[andy]

as a pistol, in every way, used, for $150 or so. Mak is no pocket gun, and a 4" Browning is no harder to ccw than a 1911 is, much less the 4" N frame you CLAIM is so "easy" to ccw. Buckmark has CONSIDERBLY more velocity, ease of hitting and control than does the .22 ppk Hard Ball carries in his pants pocket, and it's very servicable as a foraging or match pc. Neither the PPK nor the Mak can come close to the Browning .22 in that regard, and the Mak's ammo costs 5x as much as the .22 ammo. Since the Mak doesn't hit ENOUGH harder than the .22 to MATTER any, buying one is a screwup on your part.

 

[Teufelhund]

No .22 RF is going to hit like a Mak does, Cor-bon has some pretty spunky loads for it and apparently you have never handled a Mak because it's quite a bit smaller than a 4" Buckmark.

That being said the Buckmark would be my choice between the two, if limited to one firearm, a .22 RF auto-pistol is a pretty damm good "only" weapon. However, if I also had a .22 RF rifle the Mak would make a good enough for the money sidearm.

The way you have framed your statement is so open ended as to make any discussion about them just about useless.

Who here is contemplating the purchace of thier one and only firearm?

Most everyone has several wepons to choose from and could assemble any variety of handgun/rifle combo's to suit about any percieved need.

So how are you getting along with that SKS and what "matches" do you shoot a 4" Buckmark in? LOL

Teuf,

 

[andy]

any that any 22 pistol can compete in, of course. Do WAY better than ANYONE is going to do with a Mak,that's for sure. It doesn't MATTER that the mak is a LITTLE more powerful than a .22, it AINT powerful ENOUGH to amount to a crap, just like I said. As I ALSO said, Mak's too big and heavy for pants pocket carry, so you have to ccw it just like you would a 1911, or the Buckmark. So why bother with the pos?

 

[andy]

so why does anyone HERE have to be contemplating mak at ALL, much less for "only" pistol, in order for me to discuss it, hmm? You are limited to concretes, I think in terms of PRINCIPLES. That's why you will NEVER be able to match me.

 

[Teufelhund]

Thats the context you put it in JD

so why does anyone HERE have to be contemplating mak at ALL, much less for "only" pistol, in order for me to discuss it, hmm? You are limited to concretes, I think in terms of PRINCIPLES. That's why you will NEVER be able to match me.

A .22 Buckmark or the Mak, pretty well implies no other choices to me. I have shot the Mak and it's not a bad low cost pistol that is definetly in-between the .380 and 9mm external ballistics wise.

You still didn't answer the question, what matches do guys shoot 4" .22 autos in?

Teuf,

 

[mrostov]

To say that a Mak is only a 'little' more powerful than a .22 implies a lack of experience with one, the other, or both.

An excellent, affordable 'survival battery' that you could carry with you would be a Mak and a scoped .22 rifle, or a scoped centerfire hunting rifle and a .22 pistol.