Comparing the walter made 22 pistols.

[Tackleberry41]

Stopped at the LGS today, saw they had several of the Walther made 22 pistols, 2 were Walther P22s, one the target model, the other the shorter compact, also had the Ruger SR22, tho is still walther, and a S&W M&P in 22. Thought maybe S&W makes them, but apparently not, seems your buying walther no matter what. I have read the Walther is a bit picky about ammo, as in it likes the high velocity stuff, and had jamming issues early on. Heard the same things about the Ruger version. Already have a S&W shield, but guess doesn't matter if they don't make it. The striker S&W seemed to have the best trigger of the bunch. The walther even in single action was long and spongy.

They are all roughly the same price. But not interested in any if their picky about ammo, especially subsonic.

[JMax]

I have a Walther Colt Gold Cup 1911 pattern 22 pistol. It is accurate and reliable with 8 different types of SV and 6 types of HV 22. All were flawless with the SV brass dropping not far from my feet and the HV brass ejecting well away from my shooting. The SV ammo was a bit sluggish and HV was great with snappy cycling. 12 round mags are available at MidWay for purchase by people who live in free states.

I like that adjustable sights but have checkered the front sight with my 40 LPI checkering file, treated it with alumahide and did a 2 1/2 # trigger job. Now I have a 22 that I can draw from a holster to train in place of my 45 or 9mm. Yes I have adequate 22 on Hahn.

a best buy for me.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

My post is very similar to JMax's in that I own a Walther-made Colt 1911 (standard model) and it works perfectly. It's hard to beat Walther products for close tolerance machining and I can see where they might be picky about shooting low grade ammo.

[rbuck351]

I also have the Walthers Colt 1911. It cycles flawless with any ammo that will go bang. It's becoming one of my favorite 22 pistols.

[Petrol & Powder]

I've shot the newer Walther .22's and they functioned fine with the ammunition on hand. The guns were not mine so I didn't get to really put them through their paces but they seemed to be reasonably accurate. One of the P22 models was equipped with a suppressor.
After many years and lots of different pistols, I still strongly believe the Ruger MKII pistol is hard beat as both a target pistol and an all-around 22 pistol. Not trying to take away from the Walther, it's a cool little gun but the Ruger's will out shoot just about everything available and I think they will hold the edge in terms of durability.

[Tackleberry41]

The opinions I find on the internet on the newer 22 pistols are, either their wonderful or their junk. Some buy them and never have any issues with them, others have nothing but problems. I have grown tired of buying guns to have to 'fix' them so they function properly, or worse have to send them back. I never had to send guns back long ago, you bought a gun, it worked. I read about the Walther made 22s parts breaking, or tearing themselves up due to the metals used. Some can't stand hi point because of the pot metal used, which seems to be exactly the same metal used by walther in their 22s, a zinc alloy of some kind. Great for cost savings, but not exactly a durable slide material.

Not sure its the tight tolerances in the new guns, but that somebody decided they all needed to be designed to shoot the hottest ammo on the market vs the most commonly used. Where most of us have issues shooting stuff like stingers vs other ammo. Going to say my Ruger 22/45 is made to some pretty tight tolerances yet have not found an ammo it won't function with.

And it would be nice to know whos making stuff anymore. That a Ruger was made by Ruger or a S&W was made by S&W vs farming it out. Walther really isnt a company anymore, but part of the Umarex/H&K/Walther brand. They now better than to put Umarex on the side of guns, but Walther sells nicely. The 2 S&W pistols, seems the bigger M&P is made by Walther, where the smaller compact is made here by S&W.

Not really looking for a 1911 sized pistol, was looking for smaller. But almost afraid to put down any money, pretty much knowing if theres a bad one in the stack its the one I will buy.

[Petrol & Powder]

Please don't take my comments as condemning the Walther. My point is the Ruger MK II is a known commodity with a very good track record.

[Tackleberry41]

I haven't found much singing the praises of the Walther made guns. Their not made by Walther, whats a Walther PPK cost compared to something by Umarex? Seems they had alot of teething problems, fixes on the fly, on their 3rd generation of magazines. Found more than a few threads in forums on how to 'fix' a Walther made 22.

Comparing a Ruger mark pistols to these newer ones is apples to oranges. I have yet to find anyone saying 'my walther is just as accurate as my Ruger mark pistol'. I have yet to see a thread called 'my ruger mark 2 is junk'. Can't say I hear of people sending their mark series pistols back alot either due to broken internal parts. Or that you have to go thru one polishing things so they wont tear themselves apart. Guess I will just hold onto the money find something else I might want.

[rbuck351]

I have 2 Ruger MKI Ts as well as the Walther 1911 and I won't bad mouth any of the three as they all work and shoot very well. One of the Rugers has many thousands of rounds through it without a single fail to feed and is very accurate.The other Ruger and the Walther 1911 haven't been fired much yet but so far all three have functioned flawlessly. I suspect the Ruger is a bit more accurate but I don't have a scope on the 1911 as I do on the Ruger so I can't really tell.

[Tackleberry41]

I was just wanting something smaller and lighter than my 22/45. Not looking for a target gun, but do not want anything I have to fix to be able to use. Or that will go down after not very many rounds are put thru it. Way to many stories of multiple trips back to the factory on the walther/umarex made pistols.

[Geezer in NH]

In the 1970's the Ruger's were **** compared to a High Standard, Colt Woodsman or S&W model 41 never mind the Browning offerings.

The Ruger's IMHO never got better there completion went out of business. That does not make them any better than they were then.

[Petrol & Powder]

In the 1970's the Ruger's were **** compared to a High Standard, Colt Woodsman or S&W model 41 never mind the Browning offerings.

The Ruger's IMHO never got better there completion went out of business. That does not make them any better than they were then.

I've shot Ruger Standard pistols and Mk II's side by side with High Standard's, Woodsman's and Browning Buckmark's and the Ruger's hold their own just fine and sometimes exceed those fine guns. In the right hands and with the right ammunition the S&W model 41 may beat a good MkII but they are both very good pistols.
The stock Ruger trigger isn't bad but the pistol can benefit from a better sear/hammer and trigger combination. Volquartsen makes an excellent sear & hammer package that greatly improves on the stock Ruger set up.


The Colt Woodsman was a good 22 pistol but expensive to produce. High Standard went through a lot of permutations and their quality vs. their price was a bit of a moving target. As much as I would love to own a S&W Model 41, I never could justify the expense of one. There were some very good 22 caliber pistols made in the past and I certainly have admired that craftsmanship but Bill Ruger found a way to put a lot quality in a simple design. Don't let the low cost fool you. The simple tubular receiver attached to a fixed barrel allowed a high quality but low cost system. The two halves of the stamped steel grip frame may not be as elegant as a milled receiver but it's functional and inexpensive. The sights are not mounted on a recipacating slide and they allow the longest possible sight radius for the barrel length. The Ruger may not be a fine piece of forged and milled steel but it shoots just fine.

[Tackleberry41]

Comes down to the fact, they just don't make guns like they used to. Old days guns were designed to be a reliable quality product, now its about reaching a certain price point. Makes you wonder if they even test fire new gun designs anymore, I have serious doubts they do, or some of the stuff that made it to market never would have.

Talked to a friend he has had 2 of the Walther pistols, never had any problems with them. Was tempted to go with the basic walther at $299. But was not fond of the mag release they went with, and the S&W came with the threaded adapter and a brick of ammo. The price difference was about the cost of buying the adapter for the walther and the ammo. Plus I already have a shield in 9mm. I had good luck polishing up the insides on that one for a better trigger. The shield trigger was better than the walther already.

[JMax]

The slides of the 1911 version is machined aluminum, same as my Marvel top end and is used in most 22 conversions. Additionally there is a steel insert in the slide holding the firing pin, breech face and extractor. There are some that do use a zinc alloy for the slide and I too would be suspicious of those pistols.

On a side note I shot bullseye using. Supermatic Trophy along side my tuned 45 earning an expert card and took a gold at Wolff Creek in ISU Standard Pistol using a Hammerli 280 the last year the range was open.

The old days pistols were not as golden as we would like to remember, Colt's, HiStandards and the Smith 41 were all very ammunition sensitive and because of that alibis were the norm in all bullseye matches and don't think about loading 10 rounds for consistent reliable shooting. But Rugers have always been reliable. I sold the Hammerli after I got the Marvel as it out shot the Hammerli. There were many Walther's on the line when I shot my Hammerli and was clear that the shooter determines the output of their results more than the pistol.

So far there is little wear on the slide at the stop slot and it keeps on shooting. It is not as accurate as the Marvel or the various Mk's that I have owned but is very suitable as a durable fun shooting and supurizing accurate 22 pistol.

[Tackleberry41]

22s are troublesome to get reliable, just such a wide variety of ammo out there. One set up to run target ammo, might not like high velocity, set up to run HV and it doesn't like target ammo. I know a stock 10/22 will generally run like a top, its when you start making it more accurate they become less reliable. And it is a rimmed ammo, just has issues in a semi auto format. Makes you wonder why someone hasn't come up with some sort of new generation thing, still a 22lr but more auto friendly.

I will imagine that 30 yrs ago a Walther was very different than what it is now, now its just a name like Marlin. Like I said few would buy a Umarex P22, its a toy company, but slap Walther on the side and they sell like hotcakes. I have one of the ATI MP5/22 guns, you can tell it wasn't made by a gun company. Way to many actual tools are required to even field strip it. Most guns need nothing more than the tip of a bullet, not 4 sizes of torx drivers, plus allen wrenches, and screwdrivers. And sort of a shame that Ruger feels the need to farm out pistols to somebody like Umarex. We all know it came down to money.

New materials and ways of doing things don't always translate to better. Polymer has done wonders, and I am sure MIM for parts does work fine for SOME things. But doesn't seem to do so well for something like a firing pin or hammer, just to much abuse. And you can't machine it in any way after its made, so no stoning the sear. Yes great for mass production and cost, but theres places for it, and not places for it. They can say what they want about MIM, I am not going to use a gun with a cast barrel in it.

Just have to see how this S&W does when I find the money to finish paying for it. Its sucks, sell it off.

[Petrol & Powder]

Tackleberry41 - I'm not sure I'm tracking what you are saying, please correct me if I'm off base.

In terms of reliability in a .22 rimfire, semi-auto, rifle - the Ruger 10/22 and Remington Nylon 66 are hard to beat. Neither was terribly expensive to produce and yet both yielded outstanding reliability. The 10/22 is actually very accurate out of the box and it's design makes improvements easy.
There are some incredibly accurate .22 bolt action rifle that don't cost a fortune, including some old Remington, Winchester and Anschutz rifles. The CZ .22 rimfire rifles are excellent rifles for the money. Worrying about high velocity vs. accuracy is rather academic in the real world.

As manufactures try to drive the price point down to remain competitive they must also drive quality down. It is up to the consumer to decide how much he/she wishes to pay and what he/she wants for that money.

I can't help you with the decision on what to pay but I can say that making a purchasing decision based on what's currently in the display case at the local gun store instead of purchasing what you want; will ALWAYS result in sorrow.

BUY WHAT YOU WANT, NOT WHAT THEY WANT TO SELL YOU !!!!!!

As for pistols, there were some excellent old designs like the Colt Woodsman and the High Standards. The Ruger .22 Standard Pistol was introduced in 1949 and we are now on MK III. The Ruger is almost in a class by itself it terms of price, durability and accuracy.

[Tackleberry41]

I did some wheeling and dealing, found most of the money to pay for the pistol, so went and picked it up. Thought maybe they could just keep the ammo and drop the price a little. No the ammo comes from S&W with the guns. But guess some less honest dealers might withhold that bit of info and sell it on the side for extra. I know cant have to much 22, but I have plenty, oh well 2 boxes of 222 Winchester ammo, black coated stuff.

I was worried, figuring if there was an unreliable gun I would get it. But so far cant complain. It has some issues but will lay that on the ammo, some rot gut a friend gave me, some guy came in the range he worked at said it wasnt any good. Guess they expect a gunshop to dispose of it or something. It was a mix of various brands in a big box, a few even had dents in them. I sorted them, so have a big bag of Remington something, thinking thunderbolts as its not the golden stuff or HP. In my rifle some go crack some go pop, so quality stuff. It jammed a few, not going all the way into battery. Went thru some Fiocchi subsonic with no issues.

Will see about doing the same sort of trigger job I did on my 9mm shield, and modify the safety. Im a lefty so like it being ambi, but its a bit big and in the way of the slide lock for me.

[osteodoc08]

I have a Walther P22. They are "cheap tacticool" pistols made by Umarex and contain a ZAMAK slide. theyve come under fire for cheap construction and less than stellar reliability.

That being said, I've owned one for years. It is a fun pistol that is great for new shooters as the grip is small. It's easy for me to toss in my pocket and go fishing. It works great as a plinker. It's not very accurate but is good enough.

If you already have a Ruger MK series or Browning Buckmark, I think adding one to the stable is fine. If it's gonna be your only 22, get a Ruger or Browning.

[Tackleberry41]

Have had a very accurate 22/45 for a long time. They are apples and oranges in comparison. Pretty happy with the S&W, no its not very accurate, but it does weigh alot less than the Ruger. Also much more compact. The trigger in the S&W leaves alot to be desired. I know they do it because of lawyers. It has a huge amount of take up before it will act on the sear. And they went way overboard with the angles on the sear and hammer. You really feel when it starts to pull, with the slide off you can see as it pulls the hammer down overcoming the angle.

They really went a bit far with safeties. It has the trigger safety usually found in striker guns, even tho it has a hammer. Along with a traditional thumb safety, plus the magazine safety.

I imagine part of the take up in the trigger was to make the mag safety work, tho you wonder if its really needed. I know some take it out, then deal with the mag loose in the well. I can see where some grinding would disable that safety without removing it. Some stuff that could be polished to smooth things out. Sear messed with so it won't be so heavy. And maybe something can be done about the take up, maybe a screw that will keep it from going so far forward. It takes very little to reset the sear, all the take up was for the mag and trigger safety.

[mtnman31]

I've got an older P22, I have had no real complaints with it. It shoots reliably and is fairly accurate. Granted it isn't accurate enough for me to go and compete in a bullseye match, but it is great for leisurely target shooting and field use. Mine has the both the short and long barrels. I usually keep the longer barrel on. It isn't too finicky on ammo, nothing like my Henry AR-7 Survival Rifle (very ammo selective). There are a bunch of mods and accuracy suggestions out on the net describing how to improve the P22 but I haven't tried them because I haven't felt the need to.