Tracker v. mod 94 v. 941
Fun factor - advantage goes to the 970 and 94 because 22lr is cheaper than 22mag. If the ammo cost the same I'd probably say the 971 and 941 would be better because they make bullets go faster 
As far as 970/971 vs 94/941 goes, they are fun in different ways. To me, the difference is like this; a 94/941 is like a scoped standard 10/22 Carbine while the 970/971 is like a scoped 10/22 with bull barrel. The regular model is a tote around fun plinking gun for just messing around while the heavier model is slightly more accurate, looks cool, but can be a pain to carry all day. I'm not implying the 970.971 is more accurate though, its just that they are easier to shoot accurately because of the long barrel.
Coolness - that goes to the 970/971 because they have a bead blasted finish, the barrel and underlug is wider top to bottom, the grips are cooler looking. BUT, the 94/941 are 9 shot and the 970/971 are 7 shot. Two shots more is cooler.
Size/weight - at the range the 970/971 are nicer because you can hold steady better with their long full underlug barrels. They also have a longer sight radius adding to the practical accuracy.
The Trackers are slightly larger. I do mean slightly. If you have wide hands or fat fingers the 94/941 will be too small and the Tracker may even be too small.
If you plan on taking the gun on long hikes the 94/941 are easier to tote around. The Trackers are no less combersome than a 6" Ruger GP-100 or S&W 686. It will pull your pants down on that side and the long barrel will make sitting annoying. However, to me the extra barrel length was worth the hassel because it makes the Tracker a better hunting gun than the 94/941.
As far as 970/971 vs 94/941 goes, they are fun in different ways. To me, the difference is like this; a 94/941 is like a scoped standard 10/22 Carbine while the 970/971 is like a scoped 10/22 with bull barrel. The regular model is a tote around fun plinking gun for just messing around while the heavier model is slightly more accurate, looks cool, but can be a pain to carry all day. I'm not implying the 970.971 is more accurate though, its just that they are easier to shoot accurately because of the long barrel.
Coolness - that goes to the 970/971 because they have a bead blasted finish, the barrel and underlug is wider top to bottom, the grips are cooler looking. BUT, the 94/941 are 9 shot and the 970/971 are 7 shot. Two shots more is cooler.
Size/weight - at the range the 970/971 are nicer because you can hold steady better with their long full underlug barrels. They also have a longer sight radius adding to the practical accuracy.
The Trackers are slightly larger. I do mean slightly. If you have wide hands or fat fingers the 94/941 will be too small and the Tracker may even be too small.
If you plan on taking the gun on long hikes the 94/941 are easier to tote around. The Trackers are no less combersome than a 6" Ruger GP-100 or S&W 686. It will pull your pants down on that side and the long barrel will make sitting annoying. However, to me the extra barrel length was worth the hassel because it makes the Tracker a better hunting gun than the 94/941.
RFC said:
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Joined
·
57 Posts
Personally, I went with a model 94SS5. It has a little longer sight radius, 9 shots, light enough to tote all day, and is plenty accurate. You can also get speedloaders for it if that is important. Mine is very close to the accuracy of my Ruger MKII's, and may very well be that accurate with the right ammo. Also, the newer model 94's (mine is just over a year old) are bead blasted instead of polished. All in all, mine is a keeper -- which is a good thing since it was a Christmas present.
-Chuck
-Chuck
I've got one 970, and a dozen or so 94s and 941s. (I know, too many. That's okay, two are slated for my son and new daughter-in-law. Others are a mix of blue/stainless and varying barrel lengths. Can't shoot the two inch snubby very well at all. Yet.)
I recommend them all as fun guns and as trail companions.
If I had only one to buy, I'd recommend the 970 be the first. I've had barrel fouling issues with blued 94s. I've had to change grips on 94s and 941s. I've done nothing but shoot the 970, and it shoots informally as well as my K-22s, if not quite as slick.
The larger size, greater mass and longer barrel would make it a more sure thing if I were potting game.
If I were plinking with friends, the 94 comes closer to what their semi-autos might hold, and reloads faster than most magazines. I find the three and four inchers pretty close in practical accuracy, but the three incher trumps longer barrels for cool.
I'd go with the .22 magnum if I were contemplating having to defend against dogs or two legged snakes. Four inchers here rule, for me at least.
I count cool by hitting difficult targets (all three are capable), making a loud noise while doing so (.22 mag) and having a good looking handgun (all three fit the bill). Because I cherish my hearing, I have to use protection for more than just an occasional .22 LR and for any .22 magnum. That might make a difference to you.
I can't comment on the five inch 94 and 941. None have come my way. Yet.
I recommend them all as fun guns and as trail companions.
If I had only one to buy, I'd recommend the 970 be the first. I've had barrel fouling issues with blued 94s. I've had to change grips on 94s and 941s. I've done nothing but shoot the 970, and it shoots informally as well as my K-22s, if not quite as slick.
The larger size, greater mass and longer barrel would make it a more sure thing if I were potting game.
If I were plinking with friends, the 94 comes closer to what their semi-autos might hold, and reloads faster than most magazines. I find the three and four inchers pretty close in practical accuracy, but the three incher trumps longer barrels for cool.
I'd go with the .22 magnum if I were contemplating having to defend against dogs or two legged snakes. Four inchers here rule, for me at least.
I count cool by hitting difficult targets (all three are capable), making a loud noise while doing so (.22 mag) and having a good looking handgun (all three fit the bill). Because I cherish my hearing, I have to use protection for more than just an occasional .22 LR and for any .22 magnum. That might make a difference to you.
I can't comment on the five inch 94 and 941. None have come my way. Yet.
While a very good hunting cartridge..... The .22 Mag in a handgun gives one heck of a "Crack!" when it goes off. It takes all the fun out of plinking. I had a Taurus Tracker chambered for that round. "Had".....
I also have a 4" 94 that I carry with me constantly when I fish out-of-the-way spots - like wade-in areas. I don't even know it's on my hip! It is a blast to play with! It's as accurate as you could ever ask a small, light handgun to be! .22LR rounds are a LOT less expensive than .22WMR's.
Go with the Model 94! :t
me!
I had a Taurus Tracker chambered for that round. "Had".....I also have a 4" 94 that I carry with me constantly when I fish out-of-the-way spots - like wade-in areas. I don't even know it's on my hip!
It is a blast to play with! It's as accurate as you could ever ask a small, light handgun to be! .22LR rounds are a LOT less expensive than .22WMR's.Go with the Model 94! :t
me!
I also have the 94SS5 - it's light, accurate, 9 shots -what's not to like. Oh wait, 1 thing I don't like about it the front sight insert (orange or red)....since for some reason the red doesn't go all the way to the top of the front sight, it's very difficult to see the silver SS finish above the red in low light, to line up flush with your rear sight - they should have made the front sight completely black somehow, or made the red go all the way to the top, for a nice clean distinct top line - bah. I will also echo the sentiment that a .22 mag in a revolver, with its cylinder gap, is one of the louder handgun sounds out there - don't do this without ears on - it's not fun just for hunting and plinking.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
