smith and wesson 422,622,2206

chriskm · Post by **chriskm** » Wed May 05, 2010 9:00 pm

hello guys first post here. i would like to hear you guys opinion of these pistols. good and bad just let it all hang out!LOL. thanks in advance

greener · Post by **greener** » Wed May 05, 2010 9:16 pm

Welcome to the forum.

I've fired a 422. Not bad. Haven't seen any of the rest. If bgreenea3 wanders by he can better fill you in on the 422. He's only let me shoot it once.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Wed May 05, 2010 9:21 pm

greener wrote:Welcome to the forum.

I've fired a 422. Not bad. Haven't seen any of the rest. If bgreenea3 wanders by he can better fill you in on the 422. He's only let me shoot it once.

Just bought a 422 and it seems to shoot just fine. Only problem is the operator has never really fired a double action gun much, but he is getting better. It ain't no target gun but it will do what it was intended to doe and shoot as Evan always said, two minutes of felon is good enough.

chriskm · Post by **chriskm** » Wed May 05, 2010 9:32 pm

was the 2206 the better one to have then? i shot a 4'' one this weekend.
and felt like a 6'' barrel might just spank my ruger.

stewswanson · Post by **stewswanson** » Wed May 05, 2010 10:41 pm

My wife has a 442. She bought it because it was small and light . I think the trigger is much too heavy and because it is D.A. only and has no hammer you are stuck with an 11 lb. pull. She had the reduced power spring put in by a gunsmith but it does not seem much better.
Stew

greener · Post by **greener** » Wed May 05, 2010 11:28 pm

The 422/622 are .22 semiautos that preceded the 22A. I believe we are confusing it with the 442, .38 revolver.

Post by **Bullseye** » Thu May 06, 2010 6:42 am

The 422 was supposed to be the lower cost successor to the Model 41. But the uproar of the target shooting crowd made retiring the Model 41 impossible for S&W. This is not to say that these two pistols are equals but that the manufacturing costs of the M-41 were causing the line to be priced out of the market. Smith decided to remake a lower cost .22 target/plinking pistol and the 422 was born. I remember back in the 1980's when I first saw the 422, I didn't think much of the lightweight rimfire pistol, but then again I was used to the M-41. The trigger was one thing I did not like about the 422 because it was far too heavy for a .22 pistol. The second thing I did not care for was the slide mounted rear sight. Unlike the M-41 the 422 has the rear sight mounted directly on the slide and this means any sideways movement in the slide will cause angular errors in sighting. These are not bad pistols but for competitive target shooting I would not seriously consider one of these. Plinking or informal shooting one of these may be a lot of fun, especially if you are a shooter with pistol weight concerns like junior or female shooters.

R,
Bullseye

chriskm · Post by **chriskm** » Thu May 06, 2010 7:02 am

so the only real difference between the 2206 and 622/422 is the aluminun and stainless construction? i was looking at the 2206 target model, only real difference i see is ,looks like from the pics a millet rear sight.

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Fri May 07, 2010 4:32 pm

like greener posted I have a 422 (22lr Semiauto) I like it as a plinker not so much for fine target shooting, It shoots nicely but groups are twice the size of my mkii. the grips fit my hand nicely, it points well, but like BE posted the trigger is not as finely tuned as a target pistol needs to be but it isn't what I would call horrible mine is in the 4-6# range and fairly crisp.

all in all a nice plinker, 22 trainer for your SD gun, or a good pistol for walking around the woods (so I've read elsewhere)