Most reliable .22 automatic pistol for a survival situation.

[Dan22]

If you were in a situation where you wanted long-term reliability in a .22 auto pistol, what would you choose?

I would vote for reliability and good accuracy over a "Minute of Angle" type target pistol because I think any reasonably accurate field gun would handle something the size of a rabbit or squirrel.

My personal choice would probably be a Ruger or Browning.

Please keep this to automatics as I know many might opt for a Ruger single-six revolver as a survival choice.

[one in the pipe]

Browning buckmark or Smith and wesson 22a Both are aptly capable of the assigned mission .

[blaster]

my favorite is the Ruger, I have 2 old standard models that always go bang with any ammo and are as accurate as I am

[angler]

any high priced brand name pistol would do.
i am frugal and use a Chinese copy of the Colt Woodsman.
it shoots accurate enough, has not jammed up yet, came with two 10 shot clips and was less than $ 180 NIB.
although; i am considering switching over to a revolver.

[LiveToShoot]

I too would suggest a Ruger or Browning, Browning being my favorite semi 22...

...and I've seen a friend's older S&W 22A that's held up well for several years.

[larmus]

ruger 22/45 it has the bull barrel so no muzzle movement what so ever... i had one like this

[Metronome]

My Ruger MKI has never complained about what ammo I feed it. The Brownings I have fired were all very accurate, and would likely be easier to carry. I also have an older Hight Standard pistol that has been with me on more than one hike, and it makes for a great companion - I don't think it has ever been cleaned and it goes off without a hitch!

[Sam Ruger]

I pack a Ruger Mark II. My best shot is a shotgun shell at 60 yards (open sights) though I've forgotten how many shots it took (5?). I can hit pretty much anything at 45 yards. Have never shot a Browning.

[TX Hog Hunter]

You just can't go wrong with a Ruger or Browning Buckmark

[JMcDonald]

Ive done a bunch of research on .22 pistols and have determined that the Beretta Neos is on par reliability-wise (as far as what ammo it will shoot) with the Ruger .22 pistols (just thats the Rugers are much more widely known so we just hear about them more). The Buck Marks seem just a little bit more finicky than the former two.

The Neos has a huge advantage as far as take-down goes. I would not want to have to pull apart an MKIII in any less-than-ideal conditions, but the Neos is quite easy. I don't know for sure but I seem to remember concluding that the Buck Marks are somewhere between these.

However, the Neos is the least accurate of the three. Not that it would be hugely important in a survival situation, though, as it still seems quite capable of perhaps 50% larger groups at the same distances (so 3" at 5 yards vs 2" or whatever).

If I were to buy a .22 pistol, I'd probably get the Neos and add an aftermarket threaded barrel for a suppressor.

[Dakoma]

My Ruger MKII has never jamed,it is accurate even though it is a standard model with fixed sights it has eyeball shot many cottontails and once killed a running turkey at 75yds.1shot through the head and only shot once.I keep it clean also.Some feel the 22 does not need cleaning, it does some more than others especially 22 auto's,the Ruger will go longer without though.

[ouch]

I have both a revolver and auto in 22. If I had to choose I would use my revolver.

The revolver shoot all 22 ammo except magnum. If I only could get shorts it would still shoot fine.

Ever try and shoot some subsonics in an auto. There are some which won't go in them. The revolver handles them fine. No clips to loose. Has 9 rounds.

[Dan22]

I bought this used High Standard .22 last week and although it seems like a solid piece and seems to function properly I will wait some time before selecting it over a Ruger MKII as an ultimate fool-proof survival weapon.

[SwedeSteve]

I would have to say Ruger and Browning as well. The Browning is hands down the easiest 22 semi I have ever broken down and cleaned.

[Lobo0311]

Just a matter of personal preference I'd use a revolver, just less can go wrong, but I'd prefer .22 mag for a little extra "OOMPH". maybe a single six......

[one in the pipe]

Originally Posted by JMcDonald

Ive done a bunch of research on .22 pistols and have determined that the Beretta Neos is on par reliability-wise (as far as what ammo it will shoot) with the Ruger .22 pistols (just thats the Rugers are much more widely known so we just hear about them more). The Buck Marks seem just a little bit more finicky than the former two.

The Neos has a huge advantage as far as take-down goes. I would not want to have to pull apart an MKIII in any less-than-ideal conditions, but the Neos is quite easy. I don't know for sure but I seem to remember concluding that the Buck Marks are somewhere between these.

However, the Neos is the least accurate of the three. Not that it would be hugely important in a survival situation, though, as it still seems quite capable of perhaps 50% larger groups at the same distances (so 3" at 5 yards vs 2" or whatever).

If I were to buy a .22 pistol, I'd probably get the Neos and add an aftermarket threaded barrel for a suppressor.

I to have looked into this weapon I love its ease of care . But it is just to much plastic I just can't get myself to buy it. But that is just me

[22-rimfire]

My Ruger Mark II with 5.5" bull barrel usually goes bang. I have not owned a Neos, Buckmark, or Smith 22A. So, I'd stick with what I know and trust. But honestly, I'd probably pack a DA revolver.

[Dan22]

I wish Ruger would make something like a Smith & Wesson model 34 "Kit Gun" .22 at a reasonable price and typical Ruger quality.

Everyone I know who has a .45 or 9mm eventually decides it's just too expensive for ammo and gets a .22 for practice.

[jeclif]

didn't ruger make the sp101 in 22???

[Dan22]

Yes, Ruger did make the SP101 in .22 but it's not in the current catalogue.

The SP101 is larger than the S&W Kit Gun. I want a small frame .22 revolver with at least a 4" barrel.