Is The S&W 422/622/2206 The Poor Man's 41/46?
- Thread starter kidcom
- Start date
I have owned at least one (2 right now) since 1995. Due to the super-low barrel axis, the light weight, and the general easy to strip design, it has become my favorite pistol. I have owned 2 model 41's and several of my 422 (target models) shot equal to the 5x as much 41. (they didn't shoot better but shot as well, considering it weighs almost half). I haven't bothered with my "eternal search" for the perfect-for-me handgun since buy one of these. I still can't decide if I like my 4.5" or 6" model better. The longer one is marginally more accurate. (roughly 1/4" better at 15 to 25 yards.) It only starts to malfunction if I shoot 4-500 rounds and don't clean/lubricate it.
It only takes me 5 minutes to strip/clean/re-assemble it, so that also contributes to my love of it.
It only takes me 5 minutes to strip/clean/re-assemble it, so that also contributes to my love of it.
Bought mine in the early 90's, think I paid $200 new. Likes to be cleaned and lubed on a regular basis. Never had another .22 pistol so I can't compare accuracy but it's good enough to hit spent shotgun shells at 25 yards. Can't even guess as to how many rounds have been through it but it has never given me any grief.
Got Juice?
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Peoples Republik of Kanukkistan
for the avg plinker,not much difference. when you start getting more serious, the 46/41 will outpace their lesser brethern. not by a run certainly, but at a walk.
Had one for a few years. It's at least, as accurate as I am. Wasn't nearly as fussy about ammo, as my 41. My girls liked it, because of it's light weight and smallish grip. Really not in the same league as a 41, but considering the cost, you wouldn't expect it to be.
Last year I added a Model 41 to my 422 and 2206 S&W collection. The 41 is certainly the star in this trio for accuracy. But not by a whole lot. Maybe 1/2 to 3/4" larger groups at my club's 20 yard indoor range? On a good night with a good gun I can manage to keep most of them within a roughly 3 inch group. Mind you I don't think I've ever tried to shoot any of the SV ammo through the 422. I should try that to see if the gun shoots any better.
It's been a very reliable gun too. It's only acted up a couple of times when I simply had not cleaned it for something up around 400 to 500 rounds. And that's the kiss of death to a blowback semi in most books anyway.
It's been a very reliable gun too. It's only acted up a couple of times when I simply had not cleaned it for something up around 400 to 500 rounds. And that's the kiss of death to a blowback semi in most books anyway.
I have to say that I cannot shoot my 4.5" 422 with the same accuracy as the 6" barrelled gun. There were 2 kinds of 422. The field with fixed sights and black plastic grips, and the target model with adjustable rear sight, narrower front sight and wood grips with S & W gold logo in grip. I did find my 41 to be more accurate generally, but at almost twice the weight of a 422, that is understandable. ALTHOUGH, I found the heavy 41 to be harder to hold steady at arms length than the lighter 422. Most people find it easier to hold a heavy gun steady. Not me.
I just wish magazines fell from the sky like skittles. I have 5 , but it took me 10 years to hoard them.
I just wish magazines fell from the sky like skittles. I have 5 , but it took me 10 years to hoard them.
The 422 is a nice little pistol, quality is good Smith&Wesson mass production quality, no where near the Model 41 or a High Standard Victor. I enjoy shooting the little thing it is light and has a decent trigger, but I prefer my early production Browning Buckmark or my Browning Challenger III.
Model 41 mags are still easily found. Not cheap but still available. When I got my new magazines the locking slot was only off to the one side to fit the 41. I stripped the mags down and used a small flat mini file to extend the slot around to the middle of the curved front and that allowed it to work fine with the 422. A very steady hand with a Dremel could do the same thing but I'd recommend the hand file method as being far more controllable. And at two or maybe three minutes of filing and checking progress and accuracy it's hardly a major time user.
wayupnorth
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northern Alberta
ive got a 422 and a 622.
have had them for well over 20 years.
nice and reliable, tanks really.
compared to the 41 i shot they are pretty cheap.
but..... that said..... they are a $200 pistol not a $1500 41 so that would make sense.
have had them for well over 20 years.
nice and reliable, tanks really.
compared to the 41 i shot they are pretty cheap.
but..... that said..... they are a $200 pistol not a $1500 41 so that would make sense.
Well, it's not like the 422 is spraying them all over the place either.
I think that for many shooters if the 422 and 41 back to back there would be little or no difference in the group size. It would take having the two guns being shot by folks that can produce somewhere around a 4 to 3 inch and smaller groups at 25 yards before you'd see a trend of the 41 groups being smaller. I've picked up a few hints about the classic bullseye discipline but I'm not sure I'd see a consistently significant improvement going to my 41 from my 422. My club's indoor range is 20 yards and I'm roughly a 3 inch grouping sort of guy other than on nights when I'm "in the zone" where I drop down to maybe 2.5" on a consistent basis. And both guns are at least that good.
sam burton
Regular
- Location
- armstrong BC
I love my 422, bought it for my daughter to get her shooting handguns and it has been fantastic, nice and light and easy to shoot and plenty accurate for what we are doing with it.
