I find no difference in accuracy between our 22A and our MKIII Hunter. Considering how inexpensive the S&W was, I'm continually amazed at how well it performs.

Another one that's not expensive is the Beretta NEOS. You can get three different barrel lengths and can change them out in under a minute. I think they make them 4.5", 6" and 7". Each barrel comes with it's own rail too (for scope or red dot).

ok thanks, but i really dont like the looks of neos. a little too futuristic to me. So why is the s&w so much cheaper than ruger?

Just from my experience, but me and my daughter shot about 300 rounds, Walmart Cheap Federals, thru my Model 22A this past weekend without a hiccup. And the accuracy right out of the box was dead on a 15 yards without sitting on a sandbag.

The reason I went with the Smith was I noticed on the Outdoor Channel, some of the 22 shooters were using the Smith in the contests.

CountryBoy

You can buy the Ruger for less $ than the Smith here in Oklahoma. ??

I can't speak for the accuracy of the Smith, as I haven't shot one, but I doubt that there would be a significant difference from a practical shooting perspective.

I have held both though (mine's a Mark II), and preferred the build quality of the steel and wood Ruger over the plastic of the Smith.

I owned a 22A S&W, only problem was the Zero, The rear sight liked to move around.

I bought an S&W 22a-1. The iron sights suck. You can't change them out. Black front and rear sights. Whiteout can help the front, but no help on the rear.