The S&W 41 is very good. But only the old ones, and you'll pay a premium for them. (Look for one made in the 60's, and be prepared to spend big dollars.)
I had a Ruger Target Competition (Slabside) with the long barrel. Very nice gun. But my Kadet Kit was so close to it in accuracy, I traded the Slabside for a Witness .45 (Sport Long Slide, also a nice gun.) Have NOT regretted the change, as the CZ-75 (or 85 Combat, in my case) grip is much more ergonomic than most .22s. The Rugers can be tuned. Takedown is a problem only if you're ignorant. Once someone shows you how to do it, they're as quick and as easy to clean as any gun -- probably easier than a Buckmark which has pieces that go flying if you take off the grips.
The SIG Trailsides are apparently very accurate (being a knockoff of the superb Hammerli guns.)
Buckmarks have their adherents, as do the OLD High Standards. The Duramatics you mentioned aren't anything exceptional. You'll have to spend a LOT to get a High Standard worth having. (They don't all live up their the High Standard "high standard.") And parts can be a problem.
If you have a 1911-style pistol, look into the Marvel conversion kit. It is truly match-grade quality. Bullseyes shooters use them in competition. About $300 - $350, but well worth it. I don't much care for the Ciener kits.
All that said, unless you're a serious competitor in .22 bullseye shooting, any of the guns I've mentioned will shoot a lot better than you (i.e., your results with any of them won't be that much different.)
I think you'd be well-served with a Kadet Kit -- and unless you get a lemon (which can happen with any gun) you'll find the accuracy as good as most of the guns we've mentioned, and better than some. Mine is very accurate -- but part of that is because my CZ has a VERY GOOD trigger!
