Ruger Mark III 22/45 vs. Smith & Wesson 22A1

[MagRelease]

Ruger Mark III 22/45 vs. Smith & Wesson 22A1

Anyone that knows me knows that I love Ruger. I like the firearms, the company management, and everything down to the logo. With that being said, I never did get around to buying or shooting a 22/45 until recently when I finally had the opportunity to hit the “range” with both the 22/45 and the Smith & Wesson 22A1. I was able to shoot a couple hundred rounds through each, making sure to use the same ammunition in both for the sake of comparison. I’ll break down my personal opinions between the two into a few categories and reveal my pick for the “winner” of each category below and wrap it up with my overall winner. Enjoy, and please keep in mind that everyone has different tastes so don’t let a review stop you from trying either pistol for yourself.

Aesthetics / Fit and Finish
I chose this category first because, let’s face it, few of us would truly fully enjoy a gun that we could hardly stand to look at or grip. Both of these pistols have a decent variety of different configurations to choose from, but for my trip I took the standard black 22/45 and the camouflage painted version of the 22A1. (Web pics for reference here: http://www.northeasternfirearms.com/...2a-1Camo-2.jpg and http://icreek.com/guns/mark_iii_1.jpg)

Surprisingly the Ruger fell rather flat for me in this category overall. As one that typically does not like camouflage paint jobs, I have to admit I found the overall feel and quality of the paint and coating of the Smith & Wesson to be superior. In addition, the 22/45 felt a little sharp in my hands. Something about the grip and edges had me a little concerned that I was going to go home with blisters. In contrast, the 22A1 fits the hand really well and has a smoother more comfortable feel to it.

Working the slide was a great deal smoother on the Ruger 22/45, and the magazine feeding seemed to be slightly more reliable once seated. With that being said, I found the fitting of the magazines with the Ruger to be a little horrendous. After working the magazine release, the magazine just sits in the firearm until you physically have to pull it out with your fingers sometimes even needing to wiggle it back and forth. I also found that I had to exercise a little too much effort to make sure the magazine seated properly. With the 22A1 the magazines popped right in, and with the press of the release, sprung out as you would expect them to. Another thing I noted is that the 22A1 magazines were much more comfortable to load. The Ruger magazines have more of a button to use with your thumb to move the spring down as you load, whereas the Smith & Wesson magazines have a small bar that sticks out that is much easier to keep ahold of as you load and requires less finger pressure than Ruger’s button. This is a little trivial, but combined with the way the magazines seated (and “released”) in the Ruger, it made for an overall pretty annoying experience. The downside of the 22A1 is that there were a few more feeding issues as it seemed the rounds were at a sharper angle entering the feeding ramp which allowed a little more room for error. There was no truly significantly higher feeding failure rate with the 22A1, so for the overall winner for Aesthetics/ Fit and Finish I have to go with the Smith & Wesson.

Trigger and Accuracy
I didn’t particularly dislike anything about either trigger, but in comparison I would have to say that the Ruger trigger had a very slight edge. It was a little lighter, and had a better reset in my opinion. Again this is not to say that the 22A1 reset or pull were bad by any means, just that the Ruger was ever so slightly smoother.

As far as the accuracy goes, both of these pistols are nothing short of fantastic. There’s just something refreshing and fun about shooting .22lr pistols, especially with nice heavy decent length barrels such as both of these pistols have. I will say that I found the sights on the 22A1 more to my liking. It took more time for me to be consistent with the Ruger than it did with the Smith & Wesson. Going back to a previous note I touched on, the sharp edged grip of the Ruger really prevented me from enjoying the accuracy of this particular pistol. The 22A1 with its smooth edges and comfortable grip allowed me to overcome the slightly less smooth trigger for better accuracy overall. I’m going to have to say that my personal pick for the winner of Trigger and Accuracy is, again, the Smith & Wesson 22A1 (Come on Ruger, pick it up!). As I said the trigger itself was better on the Ruger, but not significant enough to beat out the 22A1 in this category with everything considered.

Overall Performance and My Winner
As I mentioned earlier, the Ruger was more reliable. Each pistol had a few cycling failures, but I would trust either for longevity. The 22A1 would have benefited in my opinion from having the magazine seat just a little higher. I’m of course I am no pistol engineer, so I’m not going to speculate on that any further other than to state (again) that it seemed the rounds were feeding onto the ramp at a steeper angle which I could see being more of a problem as a range trip extends and residue and a less slickly oiled ramp come into play. It was easier and quicker to clear a jam on the 22A1, but that’s not very much comfort if you’re doing it more often. The majority of rounds fired were standard velocity CCI, with some testing of match grade Federal and some high velocity Winchester ammo. Equal rounds of each were fired in both pistols of course, and I would venture to say that when using high velocity ammo there would be virtually zero difference in firing reliability between the two guns. Both are excellent firearms in that respect, and worthy of the solid reputations they have made for themselves.

I was able get on target faster and hit more accurately with the Smith & Wesson. With the smoother trigger, I very well might have been able to experience more accuracy with the Ruger if it weren’t for the grip and sights. Something I forgot to mention previously is that the Ruger’s grip also felt a little too thin for my hands. I have larger hands, so this would probably not be an issue to most people.

The Ruger really surprised me with the magazine fitting issues. I definitely expected better design and execution from the same people that created the 10/22 and BX-25 magazines and have such a great reputation overall in the .22lr sector of firearms. If it came down to needing to reload swiftly, I simply would not want to be in that situation with the 22/45 after my experiences at the range. This would be very easy to remedy with some tinkering, I have no doubt about that; however, this is simply a review of both pistols as they came. A lot of people do not want to tinker with their firearms after buying, which is understandable for the average plinker.

In conclusion, I think it’s pretty clear who my overall winner was at the range this time. The Smith & Wesson 22A1 came through, despite my love for Ruger. In my prior experience I have always found Ruger firearms to be above and beyond what you pay for. I was a little disappointed with the 22/45, but I think our paths will cross again down the road. So officially, I must announce the 22A1 as my winner, and welcome any discussion and agreeing or contrasting opinions. Thanks for reading!

[MARINE DIVISION TWO]

If the opportunity arose I would Chose the Ruger MK III standard grip or the Browning Buckmark over the S&W 22a,They all work fine but the Ruger standard grip is better and smoother and the mag is different from the 22/45,The buckmark throws the spent shells to the side where the Ruger is over the top.JMO,Good Luck.

[Wildbill990]

Just bought a ruger 22/45 lite so I'll be waiting a week of so till I get it. I've been reading up on it to get a better idea of the gun. You can buy a bushing for it that will allow you to have the mag drop freely for about $10.

[MagRelease]

Just bought a ruger 22/45 lite so I'll be waiting a week of so till I get it. I've been reading up on it to get a better idea of the gun. You can buy a bushing for it that will allow you to have the mag drop freely for about $10.

I figured it would be that way. As I stated in the review, it's just more of an "out of the box" comparison.

[Armor Snail]

Wife has a 22/45. I have a 22A. I agree with just about everything you said.

As far as ammo though. My 22A sometimes dislikes CCI SV. It runs like a top with Win T-22s though. Give those a shot. YMMV.

[Pilot321]

I have four Ruger MK II's. I don't like the changes made on the MK III. The Rugers are built like tanks, are accurate, and reliable. There are also tremendous mods you can buy to make it anything you want, including a match pistol. The S&W is not even in the same class as the Ruger. I would compare it more to a Beretta Neos.

[R L Suehr]

I have a MKII Gov. target. I've shot it head to head with my fathers smith 22A and I like the ruger better personally. Accuracy at short distances is comparable. Back it up to 25 or 50 yds and the ruger really stands out. Just my take on it.

The grip on the 22A is nice and definetly fills your hand more than the 22/45. Try the standard grip MK II or III if the grips on the 22/45 gave you problems. I prefer the standard grip personally.

[Huffy49]

I feel that the Ruger is an outstanding firearm until you have to clean it. Then it's a fiendish contraption.

[Pilot321]

I feel that the Ruger is an outstanding firearm until you have to clean it. Then it's a fiendish contraption.

If you follow the manual, the Ruger is easy to takedown, and reassemble. You've been hanging out on MacDade Blvd too much. Step back, and watch a youtube vid, and read the manual.

Most people don't remember to point the pistol upward, and pull the trigger upon reassembly, and then seat the hammer strut properly.

[IV_Warrior]

Kinda surprised, I've shot both, and have seen both used in competition, and no way would I take a Smith over the Ruger.