I took my new Ruger GP-100 .22 pistol to the range the other day to sight it in and familiarize myself with it. I’m not going to get into why I think a .22 revolver has high value as a resident of a good survivalists armory…you may agree, you may disagree, but that has no bearing on how my shooting experience went, so why bring it up?
I have a very nice S&W K-22 pistol that I’ve had for a number of years. No two ways about it, its a fine gun. But while its a great gun for taking out to the range and on gopher shooting adventures, it’s not as well suited for survivalist needs as other options. What, specifically? Well, a few things: six shot capacity, blued finish, K-frame size, non-replaceable front sight, and a few other details.
I picked up a Ruger GP-100 in .22 and am so far pleased with it. It is stainless steel, carries ten rounds, has interchangeable front sights, is on the same L-frame-size as my .357s (thereby giving some holster cross-compatability), and is wildly overbuilt for a .22.
The biggest advantage this thing has over the K-22 is that it holds 66% more ammo. Cases ejected cleanly with no hangups, the ejector rod throw was plenty long to clear the chambers, and the chambers are close enough to each other that loading three rounds at a time is do-able with practice.
Accuracy, I thought, was quite good. I was shooting Federal bulk hollowpoints…you know, the brick you get at WalMart, and it shot rather well after I moved the sights up a few inches. The limiting factor when it comes to accuracy, in my experience, with a .22 is more about the ammo than the gun. Federal bulk is kind of the Norinco 7.62×39 of the .22 world – it’s cheap, its abundant, it usually goes bang every time you pull the trigger, but some corners had to get cut somewhere to make that price point. Now, I could have thrown some Eley in there and seen how that shoots but this is my survivalist’s .22 revolver. It will spend its entire career eating bulk Federal ammo unless some bizarre situation forces me to some sort of ‘dogs lunch’ of mixed .22s.
Trigger was a tad heavy but..its a new gun. Shooting it frequently will eventually smooth things out. I don’t really care for fiber optic sights…I’d prefer a Patridge or Baughman ramp, but since the front sight is replaceable, I’ll probably hunt down an alternative.
Being on the L-frame-size (interestingly Smith L-frames, Ruger GP-100, and Colt Pythons are approximately the same frame size and often holsters wll interchange) and having a tiny .22 bore, theres a lot of metal in the gun. The weight is nice for steady shooting but it might wear on you if you’re carrying it on your belt all day as you climb hills. For situations where weight isn’t as big a factor, perhaps in a light plane’s survival kit, this thing would be hard to beat.
Pricewise its about as expensive as a .357 GP-100…and I suppose that makes sense. Other than the smaller holes in the barrel and cylinder, its the same as a .357 GP-100 in terms of materials.
Alternatives? Smith makes the 10-shot 617, and I’m sure its a fine gun, but its actually more expensive than the Ruger. Taurus makes 8- and 9-shot DA revolvers that cost less but…Taurus. Colt, desperately trying to remain relevant (and solvent) has a 10-shot .22 version of their King Cobra and its right up there with the Smith in terms of price…but you get the bonus of knowing you have a collectible because Colt will probably discontinue it after their next couple of successive bankruptcies.
So, overall, my impression of the Ruger GP-100 .22 is that its a good candidate for an end-of-the-world .22. It’s overbuilt, even by Ruger standards, and should last for generations. I’d say the only real apples-to-apples competition it has would be the S&W 617 10-shot. As much as I like Smith revolvers, I’d probably have more confidence in the Ruger for getting banged around in mud, blood, sand, snow, wet, and crud. But…either one will probably serve admirably. Ruger has always had a reputation for making products that are built like tanks (usually at the expense of ergonomics and aesthetics) and that durability and survivability mean alot to me…so, for me, the Ruger gets the nod. You do you, man…but I’m pleased so far with the Ruger .22.