I took all three 6" .22 revolvers to the range -- Eagle Creek, where The Guy himself, principal of Tactical Firearms Training, was rangemastering. This makes for a nice day, as he's a born teacher and there's quite a lot to be learned just by paying attention.
J.C. Higgins: The sights are off. Way off. Somebody had a flinch! With a heavy .22 revolver? Tsk. The action's just as smooth as silk, though, and it goes bang! every time. I can tap the rear sight back in line by eye and it should do fine.
Iver Johnson: Cleaning and lubing took care of the slightly "scratchy" trigger but I'm still getting light strikes. About 80% success first-time with the cheap rounds and 90% with CCI Mini-Mags. The more I shoot this gun, the more I appreciate the sights -- "old school," but quite large enough for easy shooting. I realize this was an inexpensive firearm but I think it'd be worth running it past the gunsmith to fix the light strikes. Based on my experience, I have no hesitation in recommending this model to anyone who'd like a .22 for range or tackle box.
The Sentinel: I need to clean it as I had the other two (chambers are getting a little tight) but it's a fun tackdriver: line up sights, squeeze trigger, boom! hole in target. I own -- and shoot -- guns with poor grace, that want to leap in odd ways or are a bit awkward in the hand. This is the exact opposite: it hasn't any bad habits at all. It shoots exactly as well -- or as poorly -- as you do. It's the revolver equivalent of a Ruger Mk. II (etc.), another fun-to-shoot .22.
Colt and S&W both made a number of very nice .22 revolvers; it'd be hard to go wrong with either one. However, they command Colt/S&W prices, too. They're not the only options; I'm very happy with my alternative choices.
I took my .32-20 Colt Police Positive Special as well and ran 18 rounds through it. It's always a treat; the recoil is hardly more than a .22. I need to pick up more ammunition for it, which is mildly painful unless you think of it as ticket to fun.
2 months ago