carsmovies
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Mississauga, Ontario
Anyone have one of these newer 10/22's? What you think about it? As accurate as the target model?
Ruger 10/22 Tactical
- Thread starter carsmovies
- Start date
I don't own one, however I did look at one in the store since I've wanted to build a "tactical" bolt gun looking 10/22 for a few years. This one came out and immediately caught my attention.
I have a K10/22T that shoots very well. However I've also seen Ruger target models that didn't shoot that great. The triggers on all of them need $40 of work to make them decent.
My findings:
The Pros:
Decent price for the package.
The Cons:
1) I didn't test it, but I have read that the included bipod is limited. I already have a couple Harris ones so that's not really a big deal to me.
2)The barrel. If it shoots well then it's great. If it doesn't well then you're screwed. Good 16" length, but not threaded. Visually the 16" looks a bit too short. If it was threaded you could add one of those reworked Levang compensators and it looks good.
3) The stock. There was far too much flex in the forend of this stock. The stock would touch the barrel when you used the bipod. This is guaranteed to affect your point of impact and pretty much cause stringing/other issues. In otherwords expect to be frustrated as hell while trying to problem solve for a design flaw.
The stainless Ruger target model with the Laminate stock is a good deal/package. For the tactical model. I'd build my own. In fact that's exactly what I'm working on. Here's what I've found:
Edit: The Ruger hogue and the aftermarket hogue seem to be identical. So the only real advantage is colour choice. That being said, the one I bought aftermarket doesn't seem to have the flex the Ruger one seemed to have in the store. I'm not sure why the one in the store had a lot of flex
The hogue stock that you buy aftermarket isn't the same as the one that Ruger ships with their tactical model. I couldn't figure out why so many people said there wasn't a flex problem with the Hogue (people who's opinions are valued on this site) . Yet there I was seeing it live with the Ruger Tactical model and reading other reports online. So I bought an aftermarket one (not a takeoff).
I found out the cause of the discrepancies. The aftermarket ones are reinforced with a polymer skeleton much like a boat hull. There is no flex, unlike the one that looks the same and comes with the Ruger Tactical model.
The barrel. The stock barrel is probably fine. Perfect length for .22LR (optimum) but... looks wise it's too short. The DLask ones are also 16" and other sizes, but they are threaded. A Levang reworked compensator looks perfect, protects the threads and adds the extra 1.5" length to the barrel for looks. My rifle isn't finished yet so I can't tell if it works well or not. But reports say accuracy improves with them and noise to the shooter is less. So best of both worlds with the shorter 16" barrel and this combo.
The cost: Hogue stock about $100, barrel $165, compensator $50, Action/donor rifle $250. Base price $565 Plus taxes etc.
So slightly more expensive than the stock Tactical which sells for around $525. With the build you don't get the bipod. But... in this case it's worth it for the barrel option and superior model of the Hogue stock.
Hope this helps.
I have a K10/22T that shoots very well. However I've also seen Ruger target models that didn't shoot that great. The triggers on all of them need $40 of work to make them decent.
My findings:
The Pros:
Decent price for the package.
The Cons:
1) I didn't test it, but I have read that the included bipod is limited. I already have a couple Harris ones so that's not really a big deal to me.
2)The barrel. If it shoots well then it's great. If it doesn't well then you're screwed. Good 16" length, but not threaded. Visually the 16" looks a bit too short. If it was threaded you could add one of those reworked Levang compensators and it looks good.
3) The stock. There was far too much flex in the forend of this stock. The stock would touch the barrel when you used the bipod. This is guaranteed to affect your point of impact and pretty much cause stringing/other issues. In otherwords expect to be frustrated as hell while trying to problem solve for a design flaw.
The stainless Ruger target model with the Laminate stock is a good deal/package. For the tactical model. I'd build my own. In fact that's exactly what I'm working on. Here's what I've found:
Edit: The Ruger hogue and the aftermarket hogue seem to be identical. So the only real advantage is colour choice. That being said, the one I bought aftermarket doesn't seem to have the flex the Ruger one seemed to have in the store. I'm not sure why the one in the store had a lot of flex
The hogue stock that you buy aftermarket isn't the same as the one that Ruger ships with their tactical model. I couldn't figure out why so many people said there wasn't a flex problem with the Hogue (people who's opinions are valued on this site) . Yet there I was seeing it live with the Ruger Tactical model and reading other reports online. So I bought an aftermarket one (not a takeoff).
I found out the cause of the discrepancies. The aftermarket ones are reinforced with a polymer skeleton much like a boat hull. There is no flex, unlike the one that looks the same and comes with the Ruger Tactical model.
The barrel. The stock barrel is probably fine. Perfect length for .22LR (optimum) but... looks wise it's too short. The DLask ones are also 16" and other sizes, but they are threaded. A Levang reworked compensator looks perfect, protects the threads and adds the extra 1.5" length to the barrel for looks. My rifle isn't finished yet so I can't tell if it works well or not. But reports say accuracy improves with them and noise to the shooter is less. So best of both worlds with the shorter 16" barrel and this combo.
The cost: Hogue stock about $100, barrel $165, compensator $50, Action/donor rifle $250. Base price $565 Plus taxes etc.
So slightly more expensive than the stock Tactical which sells for around $525. With the build you don't get the bipod. But... in this case it's worth it for the barrel option and superior model of the Hogue stock.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
Interesting. I was curious if the Hogue from Ruger was different from the aftermarket Hogue, and it looks like it is.
carsmovies
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Mississauga, Ontario
That's great info Epoxy7. Thanks. I don't really want to piece together a 10/22. Then I'd rather just get the target model. I'm looking for a hunting 10/22 with decent accuracy.
- Location
- Niagara Region, Ontario. For now
I have one and it is pretty accurate!
5 shot groups under an inch at 50 with Blazer once the barrel is warm!
Here is a couple pics from my early outings with this rifle. I have since put a VQ hammer in it and that helped to keep the groupings alot more consistent.
50 meters:
25 meters:
5 shot groups under an inch at 50 with Blazer once the barrel is warm!
Here is a couple pics from my early outings with this rifle. I have since put a VQ hammer in it and that helped to keep the groupings alot more consistent.
50 meters:
25 meters:
I have the VLEH and it always comes to the range with my restricteds. Always seem to end up shooting it most( bench rested).
My range is indoors and max distance is 25yrds. At this distance I'm happy with the accuracy using a Leupold 1-4x scope. Is it as accurate as the target model?...don't know but I believe it has the same bbl (just shortened) and the same trigger group.
So far I've used Federal bulk, Blazer, Rem Gold jacket, Win Wildcats, Win 555, and has functioned with no FTE's or FTF's.
It gets even more fun when I load up the BC 25rnd mag and blast away!
carsmovies
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Mississauga, Ontario
)
I love my VLEH, but I had no idea that's what the name meant. That's pretty bad :\
Anyway, to the point - here's the factory Ruger stock, for reference once someone posts a pic of the aftermarket hogue.
Again, this is from the heavy barrel "10/22 Target Tactical VLEH" model, not the "10/22 Tactical" which just looks like a carbine with a birdcage flash hider to me (though I gather it has the target trigger and scope rail as well).
Anyway, to the point - here's the factory Ruger stock, for reference once someone posts a pic of the aftermarket hogue.
Again, this is from the heavy barrel "10/22 Target Tactical VLEH" model, not the "10/22 Tactical" which just looks like a carbine with a birdcage flash hider to me (though I gather it has the target trigger and scope rail as well).
Last edited:
Have you guys experienced any flex issues with those Ruger Hogue stocks and the bipod?
Hmmm a bit worried now since that stock looks exactly the same internally as my aftermarket hogue. Which means the one I saw in the store which had a lot of flex is the same. Mine seems fairly rigid. Hopefully I don't get flex problems.
Hmmm a bit worried now since that stock looks exactly the same internally as my aftermarket hogue. Which means the one I saw in the store which had a lot of flex is the same. Mine seems fairly rigid. Hopefully I don't get flex problems.
I didn't know the Hogue stocks supplied by Ruger with their guns
do not have the plastic armature.
Other than that, I agree with everything Epoxy sez
in his post #2 in this thread.
There were sometimes some posts on other forums
about people unhappy with the rigidity of the Hogue OM stocks.
Some adopted a fix to this: increasing the rigidity of the forend
by drilling 2 long holes in the forend, parallel with the barrel chanel,
and installing 2 arrow shafts in there as reinforcement.
I didn't try the above, since I might f-up the holes.
If I wanted to increase rigidity I would install
flat bar in the barrel channel (glue + screws/rivets)
or a long accessory rail (T-channel or dovetail female) under the forend,
or even both of these things in tandem.
I have used a Hogue OM stock very extensively (more than 12 years)
on one of my 10/22's
in shooting from a bench and I was happy with the rigidity,
BUT I didn't use a bipod attached.
Sparq, is the ribbing in your stock a plastic armature (insert)?
Or is it molded from the same rubber as the rest of your stock?
(I cannot distinguish its texture on your pics).
do not have the plastic armature.
Other than that, I agree with everything Epoxy sez
in his post #2 in this thread.
There were sometimes some posts on other forums
about people unhappy with the rigidity of the Hogue OM stocks.
Some adopted a fix to this: increasing the rigidity of the forend
by drilling 2 long holes in the forend, parallel with the barrel chanel,
and installing 2 arrow shafts in there as reinforcement.
I didn't try the above, since I might f-up the holes.
If I wanted to increase rigidity I would install
flat bar in the barrel channel (glue + screws/rivets)
or a long accessory rail (T-channel or dovetail female) under the forend,
or even both of these things in tandem.
I have used a Hogue OM stock very extensively (more than 12 years)
on one of my 10/22's
in shooting from a bench and I was happy with the rigidity,
BUT I didn't use a bipod attached.
Sparq, is the ribbing in your stock a plastic armature (insert)?
Or is it molded from the same rubber as the rest of your stock?
(I cannot distinguish its texture on your pics).
Last edited:
I didn't know the Hogue stocks supplied by Ruger with their guns
do not have the plastic armature.
Sparq, is the ribbing in your stock a plastic armature (insert)?
Or is it molded from the same rubber as the rest of your stock?
(I cannot distinguish its texture on your pics).
Apparently I was wrong. The stocks do seem to be the same. So I guess the only real advantage is being able to chose a few more colours.
The ribbing (since I can tell from the picture it's identical to the one on mine) is black plastic. I can't tell if it's an insert, but I think it's just part of the plastic mold underneath the rubber coating. Not sure, and I'm not going to peel back the rubber on my stock to check!! The rubber coating ends at the base of the ribs. The protruding frame in the forearm is plastic.
Ok.
But if both types (batches, generations etc.) have the
plastic insert (armature) inside the rubber overmold,
then why the difference in the rigidity???
You are not the first person to post about the lack of rigidity.
It seems to me it is a thing of the later production.
I do not remember to hear anybody complaining until about 5 yrs ago.
Maybe Hogue went cheap on materials?
But if both types (batches, generations etc.) have the
plastic insert (armature) inside the rubber overmold,
then why the difference in the rigidity???
You are not the first person to post about the lack of rigidity.
It seems to me it is a thing of the later production.
I do not remember to hear anybody complaining until about 5 yrs ago.
Maybe Hogue went cheap on materials?
I've noticed it seems to be all over the place about the flex. Some say theirs are great, others say there's too much flex in the forend. The one I saw at wholesale sports had the flex in the forend.
I'm thinking perhaps the receiver's set screw isn't set to the right torque level in the ones that are having flex issues? Looking at my stock, any flex seems more likely to occur from the receiver area and extend out to the forend. I'm still waiting for my donor action so I'll check this out.
One thing I've learned the hard way. Buy a torque screwdriver. I can't believe the difference it makes. My Thompson R55 had vibration in the stock. It would give the odd strange flier and the groups would open up. A buddy of mine also has one and his was a complete tack driver. When you gently tapped the bottom of the stock, mine had vibration his didn't. Borrowed his torque screwdriver, set it to the correct torque and viola, vibration gone. Was shooting 1 to 1.5 moa at 100 yards with CCI standard. No unexplained fliers. This rifle is now on my never sell list.
So when I get my donor action I'll try messing with the set screw torque to see if this is the issue. At this point I'm just really curious to figure out why we have so much discrepancy between ones that flex and ones that don't.
Overall I really like the stock. Looks good, I like the grip and it's comfortable. Cost effective as well.
I know the general rule of thumb is 25 for wood, 45 for laminate and 60-65 for synthetic. That being said, since it's plastic and not fiberglass or kevlar fiber I think I'll try 45 lbs per square inch. Anyone have any suggestions for this?
I'm thinking perhaps the receiver's set screw isn't set to the right torque level in the ones that are having flex issues? Looking at my stock, any flex seems more likely to occur from the receiver area and extend out to the forend. I'm still waiting for my donor action so I'll check this out.
One thing I've learned the hard way. Buy a torque screwdriver. I can't believe the difference it makes. My Thompson R55 had vibration in the stock. It would give the odd strange flier and the groups would open up. A buddy of mine also has one and his was a complete tack driver. When you gently tapped the bottom of the stock, mine had vibration his didn't. Borrowed his torque screwdriver, set it to the correct torque and viola, vibration gone. Was shooting 1 to 1.5 moa at 100 yards with CCI standard. No unexplained fliers. This rifle is now on my never sell list.
So when I get my donor action I'll try messing with the set screw torque to see if this is the issue. At this point I'm just really curious to figure out why we have so much discrepancy between ones that flex and ones that don't.
Overall I really like the stock. Looks good, I like the grip and it's comfortable. Cost effective as well.
I know the general rule of thumb is 25 for wood, 45 for laminate and 60-65 for synthetic. That being said, since it's plastic and not fiberglass or kevlar fiber I think I'll try 45 lbs per square inch. Anyone have any suggestions for this?
