Smith & Wesson 22A-1
Have any of y'all been shooting this little piece? I got a look at one today, handled it but the store where I saw it doesn't allow "test runs" so I'm wondering if anybody has a "review" they'd like to share?
Thanx in advance for sharing!
Thanx in advance for sharing!
0
-
I bought one of the original production 22A's, when they came on the market in the 90's. I wasn't happy with it at all. It developed a FTF problem that really vexed me. Don't know about the recent production guns, S & W might have cleared up all the bugs? For what it's worth, the BuckMark I had at the same time as the 22A, was ten times the gun. Accuracy and reliability wise. 0 -
Not trying to put anybody at odds, but that's a report just the opposite of 2 folks over in Gen Dis Forum THAT BOUGHT THEIRS LATELY AND LOVE THEM SO FAR??? OOPS
Caps stuck......
Looks like I'm gonna have to check into this a little furher, Thanx for the reply![:)]0 -
I would recommend the 22S (stainless) if you shoot a lot. Have one that has been heavily used by many new shooters. Never had a feed problem, shot low vel. ammo, accurate enough for most people (a Hammerli it's not).
Only negative is the mag. release is in the handle so it feels odd and the grip is a little big for small to med hands. The 22A also will wear much faster then a steel gun. Should not be an issue if shooting 5K rounds/year.
Lots of good inexpensive .22's, good luck with whatever you buy.0 -
Dear Wanted Man...I agree with Rufe. Bought one of these several years ago new, took it to the range and had trouble with it right out of the box. Put it back in the box in the back of one of the safes and it hasn't seen daylight since. I must admit I am spoiled with my Medalists, Smith 41's and several Rugers, all of which are top quality. Perhaps the new ones are better but for my $ I would go to a Ruger or the Buckmark and never look back. Good shooting! 0 -
wanted man,
I bought a used one last year, and sold it within a few months. It needed to be kept really clean, or it would start to get sluggish, then jam up. Also, the standard grip felt like a rubber 2x4 in my hand, and it was overly muzzle-heavy. Takedown was pretty easy, and it is not a complicated gun. I just discovered that it is NOT the gun for me. Your Mileage May Vary.0 -
IMHO THE BUCKMARK AND RUGER ARE A much better choice on an entry level 22 semi auto. 0 -
Same as I said on the other forum. Mine is 2 or 3 years old. Must have 10,000 rounds through it. Love it. 0 -
On Friday I bought a NEW S&W 22A-1. I shot 1500 rounds through it of High Velocity solid point ammo. It never failed or jammed until I tried some hollow point ammo. I am thrilled with this gun. I have an S&W 41, High Standard Victor and an S&W K-22 and it shoots every bit as accurate as they do plus it was only 225.00. No more taking those expensive pistols out. 0 -
I own multiple .22 pistols and that collection includes TWO of these (the fact that I bought a second one says something). I have also probably shot most of the .22 autos out on the market at one point or another:
Here's my highlights:
Pros:
-Quality fairly good for price (this is aluminum alloy not a "pot metal" die-cast zinc cheapie like some of the low-end .22s).
-Nice easy to see and fully adjustable sights for cost of gun.
-Trigger fairly good for cost of gun. Its not match quality, though it does have a distinct break and its not very heavy.
-Trivial to swap out barrel/sight assembly, and replacements are available from Smith for only about $100-120. This lets you swap between a scoped gun with a short barrel and an iron-sight gun with a long barrel in a matter of 20 seconds or less. IMO this is the single best feature of the gun. Bull barrel is available, if you want one.
-Good accuracy. (Last time out I shot a sub 1" 5 shot 25 yard group with iron sights off a rest and cheap Federal ammo).
-REALLY easy to mount optics since the top strap of the gun IS a Weaver rail, and you can put them anywhere on the top you like.
-Smith gives good customer support.
-Relatively reliable. . .with one exception of one brand of really light target ammo that wouldn't reliably cycle ANY semi-auto I've had, my two guns have worked well with pretty much all other ammo, including hollowpoints. Occasionally, I get a failure to extract, I suspect when the gun gets dirty. Note that I have yet to meet the .22 that is 100% reliable with all ammo types, including High Standard, Sig, Hammerelli, Smith 41, Ruger, Colt, etc. Most of these are ammo sensitive to a degree.
-Unlike the Ruger in particular, pushbutton barrel-stud design makes gun EASY to take down and clean. (Also open design lets you easily just reach in and swab out the feed ramp and breech if you want without having to even take the gun down).
Cons:
-Grip shape is long; gun is really NOT good for small hands.
-Lack of aftermarket accessories (compared to say Ruger).
Aftermarket grips unavailable. You've got a choice between hard plastic Smith factory grips, rubberized version of same, rubberized version with teensy thumbrest (my personal favorite) and bulky factory Smith laminated wood "target" grips (which IMO aren't). Note that this is also true of most (though not all) other .22 autos as well.
-Finish on aluminum parts isn't that durable (not a huge deal, though).
-Steel barrel on alloy frame makes gun a bit "top heavy". Less of an issue with a short barrel. Note that to some extent, this is true of most alloy or polymer-frame semiautomatics.
-Broke a firing pin on one of mine. . .Smith fixed it for free and had it back to me in about 8 weeks. Worked fine since. I don't know if this was because of dry firing from the previous owner, because of a defective pin, or because of an intrinsic defect of the gun. My other one has at least a few thousand rounds through it, no issues.
-Gun requires a little plastic "spacer" ("buffer", whatever) to hold the recoil guide assembly in place. The problem is that after a few thousand rounds (give or take) it eventually gets chewed up and needs to be replaced. Smith sent me a couple replacements free with a phone call last time, so I should be good for quite a while. IMO, this is the single WORST thing about the gun.
Not necessarily pro or con:
-Mag release is in non-standard place (recessed into front of grip). Note that while this does take a little getting used to, unlike many designs, I've never accidentally released a mag with this one. I really don't consider this a negative, though if you want a realistic trainer for a more conventional semiautomatic centerfire pistol, it could be an issue. It does make dropping a mag ambidextrous, for what that's worth.
-Newer guns have mag safety (my older ones don't). This may partly degrade the trigger pull.
-Safety is in conventional "1911" like place and works the same way (up safe/down fire). Ditto for slide release.
-Aluminum-cased steel barrel sleeve design means installing a suppressor would be impractical.
BOTTOM line:
This is basically an entry level gun, but I think you do get a lot of gun for the money, more so that you might expect for the price.
Its a REALLY good platform *IF* you want to take advantage of the ability to swap barrels and maybe optics. For about another $100 for a spare upper, you can basically get two guns in one.
If you want a true match/competition gun. . .this is not your gun. You could use this to get into target shooting, but I think once you get serious, you'd want better grips and trigger.
On the other hand, I think this one is a viable choice for an ADULT who wants a lightweight and not too expensive .22 for learning basic shooting, for plinking, or even for small game hunting. Again, its a good platform to put a dot sight on.
For what its worth, these guys seem to like this pistol:
http://www.usrsog.org/slides/scan0011.html
http://www.usrsog.org/equip.htm0 -
"The little plastic spacer, or buffer" is the worst thing about the gun. I agree with "beantownshootah". I sold both of mine just for that reason alone. Now on the "low end" I shoot Rugers or the Buckmarks, on the "high end" I won't part with my 2 Match Target Woodsmans. JMHO 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments