TargetTalk

I've come to a crossroads with my pistol shooting. I have been shooting a Browning Buckmark as it was the only .22 I had that was suitable for target work. Now that I have gotten into it (and realized that it wasn't the best gun for the task) I have some questions. I could do one of three things.
1) Buy a Ruger of some flavor because the aftermarket support is much greater and because it is easier to work on.
2) Upgrade the Buckmark with a trigger job.
3) Keep shooting the Buckmark untill I get good enough and save up for a S&W or similar target gun.

I like buying the Ruger the best as of now so I can keep the Buckmark as a plinker and have a dedicated target gun. It is very accurate but the trigger is heavy, making it difficult to shoot well in rapid. It is the "Hunter" model so it has a rail and nice long and heavy barrel.

Thanks,
HB

I would get the trigger worked on first.
keep shooting the BM until you have the funds for a better gun.
BM are acurate but are not the best.
Trigger jobs are worth it on most guns.

little_doodie wrote:I would get the trigger worked on first.
keep shooting the BM until you have the funds for a better gun.
BM are acurate but are not the best.
Trigger jobs are worth it on most guns.

I agree with LD. You will never regret buying a good pistol. The cash you pay for the pistol is only a small part of the shooting expenses. Don't scrimp on the pistol, but don't buy one because of what others have. Try all you can while saving your dough so you know which one you want when the day arrives.
Good shooting,
Ben

stlshooter wrote:... Keep shooting the Buckmark untill I get good enough and save up for a S&W or similar target gun....

If you're thinking Smith 41, you're better off staying with the Buckmark. You'll have a happier future with a Pardini or Benelli.

Depends how much your shooting and how much you want to spend on ammo.. S&W 41's are usually finicky eaters.

Upgrade the trigger, spend time with the fundamentals, outshoot the Buckmark, and then buy the next thing.

Anonymous wrote: If you're thinking Smith 41, you're better off staying with the Buckmark. You'll have a happier future with a Pardini or Benelli.

Not for bullseye. The Smith 41 is superior to a Pardini or Benelli at 50 yards, and when you factor in the cost/benefit analysis, it's no-brainer.

Thanks for the timely replies. The advice so far is what I'm thinking as well. I've shot quite a few .22s now including a 1911 style one, several rugers, a smith and wesson, and a have handled some others. I really like the buckmarks grip and have many many rounds through my current one so I am used to it.

thanks,
HB

john bickar wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If you're thinking Smith 41, you're better off staying with the Buckmark. You'll have a happier future with a Pardini or Benelli.

Not for bullseye. The Smith 41 is superior to a Pardini or Benelli at 50 yards, and when you factor in the cost/benefit analysis, it's no-brainer.

That statement is ridiculous.

"Not for bullseye. The Smith 41 is superior to a Pardini or Benelli at 50 yards, and when you factor in the cost/benefit analysis, it's no-brainer."

It is very obvious that you have NO experience with European guns. The model 41 is not EVEN in the same league. Accuracy is great at 50 with the European guns and the low barrel and grips make recovery superior. I considered my 41 a starter gun. Great gun but very unforgiving in comparison.

Anonymous wrote:It is very obvious that you have NO experience with European guns.

Snert!

Yep, I just fell off the turnip truck yesterday!

Anonymous wrote:

john bickar wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If you're thinking Smith 41, you're better off staying with the Buckmark. You'll have a happier future with a Pardini or Benelli.

Not for bullseye. The Smith 41 is superior to a Pardini or Benelli at 50 yards, and when you factor in the cost/benefit analysis, it's no-brainer.

That statement is ridiculous.

Not quite. I can back it up with scores and Ransom Rest testing.

If a beginner can purchase a pistol that's twice as accurate for half the price, that also matches the ergonomics of the gun (s)he'll likely be shooting in the other 2/3rds of a 2700, why choose the less-accurate, more expensive gun?

Would an aftermarket barrel like Bully Barrel or Clark make the S&W 41 an equal to Pardini's or Benelli's for those that think that imports would be better than S&W?
Not trying to hijack the thread just wondering if someone already had or could get a deal on a S&W 41 then would a quality aftermarket barrel would bring up the accuracy to the standards of the imports? I shoot with guys that have P's and B's and they shoot them good but they can be a bit much in the $$$$ department for some.

Kirmdog

stlshooter wrote:Thanks for the timely replies. The advice so far is what I'm thinking as well. I've shot quite a few .22s now including a 1911 style one, several rugers, a smith and wesson, and a have handled some others. I really like the buckmarks grip and have many many rounds through my current one so I am used to it.

thanks,
HB

If you are just going to be shooting 22 indoors then a dedicated gun as being discussed here is your best option. If however you will be shooting full 2700 matches outdoors you might consider a Marvel conversion as that allows you to shoot the same grip and trigger for the full match. With a little practice it won't hurt your scores during the 22 aggregate and will end up helping during the CF and 45 aggregates which make up most of your total score. It can also keep the cost way down compared to other options being mentioned here. You just swap out the slides between the 22 and 45 parts. If you do this be sure and get a full length guide rod in your 45 to make the swap easy.

Clark

john bickar wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That statement is ridiculous.

Not quite. I can back it up with scores and Ransom Rest testing.

What a pity that NRA Bullseye is not shot out of a Ransom rest.

Which remark, albeit aphoristic, really sums up what is to be said. It is true that some of these oldtimer guns have very accurate barrels. In theory and from a fixed rest. But it just is not relevant in the context.

Alexander

Alexander wrote:

john bickar wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That statement is ridiculous.

Not quite. I can back it up with scores and Ransom Rest testing.

What a pity that NRA Bullseye is not shot out of a Ransom rest.

Which remark, albeit aphoristic, really sums up what is to be said. It is true that some of these oldtimer guns have very accurate barrels. In theory and from a fixed rest. But it just is not relevant in the context.

Alexander

emphasis added

Reality check: for the information of the anonymous (and other) sneerers, John Bickar is among the top Bullseye and ISSF shooters in the US. If he says he can back it up with scores, then he has done so. And, since the thread is about Bullseye pistols, what he says could not be more relevant. It's about the ergonomics of shooting a 2700 with 2 or 3 different guns, not just about accuracy.

FredB

FredB wrote:Reality check: for the information of the anonymous (and other) sneerers, John Bickar is among the top Bullseye and ISSF shooters in the US. If he says he can back it up with scores, then he has done so.

You are the one who needs reality check outside the US frogpond. For your information: nobody denies that a true TOP shooter _can_ shoot an excellent score even with an antique S&W 41. Especially on good days.
Why, doesn't Erich Buljung still hold an ISSF standard pistol world record with a Hämmerli 208 ?

But that does not make a wrong argument valid.

Alexander

Alexander wrote: Not quite. I can back it up with scores and Ransom Rest testing.

What a pity that NRA Bullseye is not shot out of a Ransom rest.

Which remark, albeit aphoristic, really sums up what is to be said. It is true that some of these oldtimer guns have very accurate barrels. In theory and from a fixed rest. But it just is not relevant in the context.

Alexander[/quote]

I must second Alexander's post. In addition to the accuracy of the barrel, shooting ability is a critical factor. For me the ajustability of most if not all current european target 22s from memory is superior to the Smith 41, not to mention some european target pistol have adjustable grip angles. The S&W M41, is very limited in that capacity.


The claims the S&W M41 is more accurate may be true for the particular poster's experience. However is it universally true? Who knows. I would ask which european pistol can not hold 2" at 50 yard? Maybe an old Walther GSP, maybe...? A

s well how many shooters currently could tell the difference between a 2", sub 2" and a sub 1" pistol and can afford the quality ammo to shoot those tiny groups on a regular basis.




Brian

Alexander wrote:

FredB wrote:Reality check: for the information of the anonymous (and other) sneerers, John Bickar is among the top Bullseye and ISSF shooters in the US. If he says he can back it up with scores, then he has done so.

You are the one who needs reality check outside the US frogpond. For your information: nobody denies that a true TOP shooter _can_ shoot an excellent score even with an antique S&W 41. Especially on good days.
Why, doesn't Erich Buljung still hold an ISSF standard pistol world record with a Hämmerli 208 ?

But that does not make a wrong argument valid.

Alexander

Talk about wrong arguments! This is the Bullseye Forum, NOT the International Pistol Forum, and the OP's question was about Bullseye pistols. And the US frogpond is where ALL the top Bullseye frogs live. How many 2700s have you shot?

Personally, since I shoot mostly international, I quite dislike the M41, and much prefer my Benelli and GSP. But if someone who shoots 2700s far better than I could ever dream of doing, tells me that the M41 is good for 2700s, then I have to respect that. And any rational and open-minded person would have to do the same.

FredB

I think the real issue is the bias that the S&W M41 is universally superior. John may have a good M41. Given the quality shooter he is he may have one that was hand selected. Very common for top shooters to recieve or seek out the best of the pistol available to them.

If you're talkig about a production european target pistol vs a production S&W M41 I question is there really that big of difference? The intial poster is likely only going to get a production (aka average) pistol.


Didn't Don Nygord used to sell Pardini pistol in 22 and 45 for bullseye - where those pistol really that inferior to a S&W model 41 and an average BE 1911? Don was in business, but he was also an excellent shot and from my experience an excellent man. He aided me greatly prior to my second world cup in Free Pistol.

Brian

Easy Guys!!!
The Shooter is the one making the score not the gun.
I do not doubt some of the euro guns will give the shooter the advantage over a stock 41.
Accuracy wise there most likely not even worth looking at.
Both will punch the X ring out all day long without a doubt with proper ammo.
Most of the euro guns have bells and whistles that do increase the stability in sustained fire and that along with trigger enhancements will make it better.
Don't get me wrong though you most definately can shoot master scores with an enhanced 41.
True the 41 is an old design but it has not been around a long time becuase of its flaws.
Either one would be an improvement over a Browning buckmark.