I like Savage as a company, and I like their guns too. Inexpensive and accurate. You don’t have to be a skinflint yankee to know that there’s a difference between “inexpensive” and “cheap”. One quality is admirable, the other is to be shunned.
Savage used to make a handy .22LR/.410 over-under called the Model 24.
Handy and versatile, and easy to feed. A lot of prepper/survivalist types sang their praises.
I was disappointed to learn that Savage discontinued the Model 24 a few years back.
The only other gun which combined these useful calibers was the also-discontinued Springfield Armory M6, which was more portable but less ergonomic.
Baikal also makes a .22/20ga or .223/12ga over under. (I might have to consider one.)
But now I see that Savage has replaced the Model 24 with a new gun, the Model 42:
Available in .22LR or .22WMR over a .410 shotgun barrel, the Model 42 boasts a more-modern design of synthetic stock than the Model 24, thus increasing its street cred among preppers. I looked forward to seeing one, and perhaps adding it to my arsenal.
After examining a Model 42, I realized that Savage cheaped out on this new gun in one significant way, with 3 specific effects.
The ejector is manually-activated, unlike an original Model 24 which partially extracts the shells when you break the gun open. Not a dealbreaker; and I can see some scenarios where it would be an advantage to leave the shells in the chamber until you decide you want them out. But for fast firing this change is a step in the wrong direction
The ejector mechanism is made of plastic:
The extractors are made of straight pieces of razor-thin metal, and look extremely fragile:
While I like the looks of the Model 42, I am disappointed with this lowering of quality. I think I will look for a used Model 24. Or maybe look at a Baikal.
In the wake of Sandy Hook, yet another organ of the lamestream media has resumed praying at the altar of the mythical Smart Gun, which is alleged to be unable to fire for anyone except an “authorized user”:
They aren’t the only ones yammering about the non-existent Smart Gun either:
Like the rest of you, I am feeling the effects of the ammo shortage.
I am using .22 guns for practice as often as possible. Why? Because 9mm is nearly impossible to find. Not surprising, given its popularity. .223 range ammo (as opposed to defensive/hunting loads) is scarce too. I prefer not to deplete my reserves until that becomes unavoidable. The similarity of the Ruger SR22 to many tactical pistols (in terms of ergonomics and sights) makes it a good alternative for low-cost practice.
What is surprising is how much .380 I am seeing still on shelves. Also, .45acp is usually available, and most of the time .40S&W too.
There’s a lot of factors at play in this shortage; war production, other government contracts, panic buying, hoarding, etc. I cannot say if there is any opportunism or profiteering going on, beyond a few unscrupulous dealers that I make a habit of avoiding. I would imagine that it is a good time to be in the ammo manufacturing business. None of their product will sit idle waiting for a buyer.
Retailers are weary of getting phone calls from ammo-seeking customers. Many of us have uncovered the delivery schedules for our local retailers, and are scheduling visits to coincide with the deliveries to ensure first crack at any ammo they get.
The shooting ranges that I frequent have ammo to supply their shooting customers thus far; they are sick of being asked to sell it to retail customers. One owner hides the boxes so that people won’t see them and ask to buy it.
Hope it loosens up soon…
Most shooters understand that the attempts to demonize magazines for the number of bullets they hold are a false-flag attack on our rights. The rabid gun-haters are throwing everything they can think of at the wall in the hope that some of it will stick. And their willing co-conspirators in the media are eagerly assisting them by deliberately confusing the public on the subject of guns to convince them to support more gun control.
How can the magazine originally designed to be standard equipment in 1935 to fit the Browning Hi-Power (13 round capacity) be legitimately described as “high capacity”? That’s the standard capacity.
Sorry for the interruption in posting. Life happens, and we had a bad storm in Connecticut as well.
I was looking for a .22 handgun that I could use for cheap realistic practice. Since I already have a target pistol, this one was supposed to be a stand-in for a carry gun, with light weight and decent sights.
I considered a Walther P22 (which is actually made by Umarex). The rear sight of the P22 is adjustable for windage, but the only way to change elevation is to change the front sight. While they apparently modified the magazines to improve feed reliability, I still do not trust a gun with its slide made of Zamak. So the P22 is out.