[Redcoat3340]

I don't see or read much about the PPQ .22.


It seems to get good reviews when I look for them, but I don't recall seeing many threads about them here.


What's their story?


I have x-change kits for a Sig 220 and 226, but wouldn't mind a low-ammo-cost "trainer" for my Qs in .45 and 9mm. I realize recoil ain't the same, and it's not like my Sigs where it use the same trigger and just change the slide...but the .22 seems like a good idea.


There's one for sale locally for about $375 but I have no idea if that's a good price or not.


Thoughts??

 

[Scootnyinzer]

I don't see or read much about the PPQ .22.


It seems to get good reviews when I look for them, but I don't recall seeing many threads about them here.


What's their story?


I have x-change kits for a Sig 220 and 226, but wouldn't mind a low-ammo-cost "trainer" for my Qs in .45 and 9mm. I realize recoil ain't the same, and it's not like my Sigs where it use the same trigger and just change the slide...but the .22 seems like a good idea.


There's one for sale locally for about $375 but I have no idea if that's a good price or not.


Thoughts??

I think I might have seen it at Bud's for $339. I'm looking to add a PPQ. 22 as it would be cheap to shoot or to offer it to a new shooter to use.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Caine]

The PPQ 22 is moderately accurate 22 that resembles the PPQ shape but that is pretty much where it ends. In accuracy it doesn’t even come close to the Ruger Mark IV or the Buckmark line of 22s and the Smith and Wesson Liberty. The sights leave a lot to be desired with no after market options. It feels somewhat like a PPQ in the hand but the trigger is terrible compared to the excellent PPQ trigger. There is a lot of ammo it won’t shoot well and definitely needs high velocity stuff to cycle properly. My advice spend the money on a Buckmark or Ruger 22/45, you will be a lot happier in the long run.

 

[Kar98]

Concur. The PPQ .22 is really nothing to write home about.

 

[Redcoat3340]

Many thanks for the insights. I'm passing on this one. I have a Ruger Mark IV for target work and will stay with my Sigs X-Changes in terms of practice with a platform with .22 ammo.

 

[Caine]

Wise choice. I’m planning on trading my PPQ 22 in on a Ruger 22/45 to go with my Buckmark. The good news is they just built a Shooter’s World by me and they have over 300 pistols you can try out. I’ll be able to shoot it before I buy it. I’m waiting until I have cataract surgery before I do anything. Right now I very little vision in my left eye which is my dominant eye.

 

[Rich807]

I have more than 1 PPQ .22 & they have performed flawlessly. Ate every kind of ammo I've fed them. Not 1 malfunction, zero.

Do they operate like clones of their centerfire brothers, no. Do they have the exterior ergos as their centerfire brothers, yes.

Fun to shoot on the cheap item while maintaining a PPQ ergo feel in your hand. Also great tool to teach your youngsters or lady what a full sized handgun feels like to operate without the fear factor a centerfire caliber can sometime bring with it. I used mine to get my extremely nervous wife used to the fun & utility of handgun shooting. Before the PPQ 22 there was little chance of moving her up to a centerfire due to intimidation factor. Now it's a much easier 'up sell' to the real deal as I'm putting another familiar feeling handgun in her hand, albeit more powerful, but still it's one PPQ to another.... One less hurdle to overcome & all that.

 

[WaterDR]

I think full sized .22s are both pointless and yet very under estimated at the same time 🙂

On the one hand, it’s a pointless gun. No one would use it for any other purpose than training......on the other hand, most .22s are not ergonomically in any way like a center fire gun. I wish I had one for my students. Would be great for training in many ways and in ways where precision is not a focus anyway.

 

[Slartybartfast]

I think full sized .22s are both pointless and yet very under estimated at the same time.
On the one hand, it’s a pointless gun. No one would use it for any other purpose than training......on the other hand, most .22s are not ergonomically in any way like a center fire gun. I wish I had one for my students. Would be great for training in many ways and in ways where precision is not a focus anyway.

Personally, I think the error in the problematic .22's that want to look and behave like their bigger brothers is that they should look towards the Marvel, Advantage Arms, or Nelson 1911 conversions, the CZ Kadet conversion, or Buckmark, S&W 41, or S&W Victory 22 pistols for inspiration on how the action should work.

Don't move the whole slide and try to make the whole slide light enough to cycle with .22s. Make the upper the same size as the full size gun, make it fixed, move only enough to cycle the cartridges.

And do your utmost to make it function with the frame/receiver of the full-sized pistol.

The last point may be too much to ask for the PPQ as I'm not sure of the issues involved in making a .22 striker fired action.

But the statement "where precision is not a focus anyway" is a very wrong way to look at it. The 1911 conversions are for bullseye shooting where precision is the focus with targets scored at 25 and 50 yards (or very small targets and scoring rings at 50ft). The identical trigger leads to big advantages in the centerfire and 45cal stages as you don't have multiple guns and trigger techniques to learn.

Yes, a mediocre performing .22 can be used for training how to handle a pistol and plinking if your standards are low. A well built .22 can be used to train for competition, or even used in competition, with the only difference being recoil and cost of ammo.

 

[Ddog0587]

I have one. I could agree with most of the sentiments here. The trigger is nowhere close to a real PPQ. IT almost feels like a toy compared to one as well. The slide is laughable light and thin. Its decently accurate to 20 yards or so. I like having a cheap trainer for my other PPQs so it does that just fine.

 

[WaterDR]

I think full sized .22s are both pointless and yet very under estimated at the same time.
On the one hand, it’s a pointless gun. No one would use it for any other purpose than training......on the other hand, most .22s are not ergonomically in any way like a center fire gun. I wish I had one for my students. Would be great for training in many ways and in ways where precision is not a focus anyway.

Personally, I think the error in the problematic .22's that want to look and behave like their bigger brothers is that they should look towards the Marvel, Advantage Arms, or Nelson 1911 conversions, the CZ Kadet conversion, or Buckmark, S&W 41, or S&W Victory 22 pistols for inspiration on how the action should work.

Don't move the whole slide and try to make the whole slide light enough to cycle with .22s. Make the upper the same size as the full size gun, make it fixed, move only enough to cycle the cartridges.

And do your utmost to make it function with the frame/receiver of the full-sized pistol.

The last point may be too much to ask for the PPQ as I'm not sure of the issues involved in making a .22 striker fired action.

But the statement "where precision is not a focus anyway" is a very wrong way to look at it. The 1911 conversions are for bullseye shooting where precision is the focus with targets scored at 25 and 50 yards (or very small targets and scoring rings at 50ft). The identical trigger leads to big advantages in the centerfire and 45cal stages as you don't have multiple guns and trigger techniques to learn.

Yes, a mediocre performing .22 can be used for training how to handle a pistol and plinking if your standards are low. A well built .22 can be used to train for competition, or even used in competition, with the only difference being recoil and cost of ammo.

My point is that I don’t have a single beginner student come to me and say “I want to be an expert shot or I want to be champ.” No....it’s more along the lines of “what does reinforce mean?” Or “I have never fired a gun before can you show me?”

But you do make a great point. I think conversion pistols have a great upside. For some reason they don’t seem to sell. I tend to think it’s because the com erosion is often as expensive as a new gun and people see the value in having two different guns rather than one....that can covert.

It’s a missed opportunity.

I am “toying” with the idea of starting a 4 to 6 week class for beginners. 90 min small group sessions. Initially I was thinking of charging something like $1000 and including a choice of guns. Students would have free access to range during the class.

Anyway...haven’t run all the numbers to even see if this is viable....but might interesting.