eject all the way, causing the subsequent cartridge to nosedive into the ramp, with both spent case and fresh cartridge wedged together in the receiver. The second jam was a failure to extract, causing the nose of the subsequent cartridge to butt up against the still chambered spent case. I experienced no problems with the Winchester Super X. The manual says that either standard or high velocity ammo is OK. However, since the price was roughly the same for both brands, and since the high velocity Winchester functioned flawlessly, I won't be buying anymore of the standard velocity Remington ammo. Before cleaning, I discovered that, in addition to the rear sight having drifted left, the front sight had also shot loose. It hadn't moved at all, but it was loose enough to be wiggled by hand.

That being said, the sights were ideal (while they lasted). The sight picture presents a bright red fiber optic dot on top of a white vertical line which centers in the "valley" of the rear sight blade, which makes target acquisition quick and natural. The rear sight is adjustable for both windage and elevation with click-detented screws. It also has the afore-mentioned set screw which fixes the sight in its dovetail. The front sight is a replaceable fiber optic rod. In fact, the pistol comes with a vial containing replacement fiber optic rods in both red and yellow.

The ergonomics of the Ruger 22/45 will be instantly familiar to anyone who owns a 1911 pistol. While the width of the grip frame is half that of a 1911, the angle of the grips to the receiver and barrel are very similar if not exactly the same, and the positions of the safety, magazine release, and slide release buttons are all located where they would be on a 1911. My only complaint is that I'm a lefty, and there is no ambidextrous control. This is a polymer framed pistol, with molded in checkering on both grip panels as well as the front and back straps. The checkering is actually fairly good. The receiver/barrel assembly is stainless steel.

The S&W:
It is a little difficult for me to be more detailed with regard to this pistol, as I spent almost all my time shooting the Ruger. Having shot only a couple of magazine loads through the Smith, what I can report is a limited comparison to the Ruger. Accuracy on the S&W pistol seemed to be at least as good as the Ruger - possibly even a little bit better. This pistol experienced roughly 3 malfunctions over the course of 400 rounds. They were similar in nature to those experienced with the Ruger, except that they happened with both ammunition types. Nothing shot loose on the S&W. The trigger was marginally better than the Ruger's, but that's kind of like saying blondes are better than redheads, because the Ruger's trigger was very, very nice. Both pistols have bull barrels, but while the Ruger's is 4.5", the S&W's is 7". Consequently, the Smith feels muzzle heavy and less "handy/pointy" than the Ruger. That being said, while there was very marginal muzzle flip from the Ruger, it was almost nonexistent with the S&W. This made followup shots ridiculously easy. In fact, I watched my son rapid fire an entire magazine into a circle of about tennis ball diameter just as fast as he could pull the trigger.

The S&W sights were not as easy to see as the Ruger's, consisting of an all black rear blade with a notch, adjustable for windage and elevation; and a black front post. There are no dots or other marks on either the front or rear sights. Both sights are attached to a weaver style sight rail which runs the whole length of the pistol. (The Ruger comes with a rail which is not attached from the factory, and the receiver is drilled and tapped to accept it.) My son mounted his ATN holographic sight to the top of the Smith, which made shooting the thing a matter of point and click.

The Smith's grips are larger and bulkier than the Ruger's. In many ways, the 22A is a full sized pistol compared to the svelte Ruger. The controls are all where you would expect to find them - except for the magazine release button, which is located dead center on the front strap. However, despite its unusual location, using the magazine release seems intuitive enough. The frame is aluminum. The receiver/barrel is steel. Both the receiver/barrel and the frame are finished in black. The grips panels are wraparound plastic with a sort of tacky rubber texture to facilitate grip.

Preliminary conclusions...
Because it is both handy and accurate, the Ruger is probably the better hunter/plinker, while the S&W is probably the better target pistol. That being said either pistol could be used quite well in either application. I am looking forward to many years of enjoying these great .22 caliber pistols.

[mr surveyor]

very good range report. Congratulations on both purchases. It sounds like a bit of blue lok-tite on the front sight screw, and a good tightening on the rear sight, and you should be good to go. I have seen a couple of front sights loosen to the point that a dab of lok-tite was necessary, but have not seen any (recurring) problems with the rear sights.

surv

[gregthehand]

I own both and prefer the Ruger.