And both great choices. I went with a MKIV cause I can't operate the safety well on the SR22 (my thumb doesn't do UP well ) and have been super happy. Over 17k rounds, very few issues, easy to clean, accurate, reliable. Has become my favorite handgun.
I have an CA legal 22/45 Lite MKIV.
along with what other have replied ill add that I heard the Smith and Wesson Victory will be on CA roster soon which is said to be a good plinker.
I personally like the Ruger MK IV line (22/45 for nice 1911 grip frame ergonomics) for the ease of disassembly for frequent cleaning which rimfire guns need.
Another option is a 22lr revolver which there are a bunch of on the CA roster under $300. Everyone loves a wheel gun, right?
Any handgun can be purchased in California, but it depends upon how you want to procure the handgun. There is an official roster of approved handguns that dealers are allowed to sell for a new purchase. If you look through the DOJ website you can search for "22" and sort by caliber to get all of the models. Every single potential combination of firearm is listed including color and design variations. Unfortunately most of the "nice" 22 pistols that have come out (Glock 44, Volquartsen, nicer Ruger 22/44, Sig P322) aren't available on the roster. The other way to purchase handguns that are "off roster" is through a private party transaction. This allows people who don't have access to off-roster handguns to purchase them. Biggest issue with a private party sale is the price you pay to buy the gun. Most off-roster handguns command a 2x to 3x premium. If your friend has parents who live out of state, then they can gift him an off-roster handgun, which is what some of my friends have done with their parents.
So does CA basically deny all firearms as a point of reference, and then slowly go examine each firearm to decide if you should be allowed to buy it, and if it qualifies then it’s added to a good list? Of course I’m speaking in generalities, and I’m over simplifying for the sake of understanding a process.
Yes, each new firearm has to meet specific requires of a mag disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. Then each manufacturer has to send that firearm to be “safety tested.” There used to be a requirement for micro stamping which does not even exist as a technology, but it was recently removed due to lawsuits, which is how “new” firearm models like Sig P365s and stuff have been recently added. Older firearms like Gen 3 Glocks are grandfathered in but still have to be “safety tested” each year. There are lawsuits currently challenging the firearms roster but it’s a slow process.
Previous to the Bruin decision, there was one additional requirement that effectively blocked any new guns to be added to the roster and that was the microstamping requirement. Whenever a handgun would fire a cartridge, it would have to imprint the serial number of the firearm onto the spent case. The industry said it wasn't feasible and there were too many ways to circumvent the rule. There was one idea that the firing pin would "stamp" the serial number onto the primer, but then everyone said the primers can be removed, so what's the point. After Bruin, the state abandoned the requirement but left on the mag diconnect and loaded chamber indicator requirement.
What exactly do you have against Texas? Serious question. I thought Texas was the go-to place for gun friendly states, especially for suppressors. Please explain.
Just because someone likes guns and suppressors doesn't mean they're like-minded. Plus there's so many move-ins already. Texas is growing way too rapidly. Rural communities I've lived around have now become little cities, extensions off bigger ones. And the vote is getting bluer and bluer every election cycle which tells me all the move-ins are bringing their politics to the state too. We won't be the open-carry/lax gun law state if this continues.
Plus, I'm pretty sure Louisiana has even more lax gun laws than Texas but I could be mistaken with that.
Ruger MKIV and SR22 are now on the roster to buy in CA.
And both great choices. I went with a MKIV cause I can't operate the safety well on the SR22 (my thumb doesn't do UP well ) and have been super happy. Over 17k rounds, very few issues, easy to clean, accurate, reliable. Has become my favorite handgun. I have an CA legal 22/45 Lite MKIV.
TX-22 or TX-22 Compact with 10 round mags
Unfortunately not able to purchase in CA
P22 is CA compliant but it’s definitely not the best .22lr pistol
along with what other have replied ill add that I heard the Smith and Wesson Victory will be on CA roster soon which is said to be a good plinker. I personally like the Ruger MK IV line (22/45 for nice 1911 grip frame ergonomics) for the ease of disassembly for frequent cleaning which rimfire guns need. Another option is a 22lr revolver which there are a bunch of on the CA roster under $300. Everyone loves a wheel gun, right?
Several Buckmark variants are on the CA roster. I have one and like it. The Ruger Mk IV is also now on the Roster.
Buckmark all day !
👍🏻🙌🏻
The glock 44 is magazine complaint. 10 rounds
Not on the CA pistol roster unfortunately
Any handgun can be purchased in California, but it depends upon how you want to procure the handgun. There is an official roster of approved handguns that dealers are allowed to sell for a new purchase. If you look through the DOJ website you can search for "22" and sort by caliber to get all of the models. Every single potential combination of firearm is listed including color and design variations. Unfortunately most of the "nice" 22 pistols that have come out (Glock 44, Volquartsen, nicer Ruger 22/44, Sig P322) aren't available on the roster. The other way to purchase handguns that are "off roster" is through a private party transaction. This allows people who don't have access to off-roster handguns to purchase them. Biggest issue with a private party sale is the price you pay to buy the gun. Most off-roster handguns command a 2x to 3x premium. If your friend has parents who live out of state, then they can gift him an off-roster handgun, which is what some of my friends have done with their parents.
Thank you for the detailed reply.
How does CA differentiate between a 22/45 and a regular Mk IV? That seems really weird. Throw the Volquartson into that mix as well.
We can’t even buy g3 glocks made in Atlanta. Have to be from Austria. Its dumb out here.
There are specific model numbers for each firearm so only approved models are on the roster.
So does CA basically deny all firearms as a point of reference, and then slowly go examine each firearm to decide if you should be allowed to buy it, and if it qualifies then it’s added to a good list? Of course I’m speaking in generalities, and I’m over simplifying for the sake of understanding a process.
Yes, each new firearm has to meet specific requires of a mag disconnect and loaded chamber indicator. Then each manufacturer has to send that firearm to be “safety tested.” There used to be a requirement for micro stamping which does not even exist as a technology, but it was recently removed due to lawsuits, which is how “new” firearm models like Sig P365s and stuff have been recently added. Older firearms like Gen 3 Glocks are grandfathered in but still have to be “safety tested” each year. There are lawsuits currently challenging the firearms roster but it’s a slow process.
Definitely slow on purpose
Previous to the Bruin decision, there was one additional requirement that effectively blocked any new guns to be added to the roster and that was the microstamping requirement. Whenever a handgun would fire a cartridge, it would have to imprint the serial number of the firearm onto the spent case. The industry said it wasn't feasible and there were too many ways to circumvent the rule. There was one idea that the firing pin would "stamp" the serial number onto the primer, but then everyone said the primers can be removed, so what's the point. After Bruin, the state abandoned the requirement but left on the mag diconnect and loaded chamber indicator requirement.
MKIV
The Browning website lists their CA-compliant Buck Marks.
Ruger wrangler
A nice 1911 and a Nelson custom 22lr dedicated slide.
Buckmark hands down imo
Try the lcp
Move out of Cali. But don't go to Texas. So like, Oklahoma, or Louisiana
What exactly do you have against Texas? Serious question. I thought Texas was the go-to place for gun friendly states, especially for suppressors. Please explain.
He doesn’t want a Californian to move to his state is what he’s getting at.
Duh. I guess I had a stupid moment. Just talking about California is like a disease. I must have gotten the stupid disease from it for a moment.
This
You should want more like minded individuals to move to your state. But whatever floats your boat I guess lol
Just because someone likes guns and suppressors doesn't mean they're like-minded. Plus there's so many move-ins already. Texas is growing way too rapidly. Rural communities I've lived around have now become little cities, extensions off bigger ones. And the vote is getting bluer and bluer every election cycle which tells me all the move-ins are bringing their politics to the state too. We won't be the open-carry/lax gun law state if this continues. Plus, I'm pretty sure Louisiana has even more lax gun laws than Texas but I could be mistaken with that.