In article ,
says...

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:56:27 -0400, EmpacherFan
wrote:

If I were interested in a 22, though, I'd get a 22. I like these Mark
III's or the older Mark II's from Ruger:

http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIITarget/models.html

They're a bitch to break down completely for cleaning until you learn
a very simple trick. Then, they're easy.

===

Breaking down is fairly easy, putting it back together is what gives
people fits until they learn how to get the hammer and spring into the
right position.

In terms of speed and accuracy, a S&W 41 or an old Hi Standard
Supermatic will run circles around the Ruger III.


I thought we were discussing casual plinking with a 22, in which case a
new Ruger for about $300 will be fine and more than accurate enough.
You'd have to be a hell of a shot to outshoot that pistol's
capabilities.

A new 41 is more than $1200 and a decent used Supermatic Trophy probably
sells for more than twice what the new Ruger does and unless you are
getting a High Standard made in Connecticut 50 or so years ago and built
and tuned by one of High Standard's famous gunsmiths, what are you
really getting? A pistol not much different than the J.C. Higgins models
High Standard sold to Sears. I suppose the new owners of High Standard
are still turning out 22s somewhere in Texas, but I haven't seen a new
High Standard in many years.

Neither the Smiths nor the High Standards compete with the Morini or
Pardini 22 competition pistols. I'm not convinced for casual shooting
the Smith is really any better than the Ruger.

Unless you know what to look for, a used semi-auto pistol is something I
would avoid, especially if you are a new shooter. But if know what you
are doing, sure.

Even my agency issued service semi-auto, a Glock, is decent enough
though pretty cheap. What it has going for it are reliability and
reasonable accuracy with practice at defensive ranges. The muzzle flip
with .40 S&W rounds is something to be taken seriously.