Bullseye .22 pistol

First topic message reminder :

What are your thoughts on the S&W 22A for bullseye shooting? Does this pistol have what it takes for competition?

Thanks

I have been looking at the bull barrel with wood grips.I think there might be enough extra wood that I can make them fit me by removing some of the wood around the base.I know Buds has them in stock but I want to try one in my hand before I order. Then again that 7" model has some appeal.To bad they don't make it with wood grips.Thanks for the report.

Len  (after much searching I am going with the "Talo" model.They will fit and look great)

 Pat,  Just a stray thought, but you do realize that 40 yrs from now we will be able to post on this forum that we only paid 300.00 for our 22A's and listen to everyone whine about the 1500 or 2000 they had to pay. 

OldMaster64 wrote: Pat,  Just a stray thought, but you do realize that 40 yrs from now we will be able to post on this forum that we only paid 300.00 for our 22A's and listen to everyone whine about the 1500 or 2000 they had to pay. 

And another 10 to 15 years after that we'll be whining that we can't find replacement mags on eBay and the back-orders are not being filled.  

Yeah, and all the collectors will be looking original 22A pistols that were made so well back in 2014 era. And .22 ammo will be $100 for 50 rounds. Oh wait that's almost what it is now!!!

Interesting how we have different experiences with ammo. MY M41 will not shoot CCI or Federal w/o problems but handles Remington SV, Thunderbolts and Golden Bullets well with no issues. The Cyclones are problematic. Yiogo

So far my 22A has digested everything I could put in it, Federal, CCI, Winchester, Magtech and Remington. I've had one failure to fully extract the case. That's out of 360 rounds fired to date. I did have a number of failure to fire but that was the ammo. (Remington)

One note I had to make is to be sure the magazine is fully inserted. It is possible to think it's all the way in but is just shy of activating the disconnect. It takes a deliberate push on the mag to be sure it's all the way in.

Pat

   Did you ever break 847 with the pistol? I finally picked up a Talo on GB and except for some small things I really like the pistol. I took your advice and had a set of the soft grips here before the pistol showed up. I've been putting Aquila pistol match through it and so far it has been flawless (250 rds). Do you have a problem with the shape of the trigger? I find that it has a very small radius and contacts my trigger finger on the sides instead of the pad. I may have to tweak it a little. I am also going to have to figure out how to get the trigger a little lighter. Fun pistol to shoot.

Len

...and you wanna know what blows my mind? Rink makes anatomical grips for the 22A -- practically doubles the amount of money put into the gun. Get that, and a Talo Edition with the metal/overtravel-adjustable trigger and a 7" extra barrel and it ought to actually be a decent contender as a .22...

Ahem. Maybe I oughtta see about getting that 22A back and playing with it some more.

Remington Thunderbolts were good in my m 41. Rem Cyclones were horrible at a 20-30% failure to fire rate. Yiogo

I guess this is as good of a time as any to drag this old topic back into discussion. I finally shot a real match with the 22A today and liked the way it shot. I only posted an 842 but any shots that were not 10's were not the pistols fault. I bring this up because if anyone is thinking about a 22A then your time is running out. S&W has discontinued production of this pistol. Just 6 months ago you could buy a Talo edition for around 300.00. I was only able to find used ones for around 400 and a new one for 500. There are still quite a few of the standard models out there but they are going quickly since the word is out. We joked about how the price was going up on these and how hard it would be to find parts in the future. Well, the future is here. I may have to pick up a second pistol so my son has parts 10 years from now.

Len

My partner wanted a 22 for more informal shooting - has a fine setup for bullseye.  She has limited strength and disliked the Ruger and Buckmark, but took a shine to the 22A-1 with 5.5 inch barrel in spite of its weight.  Discovering that the 22A is going away, I decided we needed spares.  With a simple rest and CCI SV and using its adjustable iron sights, I could only see well enough to get something like 3 inch groups at 25 yards.  Will mount a red-dot sight on the top-rail and test again.  At least one can take them apart for cleaning without tools, though pushing the release is difficult.   Controls are like those of a 1911 - which helps by having only one set of motions.  I found that one must pull the "slide" back firmly to the end of its range when loading or the inside hammer might not cock.  Good balance and fit in the hand.
Bud's seems still to have some - asking under $300.

Mounted a Millett on 22A-1 to allow evaluation of dot size for use at 25 feet (Bowling Pin).  Groups at 25 yards shrank as compared to using iron sights.   . . . and the 8 MOA dot was - as expected - found to be best.  Then I started to mount our standard Burris FF III red-dot sight on the top rail of the 22A-1 and found that the grooves are not deep enough.  Solution is a 4 mm, round-file from hardware store that is used to sharpen saws.  Lots of careful passes, and a groove of just the right depth and width resulted. 

Mac

I think the file I used was the same size Rather than file on the 22A I filed out a Marvel rail to make it fit. Different pistol with the same problem. A lot of the newer dots won't fit a weaver rail. Some of the newer rings won't either. They should say "for picatiny only"

Len

Interesting.  Life would be more simple for competitive shooters if top rails actually conform to Picatinny standard and if Springfield used a conventional cut for sights!  . . . but that not being the case, gives us something to do.
Your note sent me to evaluate our AA Target conversion for depth of groove.  The Picatinny standard is a depth of 3 mm (plus or minus a huge 0.2 mm).  The grooves in the stock AA top rail (where a 25 mm Ultradot is mounted using one of its rings) are slightly too shallow to effect mounting Burris FF III (using its Picatinny mount) and would need the attention of the 4 mm round file.

Hope that these observations help others.    Mac2

In regard to 22 pistols.. You've heard me say that the potential of a 41 is high...
I have a friend who recently put up an 890 with a 5.5 heavy barrel.. Hmmmmmm:)

AND about 3-4 yrs ago I saw a shooter post an 883 w/ a Ruger 22/45. I think the key in this case was the SW Mod 39 grips he had adapted to the gun???

Does all this mean that good scores cannot be bought?

Ron Habegger

I shot 889 many times with Ruger government model when I used to shoot one. That elusive 890 was not the pistols fault. It's the shooter!
Jon

Jerry Keefer wrote:In regard to 22 pistols.. You've heard me say that the potential of a 41 is high...
I have a friend who recently put up an 890 with a 5.5 heavy barrel..  Hmmmmmm:)

Here's one that is being prepped for transplant surgery...

Jerry Keefer wrote:In regard to 22 pistols.. You've heard me say that the potential of a 41 is high...
I have a friend who recently put up an 890 with a 5.5 heavy barrel..  Hmmmmmm:)

Yep - great shooter and great person.  I scored him in that match (890-47X).