Standard Manufacturing Announces the New SG22 Semi-Automatic Rimfire Pistol

1. The old Colt was one of those guns that just felt right when you picked it up. 1860 Army. Luger. 1903 Colt. CZ75.

   Some guns just feel right.

2. Look gorgeous.

3. I prefer the “yesteryear” guns that remind me of my grandfather’s era. He was a Chief Engineer, master craftsman, reloader, hunter, and such. He involved himself only with quality, and when I inherited much of his inventory upon his passing years ago, it was like being in his home workshop again, as I was during my childhood.

   This SG22 reminds me of my Mark I.

4. I have a Colt Woodsman.

   • I don’t. I envy.

   • I have a 6″ match target. it’s like pointing your finger and make a hole. To bad my finger doesn’t always point where I’m looking

5. Blonde walnut grips and color-case hardened looks sexy as Hell on that pistol.

   I wonder if anyone is contemplating a re-issue of the wonderful High Standard target .22s…

   • +1 on the High Standard.

   • I have a Hi-Standard Dura-matic that I bought on a whim years ago at a gun show. Other than it being a bit finicky about magazines, it has been a hoot. The Dura-matic is one of the lower grade Hi-Standards but it is still pretty spiffy.

     The gun show where I found it was back in the day when polymer pistols were a pretty new thing and the guy who sold it to me for a song thought it was junk because “half of it is plastic.” Really, it is just the grip frame that is some sort of ’60s fake wood grain plastic but, it got me a really cheap tack-driver so, I’m a happy man.

     I shudder to think of what something that had the precision of some of the better Hi-Standards or the Woodsman would cost these days.

     • Even their low end revolvers were pretty damn functional. Sentinel and Double Nine come to mind.

       • I’ve never handled one of their revolvers – seen pictures, never touched one. I have shot a friend’s Olympic model (don’t recall the specific designations) and it ran like it was made of oily butter. I can imagine that the revolvers were spiffy.

       • Their semis were very much a better gun. I even had one that was chambered in .380. Large, hammer fired and with a 6 round mag. I don’t think they made too many of that model. But it was fun and shot very well.

         Is the Olympic model the one that was chambered in .22 short? I remember shooting one, I believe it was a High Standard. That gun was a literal tack driver.

       • I learned Bullseye back in college, with a couple different High Standards. Most shot Smith 41s, but my hand and eye didn’t like them as well. I’m almost done rebuilding my grandfather’s lost collection, and then I’ll begin shopping for a Supermatic.

       • @jwm

         I believe there were several sub-models under the “Olympic” umbrella. The one I have fired was .22 LR but I have no doubt that there were .22 short variants. The old friend who owned the one I’ve shot is an H-S aficionado who could list various model names and variants that I cannot. When I told him I had purchased an H-S .22 he suggested we take mine and one of his to the range and, so we did. His was nicer, as I indicated, but it has been a couple of decades and I don’t recall the specifics. I do recall that he said I had gotten a very good deal and I was happy with that info.

6. This John Browning design
   Yeah, looks a lot like a Browning Buckmark to me, which is half the price and component parts are readily available.

   • Actually, the Buckmark looks like a woodsman.

     The Buckmark is a modern rendition of the Woodsman.

     If it floats your boat – it’s a dandy pistol.

     Just not as svelt as an original Woodsman.

7. I wish they had made the original model.

   Much more sleek and handy.

   And making a limited run just guarantees most will be stored and not shot.

   Oh well….their nickel.

8. Wow, all the benefits of an obsolete design from 1915, an awkward un-ergonomic grip angle, a weak rimfire round, low-capacity, no provision for any optics mount, no picatinny rail, combined with sky-high prices of $1,299.00 to $1,599.00 too? Can you throw in frequent jams and a finicky taste in ammunition? Then it’ll be a winning formula for sure!
   /sarc

   • I see that you have met my friend, .22 LR. lol.

     • There are some .22 LR pistols with a more modern design and a less finicky taste in ammunition. I like my Ruger SR22, which can digest any ammunition, has a Picatinny rail for lights/lasers, threaded barrel options, choice of barrel length, and an ergonomic design. With the 3.5″ barrel length, the SR22 fits in a pocket holster, and with the 5″ barrel length it’s a target pistol. (Granted some people don’t like the SR22’s “backwards” safety that’s up for fire and down for safe, but I don’t mind, as it’s easy to use).

       • I own 2 .22 semi-autos (and a couple of .22 revolvers). One is a circa 1960 Hi-Standard and one is a circa 2018 S&W. They are remarkably similar except when it comes to magazine/ammunition finickiness. The S&W eats virtually anything and the mags work fine all the time while the H-S requires nice and smooth round nose bullets and, if the feed lips on the mag get a bit bent out of shape, failure-to-feed is the result. With the right ammo and the mag working well, the Hi-Standard is, probably, the most accurate pistol I own.

       • You cannot beat the SR22. I love mine for some cheap plinking fun. That being said, .22 firearms really should not cost what this company is asking. Sheez, we still have to put food on the table….

9. The Woodsman has a certain cachet, but this version I’m sort of “meh” about. Is that supposed to be a mix of bluing and color case hardening, or did somebody leave the demo sitting out under a dumpster in the back lot of the factory for a couple of months?

10. Gorgeous gun. Looks a lot like the High Standard Supermatic Citation my dad bought for me when I was 19, and won a few trophies with.

11. Looks like a High Standard Supermatic and a Browning Buckmark had a baby.

12. I thought it was a Supermatic too.
    Cool gunm, finally something besides a plastic wunder 9

13. I seriously can’t see it being more accurate than my Buckmark, and for that, I seriously couldn’t see spending 14 grand for it.

    • 1400, not 14,000.

14. 1300 – 1600 dollars for a .22 ?!?!?!? For me, a big NO THANKS ! Plus, I’ve never heard of Standard Mfg….

    • Send in your “deposit” and will get back to you when ready to ship. Or someday, Trust us.

15. Why limited production? For this high a quality a gun the price it not that bad.

16. No threaded barrel option? C’mon . . . .

    Would love to have a Woodsman (that and a Colt Diamondback in .22 were the handguns my father used to teach us to shoot) with barrel threaded to take a .22 can, but Woodsies are now so collectible that I dare not deface one.

17. >We have an SG22 on its way for a full review
    That was eight months ago. What happened?

Comments are closed.