In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
Not necessarily. I have looked at a couple 1911s in .22 and the dream is a mk IV but they're twice the money.
In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
Not necessarily. I have looked at a couple 1911s in .22 and the dream is a mk IV but they're twice the money.
barefootskater (Shaun) said:In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
Not necessarily. I have looked at a couple 1911s in .22 and the dream is a mk IV but they're twice the money.
My wife has a GSG 1911 that u got her to help her like guns again ( the ex was an ass about them) it's a good gun and it made her familiar with 1911s.
Also if money is a concern, sportsman's guide offers a 4 pay plan on guns. I actually got the GSG from there to try it out, it was great
I bought a .22 upper for my 1911's. Made teaching the wife easier.
barefootskater (Shaun) said:In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
Not necessarily. I have looked at a couple 1911s in .22 and the dream is a mk IV but they're twice the money.
I haven't looked at what they're selling for, but the MSRP for the MK IV 22/45 Target is only $50 more than the LCP II .22. I've got a 22/45 Lite that I love, wish the mags were cheaper.
I don't have any time with the LCP II, but have shot the original LCP .380 ACP, my father-in-law bought my mother-in-law one for concealed carry. Somehow I got tasked with training her? She's accurate enough with it, can handle the recoil, and it operates even when she'd limp wrist it. However, it's really pretty terrible for her, she doesn't have the hand strength to rack the slide, I showed her the cross arm slide rack method, she could do that, but doesn't practice enough to remember to do it. All of that may be moot, since the LCP II is supposed to be easier to rack the slide on, than the original, and a .22 shouldn't be too hard to do anyway.
While practicing with the LCP we also had a Taurus TCP .380 at our disposal, I'm unabashedly a gun snob, and generally not a Taurus fan, but back to back, I much preferred the Taurus to the Ruger, gasp!
I got a PPS M2 a couple years ago, I love the thing, Walther has ergonomics in the bag. If a cheapish trainer/plinker was on my shopping list, I'd give the P22 a chance. There's always the PPK/22 if you want to practice your secret agent skills.
kazoospec said:So I decided to pick up a GSG-16 today. First, let me say I haven't shot it yet, so further bulletins as events warrant. Here are my initial impressions: It's pretty high on the "cool factor" . Pretty sure xhibit laid out the rail locations on the gun, there are at least 5. A lot of it is plastic, and only a moderate quality plastic. I suspect it will scratch easily. The anodizing on the metal parts is not great. Just making adjustments on the rear site wears/scratches the fastener down to bare metal. It was shipped pretty dry, so I disassembled it to put a light coat of oil on the moving parts. It was a bit complicated and fiddly to break it down. A random spring fell out and I needed to flex some google fu to figure out where it came from. So there's the negatives so far. On the positive side, it's pretty cool. It can be accessorized like a Miata. It's also pretty cool. It comes with 2 mags. It's the first gun I've owned where the operating procedure includes slapping the charging handle to release the bolt. On line reviews indicate it eats pretty much every form of .22 ammo except some extremely low velocity stuff, which I don't generally buy. Practical accuracy looks to be pretty good for something this small from what I've seen on line. Did I mention it's pretty cool? Oh, and since I was buying a gun, Dunhams sold me a 1400 count bucket of Remington .22 for $100. Way more than I've previously paid, but way cheaper than you'll probably find it elsewhere, if you can find it at all. I've now got a plicker/practice version of my carry gun and my 9mm carbine and several thousand rounds of practice ammo. The only thing I'm missing now is a .22 Mossberg 500.
Stock photo for reference:
So here's the "after action". My friend and I put probably about 250 rounds through it, although, honestly, that's just kind of a guess because we were just scooping rounds out of a couple of "range packs". Out of all of those, we had 3 or 4 non-fires. All but one had sufficient primer strike marks, so I'm guessing all but one were ammo issues. There was one straight up mid-mag failure to feed. You have to be a little picky filling the mags or it would occasionally fail to pick up the first round. Basically, we got in the habit of pulling the tension spring down a bit, turning the mags horizontal and tapping them a couple times. As long as the top round it parallel (or roughly parallel) to the top of the mag, it fed well. The mid-mag fail to feed was almost certainly a dirty gun, and we were at least 200 rounds into cheap .22 at that point.
If I sound unhappy, I'm not. I really like this thing. You just need to understand it's not a bolt action rifle. It's going to require careful loading, reasonable handling and good ammo, otherwise it's going to be a bit "fiddlely". It is, however, an absolute barrel of monkeys to shoot. We took it out to 100 yards and and it would hit on an 8 inch bull pretty much every time (we were averaging less than one miss per mag). At that range, the entire target is covered by the front post. That was probably pretty much the edge of the effective range, as 100 yard shots required covering the target with the front site dot, while it was hitting at 50 or less by putting the target on top of the front site post. With optics, who knows? As my friend put it, "This is just a fun gun. You aren't going to learn anything shooting it, it's just too easy." Cleaning resulted in a small spring falling out (this happened yesterday also when I did the "pre-oiling"). Like many things German, it seems like it could be simplified, but when it works, it's spot on. It burns through ammo like nobody's business. Would I recommend it? Probably not as a "first gun". A Ruger 10/22 is probably a better "plinking gun". On the other hand, it's one of the most enjoyable guns to shoot I've ever owned. This would be my score card: Fun factor 10/10, Build quality 7.5/10, engineering 7.5/10
In reply to bigdaddylee82 :
Grandpa has a mkI or mkII, idk which, and I hate it. I've heard the mkIV is a huge improvement, but I haven't looked too much into it. I did watch the collion noir video where he was saying good things about it with some good color combos available and picatinny rails and all, but that's more that a $50 difference.
Local place has the little Ruger in stock for $349, but I see this :
And I don't hate it. But I've seen gsg(?) 1911 .22s locally for $299. Sell me on the mkIV.
Also, I had a little subcompact Taurus .380 and I hated it.
I wasn't a fan of the Mark II I had, basically because the way to strip it down was dumb beyond measure.
I really like the Buckmark I got, it was $289
The buckmark is very nice. I have a trailside, which is very much like a premium buckmark, as far as configuration goes. I would definitely take a buckmark over a Ruger, but the last Ruger I used was a mark 2, so there is that.
There's a family I shoot Steel Challenge with that all 4 use the same base model Buckmark. They have like 15 magazines and someone is always loading. Very few malfunctions, certainly not more than the others.
If that didn't come out right, 4 people, 1 Buckmark, 5 stages of 5 strings
What's the objection to the MkII, other than the fiddly breakdown? I'm plenty happy with this little guy.
For those who have a Mark I, II or III and are frustrated by the takedown process, check out Majestic Arms. They have a device which makes take down much easier. Since the Mark IV came around, the older models can be picked up for a good price.
I've owned a Mk1 - an actual bull-barrel Mk1, not a Standard - for 40 years or so. A couple of points:
1. The takedown/reassembly isn't that bad.
2. You don't have to detail strip after ever shooting session to keep it running. Lots of damage is done to all sorts of firearms through repeated unnecessary disassembly and overenergetic "cleaning". Learn to properly use nonmarring tools and picks and assorted cleaning products.
3. It'll take more than some clever takedown system to make me want to trade in that Mk1.
4. I wish the .22-45 was even more 1911-like.
In reply to slantvaliant (Forum Supporter) :
Thanks for the input. I've never handled a .22-45 and can't comment on your fourth observation, but I certainly agree with one through three.
In reply to slantvaliant (Forum Supporter) :
I'd agree that it isn't too bad. The first go at reassembly will be rough, but once you know how to put it back together it isn't a big deal. Completely agree on "over cleaning", you don't have to detail strip a Mark after every outing. I don't think I've actually cleaned my Mark III in years, albeit it isn't shot a lot (might have 300-500 rounds through it since it's last detail strip. Quick spray with the cleaner of your choice, run a bore snake through it, and a spritz of oil.
I took apart my mark II once in the 5 years I'd owned it, I had a over 3k rounds thru it and it was time. Wasn't too dirty really but the whole system was dumb.
Mine was incredibly pissy about ammo too, it only shot Stingers and Golden's with any regularity. It was ok and when someone offered me a $400 snubby 44 mag for it, I did that instead.
Admittedly, it has been probably 8 years since I shot grandpas Ruger. I'll see if I can borrow it, and see what wife thinks.
In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
Maybe it was pissy about ammo because you didn't clean it, lol.
In reply to Justjim75 :
It was pissy before, after and probably during cleaning. Most 22s are though really
I finally finished my "not very AR-like" AR. Ironically, I sold 2/3 of the ammo I was going to use in it. I may or may not sell the last case of 55 grain, depending on how crazy prices stay (I will sell if I can keep getting silly money). I kinda wish I had sold more 62 grain, though. I am not as interested in shooting that and it is usually worth even more.
The rifle is set up with a thick walled, side charging, upper for increased rigidity and being able to work the action without getting out of position. The sights are borrowed from one of my target rifles. The goal is to use "cheap" 55 gr .223 from 100 to 400 or 500 yards so I can start getting practice reading the wind. I may end up loading ammo to use in it, but that ammo will end up handling the wind better. That is a 24" barrel and a 15" handguard, for the curious.
In reply to matthewmcl (Forum Supporter) :
Academy is offering $50-$100 gift cards with purchase of a lot of the Vortex stuff they carry.
In reply to Lee :
That's a Hell of a deal, thanks
Repeats to self: I do not need optics on an .22 plinking gun, I do not need optics on a .22 plinking gun, I do not need optics on a .22 plinking gun.
kazoospec said:Repeats to self: I do not need optics on an .22 plinking gun, I do not need optics on a .22 plinking gun, I do not need optics on a .22 plinking gun.
$100 Vortex Crossfire red dot, after $50 gift card.
https://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/vortex-crossfire-red-dot-sight-124118941#repChildCatid=8300049
In reply to Lee :
Red dots are cool. I wish they worked for me. I did buy a couple of scopes on that deal, though.
You'll need to log in to post.
