Category: Gratuitous Gun Pics

Looking back for something else in my archives, I stumbled across this 2020 article about underrated guns.  I’ll spare you the details (follow the link if you’re interested), but the guns are pictured below:

 

• I have no experience with the R22, but it’s a T/C, looks nice and uses 10/22 mags, so how bad can it be?
• I’m not a fan of the Savage Apex line, because I had a terrible experience with one once, because that skinny little barrel starts to whip after more than a few rounds.  But it’s a decent budget hunting rifle.  I honestly prefer the 110 Hunter line — more expensive, to be sure, but I think a better rifle altogether.  I’ll always suggest the 110 for a starter rifle, because at any price, it’s wonderfully accurate, and their adjustable Accu-Trigger is the bee’s knees.
• If I were looking for a “mid-price” 1911, I’d go with one of the Springfields purely because of long experience with my GI model.
• I carried a Charter Arms Bulldog (.44 Spec) for years, until I got my 1911.  Nothing wrong with it — I think I’d take the Undercover over one of the Rossi or Taurus cheapies, to be honest.
• I like the Bersa Thunder, and if I were restricted to the .380 ACP, it would probably be my first choice too.
• Not a fan of the Tomcat, even though I love most Beretta handguns.  I think it’s the .32 ACP chambering that puts me off, although his rationale for the piece is quite acceptable.  I’d certainly take it over any of the teeny pocket pistols out there, just for the reliability factor.

The article got me thinking about the topic, so in days to come I’ll put up my half-dozen choices of underrated guns, just for the hell of it.  Try to contain yer anticipation.

Met up with Reader Jim and his lovely wife at the range yesterday at the Real New Year’s Day Shoot, and learned something  — or rather, re-discovered something.

You see, Jim’s wife had only recently started shooting, and her handgun was a compact HK 9mm with a green-dot sight.  It was shooting rather low for her, and at first I put it down to her flinch (which was quite severe;  clearly, even the mild recoil of the 9mm out of the diminutive HK was a little much for her).  I should note that she is a petite woman, and thus, I thought, the flinch.

But when I popped a few out of the HK, it still held low;  so I adjusted the sight upwards for her until it fired into the desired area.  That problem was solved, but she was still shooting a little low, and that was definitely the flinch.

So I invited her to shoot a few rounds out of my Buckmark:

…and the results were immediate, and very gratifying:  once she’d got used to the trigger, she was putting all ten rounds into a 3″ group, not once, but several times, with absolutely no flinch.  (Yup, it’s strange how much fun shooting a .22 pistol can be, huh?)

I therefore made a mild suggestion to Reader Jim that he purchase her a Buckmark to play with, and once I let go his arm and he stopped screaming with pain, he agreed that this would be A Good Thing.  (Okay, I’m lying;  he agreed immediately, with absolutely no hesitation, and a big grin on his face.)

Here’s a lesson to everyone:  if you’re going to teach someone to shoot handguns, let their first shots be out of a .22 pistol — Browning Buckmark, Ruger Mk IV, whatever — because shooting should be first and foremost a lot of fun, and you’re not going to pick up bad habits (e.g. a flinch) when shooting the .22 LR cartridge.

“So which one would you recommend, Kim?”

It’s all personal, of course.  But I’d recommend the Browning Buckmark — to be specific, this one, the Standard:

…but if Madame prefers something still lighter, there’s the Camper with its alloy barrel-sleeve:

I would stay away from the Micro, because even though it weighs next to nothing, it’s really difficult to shoot accurately at any distance past 20 feet with that lil’ shorty barrel:

Of course, you can go pretty, like with the Medallion:

…and for those of the red-dot persuasion there are these options (among many):

(For what it’s worth, this last — the Medallion Rosewood — is the one I’m lusting after, but as we speak it runs well over $800 including the scope, so I have to decide which gun I want to sell/trade to get it.  Also, it’s quite heavy — speaking for women in general — but the longer, heavier barrel makes for astounding accuracy.)

“So what about Ruger?”

There’s nothing wrong with the Ruger, specifically the Mark IV.  Here’s the Standard:

…the Target:

…and for those who would prefer less rake on the grip, the 22/45:

…which has an advantage in that it comes in a variety of girly-type colors:

 

And just so we are all on the same page, so to speak, I prefer the MkIV over all other Ruger .22 pistols because for the first time evvah it’s possible to field-strip and clean a Ruger .22 pistol without needing a third hand.  (In fact, the MkIV is easier to clean than the Buckmark, for that matter.)

And I know, cleaning the guns is typically the job of hubby / boyfriend, so this is not a little thing.  (If the woman in your life insists on cleaning her own gun, by the way, hold onto her with hoops of steel because she’s the rarest of all breeds.)

The only reason I still prefer the Buckmark over the Ruger in general is that the Buckmark’s trigger is miles better than the Ruger’s, in fact it’s better than just about any pistol ever made, including the 1911.

And of course there are jillions of other .22 pistols extant, so be my guest.  But unless Milady wants to go all historical / nostalgic with a Colt Woodsman:

…I’d stick to the above two brands.

Oh, and single-action is better than double, because the squeeze is easier for a first-time shooter.

All comments, of course, are welcome.

---

One final thought:  I’ve personally owned just about every variant of Buckmark and Ruger before, and fired a huge number of other .22 pistols (Walther, SIG, S&W etc.), and that’s why I pick the above two over all of them.  I will confess, however, to having no experience with the S&W SW22 Victory model, but I will happily hear stories thereof.

Fiend Reader JC_In_PA sends me this article, which compares two old rimfire warhorses (the Marlin Model 60 and the Ruger 10/22) and then invites me to wade into the argument — which he correctly compares to the various X vs. Y arguments in the gun world (.45 ACP vs. 9mm, etc.).

And I respectfully decline the invitation.

You see, I’ve owned both at various times in my life, fired at least a jillion rounds through each — more than a few times at the same range session together — and for the life of me I can’t / won’t declare a favorite.

I love the heavier barrel of the Mod 60 — I shoot it more accurately than I do the 10/22 — and likewise prefer the reloading ease of the 10/22’s magazine over the Marlin’s tube.

At the moment, I don’t have a 10/22 — if anybody has a spare one that isn’t worn out, I’ll take it under advisement — but I’m not under any pressure to get one because I do have a Mod 60 standing in Ye Olde Gunne Sayfe #2 (alongside its bolt-action brother, the scoped Mod 880 SQ).

With these two Marlin brothers, therefore, I can indulge my plinking needs, whether in volume at tin cans (60) or when the occasion calls for single-hole accuracy at varmints or swinging plates (880).  I am blissfully happy with either activity.  While both rifles “prefer” CCI Min-Mag ammo, the Mod 60 will shoot just about anything, whereas the 880’s pinhole accuracy tends to drift towards more of a quarter-sized hole.

So yeah, I could do with some kind of 10/22 (because reasons) — such as this one:

…because with my crappy old-fart-eyesight, I need a scope to see the stupid target and one is somewhat limited in scope choice with the Mod 60 because of the scope mount shortcomings;  but I can’t honestly say that the lack thereof is burning a hole in my psyche, either.

What I really want is a Ruger 10/22M (.22 Win Mag) in its “International” full-stock variation:

…but they make hen’s teeth look like a household commodity, and when one does become available, it’s generally at a price which makes my nuts ache and causes my trigger finger to go numb.

Anyway… I seem to have wandered off the reservation here, but there ya go.

Marlin Model 60 or Ruger 10/22?  Take yer pick;  either is a good choice.

By the way:  everyone does own a .22 rifle, right?  Because if not:

It’s un-American.

(Furrin Readers — including those in New Jersey — get a pass on this one, because as we all know, semi-auto .22 rifles are the cause of a million human deaths every second — I read it on Teh Intarwebz, so it must be true  — and that’s why they’re banned in your benighted countries.)

Oh, and the title of this post?

The Marlin was released in 1960, while the Ruger 10/22 was released in 1964, making last year its sixtieth anniversary.

My old pal, the late Airboss once said (pace  the old AT&T ad) that everyone should own at least one rifle that can “reach out and touch” someone.

Here’s my candidate, which has the added benefit of almost utter silence with the proper add-on, the CVA Scout, chambered in the .300 Blackout:

Yes, it’s a single-shot rifle (but that means it’s both quiet and cheap — nothing wrong with that little scenario).  Also, I would venture to suggest that if you do your part, a quick reload should be entirely unnecessary.

In fact, it’s difficult to imagine a better gun for pig-hunting, where the sound of the shot from a regular rifle makes the other pigs scatter like flies.  With silence comes an excellent chance for a further pop, or three…

I also like that the Scout can also come with a short barrel (ribbed  threaded for your pleasure).

I have also said in the past that hunting with a single-shot rifle is not o be sneered at, because nothing concentrates the mind better than knowing that one shot is all you’ll get.  And I’m all over that one, with my own peerless Browning High Wall:

…but I must say that the CVA does make the old trigger-finger itch a little, because of its utter stripped-down utility and scope-ready rail (which the Browning does not have).

Worth some consideration, yes?