TargetTalk

Friend of mine is interested in competition on NRA900 (.22lr); but he also does not think he will be good enough to be on a state or national level. He feels that .22lr is useless for home defense. He likes to use a .22lr for plinking sometimes. He is a good average hand gun shooter. He just want to compete locally, have fun, or maybe make it to the state level every year, that's about it.

What is the absolute minimally semi-competitive model that he can look at? Ruger II is not an option here (CA law, its complicated), The IzH-35M my partner owns he already considered too "high tech" and has little use other than competition, ie, he feel that he can't plink. HE does not want high tech, yet he cannot explain what high tech means.

He does want something that has the potential to put a scope on, but that is not important.

What choices will be good for him? For the record, I don't know ANYTHING about semi-automatic pistol, I am totally not qualified to answer anymore questions he asked.

Short of buying a C&R (certainly not High Tech), what kind of pistols out there which is suitable for a beginning/medium level shooter trying out .22lr NRA competition for the first time?

Marvel conversion ?
Do not know anything about Kalifornia...

Clarence

C. Perkins wrote:Marvel conversion ?
Do not know anything about Kalifornia...

Clarence

+1 on the Marvel conversion

The usual suspects, an old High Standard Victor,S&W 41 or maybe even a Beretta 87T should fill the bill, more than accurate enough for what he is doing, readily available and parts are out there. Plus they will hold their value should he decide to upgrade or get out of it. Just my .02.

He does not want to spend more than $350. I don't think that is realistic. But he told e that .22lr is useless for self defense hence there is no extra value to it. He is not going to spend anymore than necessary. He previously owned a Taurus .22lr.

PS. One of the feature he claims to be high-tech is the wood anatomic grip. Why he considered that high-tech I have no idea. It really should be low-tech.


Will an old Ruger MK1 or an old Margolin work? But I don;'t know if you can pick one up for $350...unless it literally comes with nothing (no manual, no accessories, no original box...)

The Ruger, the Margolin, and the IZH-35M are the ONLY .22lr semi-automatic that I heard of or tried on. I also have personally seen his Taurus before, but I did not understand firearm at all back then. To me they looked all the same. I don't know or have not tried anything else.

Ruger MKII.

trulyapostolic wrote:Ruger MKII.

California Illegal.

conradin wrote:

trulyapostolic wrote:Ruger MKII.

California Illegal.

The MKIII's are legal in Kalli. For a backup competition gun I have a 22/44 MKIII with an 6" barrel and it does the job.

Browning Buckmark also on the legal list.

These are the only ones that would come close to his pricepoint - used.

Oh and by the way a 22lr isn't ideal but it is better than nothing for home defense and there have been more than one home invader stopped with one. Most perp's when they see or hear a gun run. They aren't going to wait to be shot to find out if it's a 45 or a 22. If you have ever had a loaded gun pointed at you (on purpose or by mistake) that hole in the barrel looks like the size of a sewer pipe, it looks HUGE.

I started with Ruger Mark III 6" slab side and essentially converted it to Mark II, by removing an LCI and mag disconnect. Then I ordered Mark II trigger kit from Volquartzen. This makes a gun suitable for BE matches, however, $350 budget is unrealistic. Not to mention the price for a decent red dot sight.

I started with a SW-22A. Just shot a 507 with it, the problems are with me, not the gun. added a dot, a gripset for 35 bucks and I'm having a ball.
YMMV...

dronning wrote:
The MKIII's are legal in Kalli. For a backup competition gun I have a 22/44 MKIII with an 6" barrel and it does the job.

Too late, it is now illegal too. Now Mark IV is the new legal Ruger.
You can still buy Mark I to III, but must be either a family transfer, or face to face transfer in an FFL dealer. You an no longer buy it as retail, adn certainly cannot buy it across the state. The only way you can get one and bring it in state legally is if you can prove that it is a gift from your parents (ie., heirloom).

Oh and by the way a 22lr isn't ideal but it is better than nothing for home defense and there have been more than one home invader stopped with one. Most perp's when they see or hear a gun run. They aren't going to wait to be shot to find out if it's a 45 or a 22. If you have ever had a loaded gun pointed at you (on purpose or by mistake) that hole in the barrel looks like the size of a sewer pipe, it looks HUGE.

He has plenty of big guns. Hence he feels that .22lr is too expensive. And the high-tech that he thinks make the .22lr even less attractive. To him it is like tuning a Honda Civic for racing, and no matter how much you put into it financially, an old car with a un-tuned hemi will still beat you.

These Ruger MKIIIs are some of the ones on the official CA DOJ website: http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns_resp.asp

The dates are when the Mfg must renew/requalify them.

KMKIII512 / Stainless Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 8/20/2014
KP512MKIII / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 2/24/2014
MKIII512 / Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 8/10/2014
MKIII512GCL / Blued Steel Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 11/16/2013
P512MKIII / Steel, Polymer Pistol 5.5" .22 LR 2/3/2014
MKIII6 / Steel Pistol 6" .22 LR 2/24/2014
KMKIII678H / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.87" .22 LR 2/3/2014
KMKIII678GC / Stainless Steel Pistol 6.875" .22 LR 2/3/2014
KP678HMKIII / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 6.875" .22 LR 12/29/2013
MKIII678 / Steel Pistol 6.875" .22 LR 2/24/2014

Here is a link for a KP678HMKIII for sale for $375
Sorry SOLD before I finished post.


If as you say he has plenty of big guns maybe he should try shooting the CF stage with one instead of trying to find a 22lr for $350 which will be very difficult.

Right now he is not shooting because of the ammo shortage of 38 Special. I don't doubt eventually he will do the CF part of the competition, but I think he wants to start small.

For the record he is not a pistol shooter, he is a certified NRA Expert grade rifle shooter. Hence the whole idea of shooting pistol for fun, for local no string attached competition, and also 22.lr.

Ironically, he does not have a rifle right now.

If your friend REALLY wants to shoot Bullseye competition, as opposed to merely collecting more equipment, he should do the following:

1. START going to local matches to see what it's about and what other shooters are using. There's a good chance an experienced shooter at the match will loan him a gun to shoot the match if he expresses interest.

2. STOP seeking advice from someone who admittedly knows nothing about Bullseye.

It's not about the equipment.

FredB

Whatever he buys, he should make an effort with his friends to convince people to change the stupid laws in California. Then there won't be so much problem. If it isn't addressed, it will certainly get worse.

oldcaster wrote:Whatever he buys, he should make an effort with his friends to convince people to change the stupid laws in California. Then there won't be so much problem. If it isn't addressed, it will certainly get worse.

Oldcaster,

With all due respect to your expertise in other areas, you don't have a clue about the realities in California. As at the national level, the 2 parties are highly polarized and unwilling to compromise or be reasonable on anything desired by the other party. Here, it's rigid Democrat orthodoxy to vote anti-gun, and Republican orthodoxy to resist. But the Democrats have 2/3 majorities in both houses, and the governor is a Demo. There are about 30 extremely restrictive bills pending this year, and many of them are likely to pass and be signed into law. Some of these bills will have the effect of pretty much killing target shooting in the state. So what exactly do you suggest doing that could possibly affect our situation?

FredB

It wasn't that way years ago which means that anti-gun people decided to little by little change the laws to their liking. Exactly the same thing needs to be done the other way. Democrats have promised to take care of their voters since they changed their ways starting in the early 60's during the hippie movement, promising that everyone will be taken care of by the government. It hasn't happened and all that has happened is infringement by government and people in California need to have this pointed out to them so they will no longer support status quo. It was changed to what it is and could be changed back to what it was however sitting around thinking it is impossible is a waste of time. Are you aware that California voted for Ronald Reagan and was a Republican state before that time.

I have been in California since 1961. As far as I can remember, even though we have had several Republican governors, there has never been a Republican majority in either legislative house. California since 1961 has never been "a Republican state".

It's all very well to tell us vaguely that we should do something - how about answering my question? What specifically should we do? Just how do you "point something out" to the millions of people in California?

Read this. http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeof ... can-party/
and realize it is the people in California that are at fault. Get moving like all the rest of the nation. There is no free ride and no simple answer. Perhaps you all should just sit around in amazement like you are. Perhaps you could blame the next bad batch on me.

The only things I blame you for are your smug and self-righteous comments regarding something you know nothing about. That 4 year old blog was over-stated back in 2009, is not applicable now, and does absolutely nothing to prove what you apparently think. If it shows anything, it's that the California Democratic party, which now in fact does have super-majority status, is not going to have any meaningful Republican opposition for a very long time.

No one asked you to comment on California gun politics or to make snide remarks about our situation. Your past reloading comments have been informative; if you stuck to that topic and left California politics to Californians, you might not be perceived as ignorant and self-satisfied.