Convince me that my first handgun shouldn't be a .22lr target

>>33670613
>decided on S&W Victory
Good choice, have fun OP.

File: 2659077_1.jpg (139KB, 950x560px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 950x560px

>>33670613
Good choice in type but get this instead

Range of grip mags etc

>>33670775
>I'd like to spend $400 or less regardless
>recommends an $1800 Olympic pistol

>>33670613
That thing looks like a Buckmark with a tumor, but it is accurate.

>>33670792
>>I'd like to spend $400 or less regardless
>>recommends an $1800 Olympic pistol

Fair enough but that is not an Olympian model. Its a fairly widely used 50M free pistol. A beauty.

>>33670613
It looks like a Buckmark and a MK series got together and had an ugly baby

>>33670805
>>33671043
the Buckmark and MKIV definitely are a lot sexier, but I've got a shop nearby with a threaded barrel Victory for $340, or non-threaded for $325. Throw a compensator and new trigger on it eventually and I doubt I'll be able to beat the performance for the price. The grip is ugly and small but I've got little stubby hands so should fit me well.

>>33670651
This. I would rather the Ruger personally. But I can't find a good reason to not say go with the S&W.

>>33670613
does the barrel detach?

>>33671697

Yeah, it was designed to be modified excessively.

>>33671739
well I have the mark 4 but honestly I see no reason why its superior to the smith and Wesson then besides aesthetic, the grip looks more comfortable on the victory as well.

File: fgfdfsd.webm (3MB, 1000x654px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1000x654px

>>33671613
That's basically what I was saying in the first post.

Ruger has a good aftermarket, the MKIIIs are fun to take apart, cheap now that MKIV is out, are accurate, etc, but there's really no going wrong with the S&W.

>>33671969
I'm stupid and have to ask if that's the old 1/2/3 or the new 4 in the video

>>33672914
MKIII, but I took out the magazine safety because magazine safeties are fucking dumb.

File: 50pistol.jpg (12KB, 350x148px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 350x148px

get this instead

I got a browning 1911 22 and I am quite happy with it. Anyone else with one?

Anyone have any opinions on the Beretta neos? I know it looks like a blatant s&w copy, but i still see cheap ones around occasionally.

>>33671697
>does the barrel detach?

That actually depends. I've heard that at least one batch of pistols delivered to euroland had permanently affixed barrels. Couldn't be removed. I have no fucking clue why they'd do that, since the original design it's just a nut to take off.

>>33670613
Don't know anything about that model but I bought a s&w 22a and regret it. Buddy has ruger mk III and its an objectively better gun.

>>33671739
And according to one of our resident machinists/smiths they did not execute that very well and it's a collection of questionable decisions when compared to its competition. Wish I could find the screenshot.

Also looks like ass but that's just me

File: Beretta M9 22.jpg (3MB, 4448x2536px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4448x2536px

>>33670613
Unpopular suggestion: Buy the Beretta M92 trainer in 22lr.

15 round mags, identical in dimensions and controls to the Beretta M92.

It's accurate enough and good for plinking. Reliable with standard velocity thunderbolt and cci, but hates magtech 22lr.

Pic related, it's mine

>>33675577
>Beretta M92 trainer in 22lr.

Meh, Umarex shit.

Why not a Beretta 87 Target?

>>33674303
>Also looks like ass but that's just me
It's not just you, they're fucking hideous.

I mean a .22 is for fun not drooling over, but that hunchback

>>33675625
I've been eyeing the beretta 71 recently. A lot cheaper than the 84,6,7s but a bit harder to find.

>>33675625
Because the grip on the 87 is tiny and the trigger is pretty fucking godawful compared to other .22lr pistols, and even used it's ~$800?

>>33670613

>Convince me that my first handgun shouldn't be a .22lr target pistol

No. It's a good idea. Even once you're acclimated to firing handguns that you want to move up to something bigger, you'll always get to have relatively cheap fun with that guy. Also it'll be a great gun to introduce your gf/wife/kids to shooting.

Do it, /k/omrad. You have our support.

File: cz-usa-cz-75-kadet-adapter.png (287KB, 841x561px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 841x561px

Buy a CZ and get a Cadet Kit for it.

>>33675707
>the trigger is pretty fucking godawful compared to other .22lr pistol

wat.

I've owned one for years and it's a great fucking single action. (and my references for that statement are X-Five, P210, Sphinx)

>and even used it's ~$800?

New in euroland is like 825 euros at absolute worst?

>>33670613
Why not a 22LR trainer gun of a larger pistol like M&P22 or PPQ22?

>>33675804
>>33675736
>>33675577
Essentially these

Is there a comprehensive list of popular guns for which 22LR trainer version is available?

>>33675749
Post x five, 210, and sphinx
Not for proof but for my folder

File: IMG_0084-P75.jpg (684KB, 3564x2376px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 3564x2376px

>>33675834
>Post x five, 210, and sphinx

File: IMG_0104-P75.jpg (582KB, 3564x2376px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 3564x2376px

>>33675834

File: X-Five_AL_FieldGrade-03.jpg (541KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1280x960px

>>33675834

1st gen X-Five AL SO (alu frame, no funnel)

File: Sig Sauer X-Five AL Field Grade 9x19 - 07.jpg (155KB, 1056x1408px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1056x1408px

Don't have pics of the P210s that I regularly shoot (they're not mine).

As for the X-Five, I've never had any more solid rear sights than this one when talking of construction (not so much sight picture).

>>33675749
Compared to a S&W 41, High Standard Military, Ruger MkII, or Buckmark (post spring flip) it's heavy and long. For what is supposed to be a no-bullshit competition target pistol it's inexcusable, especially considering its price.

They're of at best limited availability new here in the US and sell for over $1000USD new. This makes them scarce on the used market and they retain their value well.

File: 2016-01-10_pistolsandrevolvers.jpg (1MB, 1920x1370px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1370px

>>33676134
>For what is supposed to be a no-bullshit competition target pistol it's inexcusable, especially considering its price.

I've shot 2 different ones (one of which I own). All of them easily on par with S&W Mod41 and far better than any Ruger or Buckmark I've ever shot. It has a nice and clean break with long but very light take up. Short & tactile reset, so you don't need to go through the long take up if you don't want to for follow up shots.

Maybe there was something wrong with the one you shot?

I wouldn't say it's a true match gun though. It would stand no chance in olympic shooting, but neither would the S&W Mod41.
For entry level competition I'd suggest a Hammerli X-Esse & later on stuff like the GSP etc.

>>33676226
Have you shot a Mk2 or a Buckmark with the 10 second trigger job? Because they actually have SIGNIFICANTLY better triggers than the 87T.

And I've shot probably 2 dozen 87T's because that's what my club has for competition use. They all have the same long heavy trigger pull.
>but very light take up
I've put trigger pull gauges on at least 15. They're all over 5lbs.

File: 87t07.jpg (41KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1024x768px

>>33676304
>Have you shot a Mk2 or a Buckmark with the 10 second trigger job?

Don't know.

>And I've shot probably 2 dozen 87T's because that's what my club has for competition use.

Such an odd choice. It's not a real match gun so its use as a competition pistol is weird and it's a bitch to take apart and clean as a range gun. I guess the club is sponsored by Beretta or is a distributor?

>They all have the same long heavy trigger pull.
>I've put trigger pull gauges on at least 15. They're all over 5lbs.

I don't have a trigger pull gauge, and never really relied on them.

You made me walk to the safe and try it. The take up is shorter than I previously stated and almost weight free. Then you hit a wall with a clean break. Slightly heavy, yes, but very clean and controlable.

Personally, I never had any issue with it.

Pic: american friend's 87T. He had a hell of a time getting it rebarreled for the suppressor.

>>33676470
Yes, the club is a distributor for Beretta (and about a dozen other companies).

For comparison, a factory mkII trigger will pull at about 3.5lbs and has virtually no takeup and a very crisp break (they fucking ruined it with the MKIII and MKIV, those are longer and heavier even with the mag-safety delete). A factory Buckmark will be about a 4lb trigger pull but is shorter and cleaner than the MkII, and you can literally turn a spring 180* and halve the trigger weight. I'm talking between 19 and 22 ounces with factory parts and no polishing.

Yes, the 87T has good mechanical accuracy, and yes it is expressly intended for NRA Bullseye competition usage at the club level, which is why it's half the price of things like the GSP Club and a third of the price of something like a GSP Expert or Hammerli Competition.
>inb4 heavy crisp trigger is OK
No, not really. A light gritty trigger is still easier to shoot better. Especially when you're talking HALF the pull weight.
>inb4 aftermarket
Doesn't exist for the 87T, so you're stuck either paying $150 for a professional smith to maybe shave 5-6 ounces off the trigger pull or trying a DIY. The Ruger Mk-series have drop-in trigger parts that make them world-class that start at $30 and require no smithing, and a MkII with VQ guts can get down to the single-digits pull weights safely.

File: Beretta87Target-2.gif (24KB, 591x374px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 591x374px

>>33676551

I get your point. Still, I like mine without any modification.

What's your view of the X-Esse?

>>33676631
I have no personal experience with it, but I've heard it has some QC issues.

>>33671969
I've been meaning to make a video like this to silence the HURR SO HARD people. Thanks, saving for future propagation.

I don't suppose you have a version that's not sped up, so people can't complain about that?

>>33676739
It isn't sped up.

>>33670613
I'm a ruger fan but have to say I bought a buckmark. The trigger is leagues ahead of the victory or ruger mk, and it feels great and has great balance. Overall I'm very happy I bought it. It's the least aesthetic of the lot though.

If you don't give a shit bout money then get whatever you want and upgrade the trigger and put all your 22plinkster volquatsen mods n shit

>>33676758
Oh cool!

Thanks

>>33670613
It´s a decent choice, but I´d take a gun with a longer barrel.

>>33670775
>Walther
Walther´s sport pistols are nothing special. And their customer service is shit.
If you want to shell out 1000+, better get a Feinwerkbau AW93 or a Pardini SP.

>>33676787
Np, I practiced a few times to get the whole drill under 30 seconds, but it was pretty cold that day (you can see a snowflake or two in the vid) so my hands were a little shaky.

File: dsc_0795_0.jpg (1MB, 3298x1430px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3298x1430px

>>33670613
>first gun
>.22 LR handgun
>Not getting a SA Heritage Rough Rider with a .22WMR cylinder

Semi-auto is pretty important to you, huh?